Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HEARING <br />APPEAL 251, VA 70-54 - (continued) <br /> <br />Proponents: <br /> <br />Mr. Frank Benjamin, 406 West Wilshire Street; <br />Mrs. Clete Young, 1633 E. Sixth Street; <br />Mr. Carl Schwartz, 702 Mabury <br /> <br />The proponents stated that the Variance would endanger one of Santa Ana's <br />moderate income areas; that it would be contrary to the General Plan to <br />allow an extension of multiple family residences into the area; that 17 units <br />will be allowed on less than one-half acre; and that no more than eight units <br />should be permitted; that it will create a traffic problem, endangering <br />children who live on Sixth Street; and that on-street parking will be an <br />additional problem. <br /> <br />Opponent, Mr. Jerry Barto, 1921 Ritchey,,stated that the development would <br />benefit the neighborhood; that it is a pr6blem site, right next door to an <br />existing apartment house; that the plan provides for a buffer of hedge trees <br />along the west; and that the normal exit from the apartment would be Lyon <br />to Fourth Street; that only 18 cars would exit over a 24-hour period; and that <br />bachelor apartments average 1.2 people per unit and this would add up to 20- <br />25 occupants in the development. <br /> <br />The hearing was closed. <br /> <br />It was moved by Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Villa to deny <br />the appeal, uphold the action of the l°lanning Commission, and to instruct the <br />City Attorney to prepare a resolution approving Variance Application 70-54, <br />subject to conditions in Finding of Fact dated November 23, 1970. <br /> <br />The motion passed on the following roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Herrin, Markel, Patterson, Villa, Yamamoto, Griset <br />Evans <br />None <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NS-1049 THROUGH Ordinance NS-1049 through <br />ORDINANCE NS-1056 Ordinance NS-1056, pertaining <br />O.K. EARL CORP. to the applications filed by the <br /> O.K. Earl Corporation for <br />rezoning of the Maburyproperty, were presented for second reading and <br />adoption. <br /> <br />It was moved by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Herrin to <br />continue the ordinances until the next Council Meeting, January 4, 1971, <br />pursuant to the recommendation of the City Attorney carried on the Agenda. <br /> <br />The City Attorney explained that a continuance had been recommended but that <br />at this time what remained to be reviewed by him in the matter wouId not <br />affect the Council's action regarding adoption of the ordinances. <br /> <br />Councilman Herrin withdrew his second to the motion and it failed for lack <br />of a second. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-370- <br /> <br />December Z1, 1970 <br /> <br /> <br />