My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75-057
Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952 - 1999
>
1975
>
75-057
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 12:34:43 PM
Creation date
6/26/2003 10:46:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Resolution
Doc #
75-57
Date
5/5/1975
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
176
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
circulation and conjestion problems. The ordinance is minimal in that in <br />no cases does it require the installation of enclosed garage facilities for <br />residential units as most other zoning ordinances mandate, with carports <br />permitted only under special circtm~stances and conditions. <br /> <br /> The minim~n unit sizes required by the R $ and R 4 Districts are <br />only the most absolute of minimums. The R 5 requires 300 square feet for <br />a bachelor unit; S00 for a one bedroom, and 750 for a two-bedroom. The R 4 <br />standards indicated minimums of 450 square feet for a bachelor, 650 square <br />feet for a one bedroom, and 800 square feet for a two-bedroom. Oddly enough <br />senior citizens' developments are only permitted in the R 4 with a conditional <br />use permit, the residential district which has the higher unit minimum sizes. <br />The lower unit sizes would be more appropriate for the development of housing <br />projects for the elderly. <br /> <br /> Publications have been distribured by such organizations as the <br />American Society of Planning Officials dealing with such issues as zoning <br />standards for housing of the elderly concerning occupant and structural <br />characteristics, occupancy guarantees, safety features, density, area per <br />room and other development standards which may be used as guidelines in <br />revamping the Santa Aha ordinance. For low income housing in general, the <br />concept of housing density bonuses and impact zoning have already been dis- <br />cussed in other sections of this study, and similar publications have been <br />released by ASPO and the American Institute of Planners concerning criteria <br />and guidelines. Standardized guidelines and criteria for the design of <br />private, as well as public, facilities accu..,odating the handicapped can be <br />obtained from the federal goven,,~ent (Housing and Urban Develo~ent or <br />Health, F~ducation and Welfare}. Of more general importance is the necessity <br />for the City of Santa Ana to comprehensively revise its zoning ordinance to: <br />(a) upgrade the overall quality of design and mmenities supplied for future <br />new residential units; (b) modify residential land use districts to more <br />appropriately reflect the problems of modifying or enhancing existing units; <br />and (c) develop standards for the long term maintenance of units and ameni- <br />ties to stem potential deterioration and spread of blight. <br /> <br /> The eleven target areas, even though substantially single family in <br />character, were mixed zoning districts and predominantly R 2 and R 3. The <br />area west of the Santa Ana River consisting of four target areas was pre- <br />dominantly R 2 and R ZB (parking modification), with C 1 and C 2 strip com- <br />mercial along the arterial highways. R 1 zoning was found only in the <br />Silver Acres target area. A 1, General Agricultural, zoning was applied to <br />the mobile home parks and areas of former dairy operations. The six target <br />areas in the Central Corridor Area of the City had the most mixed zoning <br /> <br />000027 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.