11-02-1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPEAL i~5--V.A. 2015 considered as open space at 1812 E. Santa Clara in the R 4 district; to permit redmction of the side yar~ setback requirements at 1812 E. Santa Clara in the R 4 district. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearings was mailed to a~Jacent property ~wners on October 27, 196~ and that no written ccmmm~uications or objections had been received. Dale Heinly, 611 W. 8th, attorney representing the appellant, stated that the appeals all related to Appeal 1~1 and woul~ not arg-Ae them further. James Czach, 16752 Santa Clara, stated his property would Be affected By the rear and sideyar~ setbacks which are no more than two feet from his property; construction of 2-story dwellings would affect two sides of his property, and elimination of fences would be intrusion of privacy. There Being no further testimony, the hearing was closed, It was moved By Councilman Hubbard, seconded By Counc~- Schlueter that Council overrule the action of the Planning C.---~selon and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution granting Variances 201~, 2019, 2017 and 2015. Councilman Gilmore asked for expla-ation of Mr. Czach's objection regarding elimination of sideyards and fencing and the 2-story development. Mr. Heinly stated there would Be wall surrounding his property. The Planning Director noted that even with approval of the variances, the applicant still ~Ast submit development plans, that the waiver of fence requirement was requested for lines Between applicants lots and the periphery of develolmaent would still be fenced. The motion to overrule the action of the Planning Ccmzaission and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution granting Variances 201~, 2019, 2017 and 2015 was carried. APPEAL 1~6 - Mayor Hall opened the hearing on Appeal V.A. 2025 WRIGET 1~6 filed By Norms J. an~ FrA~W E. Wright frc~ the Planning Ccmmission's denial of Variance Application 2025 to permit an off-street parktng lot in the R 1 district at 1715 N. Flower. The Clerk reporte~ that notice of the hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners on October 27, 196~ an~ that no written c~mications or objections had Been received. Frank Woodland, 13132 Fairmont Way, representing the appellant, referred to a petitian previously submitted with approximately 13 signatures of adjacent property owners, indicating their approval of the variance. He described the area, noting the subject property was unsaleaBle as such next to the commercial area; that the developer proposed to Build a six foot Block wall to protect the property ~mmediately north and a planter A-~ wall on Flower ~treet. He showed photographs to Council revealing the parking problem, stating the lot would take about 30 automobiles off the street, would not Be a co~aercial lot, But for employees and customers of nearby Businesses. Conrad Schultz, 1~11 N. Flower, nearby property owner, asked that integrity of the residential area Be protected, stating that the proposed lot was needed by the Metropolitan Life Building as the result of their failure to provide parking when building. Patrick J. Partes, 1722 N. Flower, a~lded his protest, stating also he was authorized to speak for the following: Mrs. Frances 1808 N. Flower, Nolle Earpster, 1816 N. Flower, Fra-w Cannon, 180~ N. Flower, and Lloyd Rrogan, 1812 N. Flower. There Being no further testimony, the hearing was closed. It was moved By Councilman Gilmore, seconded By Co-~ucilman N~rvey and carried, that the Council uphold the action of the Planning C~ission an~ instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Variance 2025. CIT~' COUNCIL - 87 - November 2, 196~