03-19-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RECESS with all Council members present. At 8:30 P.M., a recess was declared. The, meeting reconvened at 8:40 P. M. , PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor opened the public APPEAL #316; VA 73-3 hearing on Appeal #316, filed RAY MADRID by Ray Madrid appealing the Planning Commis sion' s denial of Variance Application 73-3 to construct a 16-unit apartment complex in the R 1 District at 4416 W. McFadden Avenue and 721 South Newhope Street. The Planning Director summarized the reasons for denial contained in the Planning Commission's Finding of Fact dated February 12, 1973 and revised February Z6,, 1973, and pointed out to Council several examples of other locations in the surrounding R 1 Districts that had been approved for units. ,. The Clerk reported no written comxnunications had been received. Mr. Ray Madrid, the appellant, 902 South Newhope, stated that his parcel had always been described as a "'T-shape" parcel because the bottom part of the "T" had never been subdivided; that the property was 100 feet wide and 200 feet deep and could not be, split; that he had complied with all of the Planning Department requirements, including the requirement of 50% open space; that all setbacks had been met; that an attractive develop- ment was planned; that the corner adjacent to his property was for sale for the sum of $65,000 and it was doubtful that it would be developed R 1; that there was commercial development in surrounding areas; that one of the requirements was that a swimming pool be built; ' that he did not feel that the 16 units warranted a swimming pool, but that he did propose several other recreational facilities. Mr. Madrid presented to Council a landscape rendering. There were no opponents in the matter, and the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Herrin's motion to grant the appeal and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution approving Variance Application 73-3 subject to conditions of approval contained in the Commission report, was seconded by Councilman Evans, and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Herrin, Evans, Villa, Griset NOES: Yamamoto, Patterson, Markel ABSENT: None P~ior to voting Councilman Patterson observed that the Findings of Fact indicated that staff had recommended approval of the project for ten units only; that he could support the motion if for ten units, but that the density would be too high with sixteen units plus the existing dwelling on the parcel. Councilman Patterson requested that the record indicate that the appellant had visited him in his office for the purpose of discussing the matter with him, but that he had explained to the appellant that he was unable to discuss the merits of the case with him and had not done so. (CA 13.3) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 94 MARCH 19, 1973