|
/134
<br />
<br />Appeal Appl.No.ll
<br /> Appl.No.1442
<br /> Talley, et al
<br />
<br />Appeal Appl.No.12
<br />Variance Appl.No.l~9
<br />Loucius P. Hunter
<br />
<br /> "Ordinance amending Article IX of the Santa Ana ~unicipal Code
<br /> to change district classification ~n Amendment Application No.
<br /> S~2 and amending Sectional District Map 17-5-9 (Exhibit AA
<br /> 3~2 A)"
<br />
<br />was introduced, considered and placed on file for second reading.
<br />
<br />Appeal Application No. ll of James Talley was presented on Variance Application No
<br />1~2, wherein Planning Commission recommended denial, to build four one-bedroom
<br />additions to existing apartment house, and be exempt from the required ten-foot
<br />rear yard and three-foot side yard, on property at the northeast corner of Broad~
<br />and Buffalo Street, in the "P" District. Bernice G. Cronan~ 515 W. First Street,
<br />Tustin, representing the applicant, stated the proposed additions would be constr~
<br />ted without structural changes, in c~mpliance with the Code, a~i requested exemp-
<br />tion from the required side yard in order to cover the unsightly green wall of
<br />the building adjacent to this property~ also five additional parking stalls would
<br />be provided, or a total of 20 spaces. Dr. Robert E. Casey, 2215 North Broadway,
<br />owner of property Immediately to the north~ objected to the minimum parking re-
<br />quirements of the proposed additions, stating when his building was constructed
<br />a minimum of 59 parking spaces was required and 52 provided, and unwarranted peop~
<br />are parking on the premises; further, other property owners in the area have ex-
<br />pressed similar views with reference to the minimal parking area of the proposed
<br />additions. Attorney 'Fred Forgy, Jr., First Western Bank Building, representing
<br />Fred Forgy, Sr. and Dorothy Travis, 2127 No. Broadway, requested that denial be
<br />mustained on this Appeal, as there are issues of the side yard~ the square footage
<br />per unit, and the parking requirements, of which spaces 2, B and 4 are inadequate
<br />for even compact cars. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Brewer and
<br />carried, the recommendation of the Planning Commission was apprOvedandAppeal Appli
<br />cation No. ll, filed by James Talley on Variance Application No. 1442, denied.
<br />Appeal ~pplication No. 12 of Loucius P. Hunter was presented on Variance Applica-
<br />tion No. l~S9, wherein Planning C~mmission recommended denial, to add a second
<br />single-family dwelling on an R-1 lot, located at 1510 ~est Seventh Street~ in the
<br />R-1 District. Dick Rohrhaas, 2~S2 Newport Boulevard, representing the applicant,
<br />stated that six parcels to the east of this property a duplex was constructed in
<br />an R-1 Zone, and this has added to the attractiveness of the area. ~r. Hunter's
<br />dwelling is on the rear of the property, and by placing another unit in the front
<br />area, this will add to the appearan, ce of the locale, and the setbacks would be mcr
<br />than adequate. The applicant stated the adjacent property is unattractive as it
<br />has not been maintained. There are duplexes to the north, south and the east, and
<br />the residents of the area favor the construction of this additional dwelling. It
<br />was moved by Councilman Gould, and seconded by Brewer, that a Resolution be adopte
<br />overruling the Planning Commission and the Variance granted subject to conditions
<br />and the further condition that the rear building be improved and brought up to
<br />Code. Councilman Gould withdrew his motion with consent of the second. On motio:
<br />of Councilman Gould, seconded by Heinly and carried~ the matter was referred to
<br />the Planning Con~nission and Department of Public Works, to submit to the Council,
<br />at the next meeting, the conditions to be imposed relative to granting this Var-
<br />lance, and consideration be given to rezoning this area to the R-2 Zone.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|