|
Acting on a letter dated November 29, 1963 from Gilbert and Tarr~ attorneys
<br />for the appellant~ Council continued the hearing on Appeal 105 to December
<br />16, 1963 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 217 North Main Street, on
<br />motion of Councilman Harvey, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried.
<br />
<br />HEARING - Vice Mayor Hubbard opened the hearing on
<br />APPEAL lll Appeal lll filed by the Director of
<br />V.A. 1855~ PERKINS Public Works from the Zoning Administrator's
<br /> approval of V.A. 1855 (Arthur L. Perkins)
<br />to waive block wall requirement between commercially zoned and residentially
<br />used property at 1916 W. 17th Street, requesting attachment of a condition to
<br />require dedication on 17th Street to bring the property up to standard of
<br />adjoining properties. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was mailed
<br />to adjacent property owners November 26~ 1963, and that no written communications
<br />or objections had been received.
<br />
<br />The Director of Public Works, Hugh Foreman, stated the purpose of the appeal was
<br />to obtain dedication of ten feet on 17th Street, to align the property at curb-
<br />line with adjoining properties.
<br />
<br />Arthur Perkina~ 2912 W. 17th Street~ applicant for Variance Application 1855,
<br />objected to the dedication requirement. There being no f~rther testl~ny~ the
<br />hearir~wms closed.
<br />
<br />0~ m~tion of Councilman Harvey, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried,
<br />~uucil upheld the action of the Zoning A~ministrator and instructed the City
<br />Attorney to prepare a resolution de~ying the appeal.
<br />
<br />EEAR~NG - Vice Mayor Hubbard opened the hearing on
<br />APPEAL 112 Appeal Application 112 filed by David E.
<br />V.A. 18B4, KELL~ ~eller from the Planning Commission's
<br /> denial of V.A. 1834 to construct a 120
<br />u~it, one and two story apar~ut complex on R 1 property at 1901 N. Santiago.
<br />
<br />The Clerk reported thatnotice of the hearing was mailedto adjacent property
<br />owaers on November 26, 1963, ~ that letters of protest had been received
<br />from the following:
<br />
<br />Elizabeth and Derek Richell, 2410 N. Hathaway Lane, Harold T. and
<br />Juanita R. Craig, 806 E. Catalina Avenue, Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Dozier,
<br />2311 Valencia, Mrs. Jessie F. Emrick, 2~22 N. French~ Mr. and Mrs.
<br />John .c~ith, 2524 N. Fairmont, Ralph B. Lycan, 706 Catalina Avenue,
<br />Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Waffle, 2424 Valencia, Miss Helen Kennedy, 2530
<br />Santiago, Clarence A. Kennedy, 2530 Santiago, ~Theodore Solomon, B14
<br />E. 22nd Street, and Walter L. Harwood, 21lO Santiago Avenue.
<br />
<br />On motion of Councilman Schlueter, seconded by Council~n Harvey and carried,
<br />the letters were received and ordered filed.
<br />
<br />Robert Rickles, 611 W. 8th Street, representing the appellant, submitted a
<br />brochure of his testimony favoring the application. On motion of Councilman
<br />Harvey, seconded by Councllm~u Schlueter and carried, Council received and
<br />ordered filed the brochure. Mr. Rickles made a presentation of economic infor-
<br />mation from the brochure and added that a comparison of residence sale prices
<br />around Sherry roue apartment development had revealed 'that recent sale prices
<br />had exceeded those of 1962. He noted a survey on Mabury Street revealed that
<br />residents had feared their property would be devaluated by apartments, but
<br />after completion of a garden type complex, property values had risen slightly;
<br />that the proposed type of garden apartments would make an excellent buffer for
<br />the R 1 property. Mr. Rickles quoted from the Planning Commission's report
<br />dated November 11, 1963 and made comparisons with variances already granted.~
<br />He also mentioned that no Findings of Fact had been made at the Planning Commis-
<br />sion hearing.
<br />
<br />Ci~ COUNCIL - 261 - December 2, 1~63
<br />
<br />
<br />
|