11-02-1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In rebuttal, ~r. Heinly stated that the present plan is nors desirable than a~y R ~ that would be conStructed there; and he outlined such advantages as more square footage thA~ mini~u~ stand~rd required, ~ud space between apar~aents. He stated the issue as Being whether or not Oouucil will per, it ~-plexes in R ~ zo-~. The Planning Director stated that the purpose of R ~ regulations is to create a ~ulti-fa~ly project that most nearly resembles single family residences; that by eli~inatt~ s~ae of the units it would be possible to c~nform to all provisious of the R ~ except for a few m~nor details. He explained that the P]A~i~g Cc~aission und staff had not envisioned a typical subdivision when I~ ~ was written; but if in Council's Judgment this type of develolmaent is acceptable in R ~, then only ~inor differences frc~ R ~ exist o Howard Stanley, 1~5 E. Catalina, stated that ~ families would Be living in one cul de sac causing congestion with autos ond children; that unsightliness will exist because of trailers, ca~pers and other parke~ vehicles. ~a~es Czach, 1672 Santa Clara, owner of property directly to the east of the develo~ent, stated that the ~ere~ith project would surroun~ hi~ on three sides a~d he would be ~a~dlocked, and asked for access to the street. The P~-ing Director noted that the project had been redesigned to bring a street by his property. Nr. Conway c~ented that there was a logical extension of the street through Catalina and he disapproved its use as an access road for this type of develol~ent. Royal J. ~aeller, 2~7 Loretta Drive, Orange, owner of property to the east of ~r. Czech's, requested access to Santa Cl&ra. ~rs. Willia~ E. York, 1~22 E. Catal~% protested the variance, say~ that two school shifts would be required if there were more pupils; and that the two Buses are already over-buttoned. She read the P~a~-£ C~lssion's evaluation which said the proposed develol~aent appeared mere like an R 3 than an R ~ develolment; ~ requested a continuation so Mr. ~. Wright, an attorney~ could ~e present and so h~aeowners could set further t~or~ation. The Pla~uing Director stated the ~evelol~aent would not affect the ense~ent Mr. ~Aeller and Mr. Cmack have been using for access; that even if all the area were developed R 1 there w~mld be need for another elementary school. Mrs. Rosen handed to Co~ucil a traffic repc~t showing how ~-y accidents had occurred at Santa Clara an~ Tustin in the last few months~ explaining the hazardous conditions at Santa Clara ~n~ ~right. She requested a delay in or~er to further research the ~atter. There hetn~ no further teotl~ny, the hearing was closed. Asked by the ~ayor if the street ~m~ing west could be revised to original concept that all traffic could go to Santa Clara, the Planning Director state~ it could but would cause serious access an~ circulation proble~ ~ithin develol~aent. ~e then describe~ proposed pattern for access to wast which woul~ not appeal to through traffic but would allow for access. Councilman ~ubbar~, stati~ the deviations ware so minor frc~ R ~. aml his Belief the proposal was not contrary to the basic principles of R ~, moved that the Council overr~ls the action of the pl~-ing Commission and instx-act the City Attorney to prepare a resolution granting Variance 2020 subject to applicable con~itious. The motion was seconded by ¢oencil~an Schlueter and carried. Mayor ~all opened the heari~g~ on appeals filed by the ~eredith C~apa~ frc~ the Planning Commission's denial of the following Variance Applications ~ CIT~ COUNCIL APPEAL i~2--V.A. 201~ APPEAL I~3--V.A. 2019 APPEAL i~--V.A. 2017 - to pernit the reduction of the rear yar~ setback requirement at 1512 E. Santa Clara in the R ~ district; - to coustrnct 2 story (30' high) dwellings within 1~0' of the R 1 and A 1 zone districts at 1812 E. Santa C~a~a in the R ~ district; - to eliminate required fences except around rear yard and to allow balconies and covered patios to be constx-Acted at applicant's option ~ud not be - 86 - ~ove~ber 2,