10-04-1965 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning C~ission action, precedent factor, and legality of action, the motion was lost on voice vote. Inasmuch as the applicant's representative was not present, it was moved by Councilman Gilmore, seconded by Councilman McMichael, that action on Ordinance NS-830 be postponed to October 18th at which time arguments will be made solely on the issue of setting a new hearing. Mayor Harvey noted Council would hear one representative of the applicant for rebuttal of the opponents' statements. The motion carried on roll call vote: AYES, COUNCILMEN: NOES, COUNC II-MEN: ABSENT, COUNC II~EN: Gilmore, ~arkel, McMichael, Harvey B~ooks, Burk Herrin H~R~ ING - Hearing was opened on Appeal 166 APPEAL 166 - VA 2170 filed by Donald R. Rochambeau from the Planning Commission's denial of Variance Application 2170 to construct a two story duplex with less than required front and rear yard setbacks at 2210-2212 Valencia Street in the R 2 district. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing had been mailed to adjacent property owners as required by law and evidence thereof was on file; that a letter favoring the variance had been received from Hays, 501 E. Buffalo. On motion of Councilman GiLmore, seconded by Council~n Brooks and carried, the letter was ordered filed. Donald Rochambeau, 13742 Gilbert Lame, stated he was protesting the Planning Commission's decision because of their indication that Valencia should be extended on to his property to the cul de sac; that widening the street would be costly to the City and more benefit would be derived from taxes on his improved property. He also commented that adjacent property oWners favored the Lmprovement. Harold Peck, 2243 N. Valencia, protested the hazard a half street would cause if the application is approved and suggested purchase of the property by the City for street widening. There being no Further testimomy, the hearing was closed. On motion of Councilman Mc~4ichael, seconded by Councilma~ B~ooks, and carried by 4 - 2 vote, Council upheld the action of the Planning C~ission and instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Variance 2170. HEARING - Hearing was opened on Appeal 167 APPEAL 167 - VA 2168 filed by Robert E. Decker from the Planning Commission's denial of Variance Application 2168 to construct a duplex on the rear of an R 1 lot containing two existing dwellings at 4406 Regent Drive. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing had been mailed to adjacent property owners as required by law and evidence thereof was on file; and that no written communications had been received. Fred Sawyer, 13111 Chirping Sparrow Way, Tustin, representing the applicant, distributed plans of the project to Council, showing a change in the building's position. He explained as a hardship to the owner the large lot which required much yard care, and presented a petition with about 21 signatures of property owners who favored the project. On motion of Councilman B~ooks, seconded by Councilman Gilmore and carried, the petition was ordered filed. Speaking La opposition, Del Michael, 917 S. Toland, President of the Southwest Homeowners Association, favored retention of R l, pointing out many in area wanted to keep horses; Madelyn Cenkar, 806 S. Flintridge Drive, noted other oversize lots in area would press for duplexes or apartments. In rebuttal, Mr. Sawyer stated that other owners would not be kept from having animals, and that the matter should be considered from the standpoint of the individual involved and not the group. There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed. CITT COUNCIL - 376 - October 4, 1965