My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-02-1964
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952-1999
>
1964
>
11-02-1964
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 2:01:46 PM
Creation date
4/28/2003 2:11:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
11/2/1964
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
W. W. Morningstar, 2749 ~. Flower, and Ralph Crum, 2733 N. Flower, objected <br />to postponement. Robert Gardner, 10~8 %;. Fairbrook Lane, stated that <br />approximately 61% of the people in the Villa de Flores area favor the C 4 <br />zoning and a continuance o On motion of Councilman ~[ubbarcl, seconded By <br />Councilman 8chlueter and carried, Council continue~ the hearing on Amendment <br />Application 512 to January 4, 1965, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. <br /> <br />In answer to Mr. Morningside's question of another possible continuance, <br />Mayor Nell stated he, personally, would not be inclined to postpone the <br />matter again. Cou~cilm~l Gilmore recummended that ~-~erent in the motion <br />be the understanding that Mr. Todd will make every effort to get in touch <br />with people in the audience to answer questions so there will he no request <br />for a continuance at the January meeting. Mr. Todd requested a showing of <br />hands of those in favor of continuance, and about seven hands were raise~. <br /> <br />Raymond C. Ball~ 2755 No Flower, submitted a petition with approximately <br />109 signatures of those in opposition to the application. On motion of <br />Council-~. Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carrie~, Council <br />ordered the petition filed. <br /> <br />APPEAL 141 - Mayor Hall opened the hearing on Appeal <br />V.Ao 2020 141 filed by The Meredith Company fr~a <br /> the Planning Commission's denial of <br /> Variance Application 2020 to permit <br />deviation from the R ~ procedure requirements at 1812 Eo Santa Clara. The <br />Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was mailed to adjacent property <br />owners on October 27, 1964, and that no communications or objections had <br />been received° <br /> <br />Dale Heinly, 611 W. 8th, representing the applicant, stated he would ~e a <br />presentatio~ on Appeal 141, and if it were granted he believed there was no <br />problem on Appeals 142, 143, 1~4 and 145 as far as the Staff and Commission <br />were concerned° Mr. Heinly stated the variance application was unique because <br />the city has no zoning providing for construction of duplexes for sale on an <br />individually owned lot. He reminded Council that at the time of rezoning the <br />property, Council and the Planning C;....;~ssion were advised that a 4-plex tract <br />map would probably be submitted. Mr. Heinly displayed drawings of the project, <br />pointing ~mt the advantages of the p]~ which was designed to make the 4- <br />plexes look like single family residences. He stated that the main issue ia <br />whether or not the Council should permit 4-plexes within the R 4; that there <br />was no valid reason for not being able to build it in the R ~ provided <br />sufficient green space is provided; that to the east is R 4, to the south <br />some R 4 an2 smae 4-plexes which have been sold, to the west a park site on <br />which an R 1 map will be filed if City does not buy it. The Planning Director <br />stated that if the private patios were eliminated, the open area would exceed <br />the required 50%, but it was felt By staff that a private patio for each <br />occupant was more important than meeting this requirement. <br /> <br />Noel Conway, 1521 Catalina, requested those in opposition to stand, and about <br />17 arose. Re complained ~bout Lusufficient notice to homeowners; proposed <br />channeling of traffic through R 1 area; and the barrack-type design. <br /> <br />Mrs° Sally Rosen, 1~4 E. 21st, quoted frou the Government Co~e regarding <br />growing residential areas, and asked Council to consider the effect on <br />surrounS~g acreage and homeowners. She c~amented that this was the sixth <br />appearance regar~ingthe matter; that Mr. Meredith knew of the restrictions of <br />R 4 at the time of rezoning; that the residents desire retention of garden type <br />apartments; commenting also that Mr. Meredith should not be given special <br />consideration when other builders had to adhere to conditions; and requested <br />a continuation so that the homeowners could get together with Mr. Meredith to <br />discuss a solution. Mrs. Rosan concluded by stating that she felt the Code's <br />requirement of notification within ~00 feet was mea-ut to include inhabited <br />land and residents; therefore, they felt they should have been notified. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL - 85 - November 2, 196~ <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.