11-02-1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dale Neinly, 611 W. 5th, attorney representing Tanaka ~ros., owm~n~ several properties in the area, requested that in ox~ler to protect his client's property, proper ~rainage an~ a redwood fence should be provided; that the mc~otony of the construction was the main objection, and there would be no ob~ecticm to 2- story buildings. Del l~ichael, President of the Hc~eowners Association, expressed oppositicm to apartments, and stated that if built, they should be the best type available. In rebuttal, ~r. Hall agreed to a berm being built on the south side for ~rainage and construction of a grapestake fence; that monoto~ could be avoided by four elevatic~s; a~d since one person w~ld own a ~-plex~ he would malntaim its upkeep. C. L. Burnett, ~18 W. 5th, spoke in favor of the project 0nly if one story buildings were built. The Planning Director state~ the area was a difficult one to develop; that the plan~t~_~ Ccmmission had dome a special study of the area to resolve the questions presented; that the lots were of such size that they could not be developed as one family dwellings, and would be difficult to develop as R ~; thereby concluding to zone the area R 2 an~ approve by variance development to a density of about one unit per ~,500 square feet on those properties that coul~ not be subdivide~. The Plaguing Department had worked with the subdivider amd had arrived at a street pattern that will allow circulation to the south, and he detailed the necessary street requirements; also noting that requirement to compl~v with con~itions of tract map should be made. There being no further testimo~y~ the hearing was closed. The appellant offered to eliminate four lots, which would bring the lot coverage to 51%, meeting ~ ~ standards. The play area would be separated frcm vehicular access and chamges in elevations would reduce monotony, to which Mr. Heinly replied his client would have no objection with this plus development to R ~ standards. The p~an~_!n~ Director s~ggested density be set by figure such as one ,~-~t to B~00 square feet to which Mr. Heinly replied that one to 2700 or 2500 square feet was all the appellant could live with. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried, the matter was referred back to the Pl---ing Cc~mission for further study in light of the comments made, to see if something can be worked out. ~J~NG - Mayor Hall opened the hearing on. A.D. 220 Resolution 6~-1~1, declaring the (BOLSA-EUCLID) Council's intention to order certain sewer construction in Assessment District 220 (Bolsa-Euclid) and also providing for a hearing on whether public convenience and necessity require such improvement without application of the Special Assessment Investigation, L~m~tation and Majority Protest Act of 1931. The Clerk presented Affidavit of Publication of Resolutio~ of Intention, Certificate of Mail~ Notice of Hearing, Certificate of Posting of Notice of rmprovemant, and Affidavit of Publication of Resolution proposing exclusion of territory from Assessment District and approval of revised map. It was move~. by Council~_ Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Bchlueter and carried, that the documents be filed with the Clerk. Franklin T. Hamilton, 611 ~ilshire 3oulevard~ Los Angeles, special counsel for the City, briefly explained the hearing. Ronald E. Wolford, Director of Public WOrks~ described the proposed improvement and also the b~u~a~les of the assessment district, as originally proposed by Resolution of Y~tention, Resolution No. 6~1~1, and as proposed to be revised by Resolution No. 6~-1~6; stating that in his opinion the territory proposed to be excluded from the district will not be benefited by the proposed improvement and that all lands included within the proposed assessment district, as shown on "Revised Map of Assessment District No. 220" will be benefited by the proposed improvement. The Clerk reported fha2 no written protests had been filed. C-TX COUNCIL - 90 - November 2, 196k