|
PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF VA 69-102 (continued)
<br />
<br />Judith Shane, 3487 San Rafael Circle, Costa Mesa, and Mrs. Diane Athern,
<br />3463 San Marino Circle, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating
<br />they lived in the tract directly across from the proposed development and
<br />were opposed to any commercial development in the area, since the inten-
<br />tion was to develop the general area as a multiple residential.
<br />
<br />The hearing was closed.
<br />
<br />It was moved by Councilman Evans, seconded by Councilman Herrin, to
<br />uphold the action of the Planning Commission and instruct the City Attorney
<br />to prepare a resolution granting Variance 69-102 subject to conditions in
<br />Finding of Fact dated January 26, 1970, and to include a restriction that
<br />there will be no additional parking, no access from the outside, and no
<br />exposed signs for the commercial building. Councilman Markel stated he
<br />was opposed to the commercial aspect of this development, since it is on
<br />the boundary line of a neighboring community, Costa Mesa, and would be
<br />detrimental to that city, since it is all residentially zoned in the area.
<br />In response to a question by Councilman Patterson, the City Manager
<br />explained that our city does have a zone for mixed uses, the C R zone,
<br />which is specifically set up for that purpose, and that there is C R zoning
<br />along Bristol Street which would permit the mixed use on that street.
<br />Councilman Herrin expressed the opinion that the commercial aspect in
<br />the proposed development would be beneficial for the people living in the
<br />development, and that if there is no additional parking to provide for
<br />outside buyers, this would deter them from shopping there. Councilman
<br />Villa stated that in view of the Attorney's opinion that granting one com-
<br />mercial use by variance would affect the ability of the Planning Commis-
<br />sion or City Council to deny commercial use on property similarly situated,
<br />he would be against permitting the commercial building on this application.
<br />The motion failed adoption onthe following roll call vote:
<br />
<br />AYES:
<br />NOES:
<br />ABSENT:
<br />
<br />Herrin, Evans, Griset
<br />Markel, Patterson, Villa, Yamamoto
<br />None
<br />
<br />It was then moved by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman
<br />Villa, to uphold the action of the Planning Commission and instruct the
<br />City Attorney to prepare a resolution granting Variance 69-102 subject
<br />to conditions in Finding of Fact dated 3anuary 26, 1970, except that all
<br />reference to a convenience center (item g) be deleted. The motion was
<br />adopted on the following roll call vote:
<br />
<br />AYES:
<br />NOES:
<br />ABSENT:
<br />
<br />Herrin, Evans, Markel, Patter son, Villa, Yamamoto, Griset
<br />None
<br />None
<br />
<br />PUBLIC HEARING ~ APPEAL 231 Hearing was opened on Appeal
<br />VA 70-4, WARD & HARRINGTON No. 231, filed by Ward & Harring-
<br /> ton Lumber Company, appealing
<br />Conditions 10 a, 10 b, 11 b, and 12 imposed on Variance Application 70-4,
<br />to construct a mobile home park in the C 2 and M 1 Districts with approxi-
<br />mately 195 spaces at 4080 West First Street, approved by the Planning
<br />Commission on February 24, 1970.
<br />
<br />CITY COUNCIL - 96- April 6, 1970
<br />
<br />
<br />
|