03-06-1967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COUNCII2~AN ~%~RK'S ABSENCE On motion of Councilman Brooks, seconded by Councilmam McMichael and carried, C~mucilman Burk was granted permission to be out of the city from March 8 to March 15. RECESS At 5:15 P.M., the meeting was recessed to 7:30 P.M. The meeting was recon- vened at 7:30 P.M. with all Council- men present. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Invocation was delivered by Captain Tom Cisar, Salvation Army. Mayor Harvey recognized members of the Santa Arm Chapter of DeMolay participating in Civic Day. TAXT OPERATOR APPEAL Rearing was opened on an appeal filed by Herbert G. Wilson from the Police Chief's denial of a permit to operate a taxicab. The Clerk of the Council reported that n~tices were mailed as required by the Municipal Co~e. After hearing testimony of the applicant, Mr. Wilson, the hearing was closed, there being no further testi- mony. Om motion of Councilman Brooks, seconded by Councilman Gilmore and carried, Council authorized granting of a permit to operate a taxicab to Nerbert G. Wilson. VARIANCE 66-95 Council received a Planning Com- JOSAM INVESTMENT COMPANY mission Report re-affirming its denial of application by Josam Investment Cure, any to construct a 1~0 unit apartment c~mplex on Harbor Blvd. encroaching into required street sideyard and rear yar~ with less than required parking. Mayor Harvey explained the public hearing was closed on January 16 when the Council referred the appeal of the decision back to the Planning Commission. At the request of Mayor Harvey, the Plan~ing Director reviewed the action of the Planning Cummission in denying the application on the gr~sn~s of the staff's o~inion that it was a motel (based on the number of kitchens) and on the C~tssion's belief that as an apartment it should not be permitted in a retail commercial area at the density requested; that the City C~zucil felt the question of whether or not the project was a motel had been deter- mined or could be determined by itself but wanted the Ccm~issicm to take another look at the project and re-evaluate it in light of the willingness of the applicant to submit a revised plot plan; that the applicant had submitted a revised plan which had cleared up the lack of access to the Fire Department and the rear yard requirement, but in spite of this the Planning Commission felt it still ccmstituted an apartment and forwarded to the Council their statement re-affirming their original action. The Planning Director cc~nented that the revised plan is available, but he did not know whether it was admissable to the hearing; that other than the kitchens, the revised plan meets C-2 requirement; that in the event the Council should rule on percentage of kitchens on the ground floor, the staff had prepared a list of conditions which would be rec~mw, ended to apply to the revised plot plan and that the applicant had a co~y of the list of conditions, in which there were no changes except to delete those not applying to a motel. Ne reported further that the variance at this point is necessary only because of a previous Council determination that when the number of kitchens exceeds the standard of trade it is in fact an apartment and this development has ap- proximately 66% kitchens on ~the ground floor;that the initial set of conditions was for an apartment but that in neither set of conditions was there recom- mended individual apartment open spaces. CITY COUNCIL -1~2- March 6, 1967