04-03-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AMENDMENT APPLICATION #689 MARVIN M. gr RUSSELL F; ROHRS - (Continued) Councilman Patterson stated that he believed the matter should be continued until after the action on the variance has been taken; that it ~toes not matter whether it is zoned R 1 or A 1; that the important point is how-it is going to be developed. Mr. Conroy disagreed, statin:gtHe~ residents had been here in October, November, and December; that a further continuance was granted in December until after the Holidays, and they did not want further delay° Mr. Van Stevens stated that the Variance Application will come before the Planning Commission on April 10, and it is expected that it will come before the City Council on May 15. Mr. Conroy objected further to the continuance of the Amendment Application hearing. Councilman Patterson suggested that the citizens' attention should be directed toward the variance application; that the prezoning makes no difference on the variance application; that the variance will ~tetermine the density and the type of development. The City Attorney stated that any evidence on the subject of the variance should be ruled out of order because it is premature; that the matter before the Council is the Amendment Application. In response to a complaint that the citizens of the area have not seen the plans, the Planning Director stated that the applicant fulfills the requirements of the Code in supplying the number of copies that the application stipulates; that these are for internal review; that they may be looked at over the counter, but the l~lanning Department cannot release their copies. Mr. MacDonald, 2517 N. Linwood, Mr. Schultz, 1822 E. Camino, and Mrs. Brobeck, ?-506,N0 Linwood, spoke against continuance of the item. Mr. Schultz stated that if the matter is continued to May 15, ail citizens interested in the area will be present, and suggested a larger meeting place. Councilman l~atterson stated that the important hearing for all these people is the Planning Commission hearing which will be held in the City Hall Annex on Monday, April 10, when the Variance Application will be heard; that the variance will then come to Council for ratification. ~ Mr. Bueche, Pacific Investments, stated that the people have received totally inaccurate information, and suggested that the property be zoned R 1, without prejudice, and then let the variance application be heard. He stated he would provide Mr. Conroy with three copies of the plans; that it is not a garden apartment; that it is single=family, single-story development, but that is not the present issue. Councilman Yamamoto stated that the issue to be considered now is the Amend- ment Application, and asked if the Council could change the zoning to R 1 rather than R2 as requested. The City Attorney stated this could be done. CITY COUNCIL -140- April 3, 1972