Laserfiche WebLink
Councilman Evans' motion, seconded by Councilman Garthe, and <br />unanimously carried was to: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />Reaffirm Museum facilities-use policy, which <br />precludes annual scheduling; <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />Encourage the Black community to participate <br />in the cultural activities of the Museum <br />through the cultural programs presented at <br />the Museum; and <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />Instruct Staff to continue to work with the <br />interested citizens in their presentation of <br />the Black exhibit in conjunction with Black <br />History Week during the month of February, 1975. <br /> <br />(CA 85) <br /> <br />APPEAL NO. 343 On September 16, 1974, <br />VARIANCE NO. 74-13 the Public Hearing was <br />EUGENE M. FLORES, ET AL held to consider Appeal <br /> No. 343, filed by Eugene <br />M. Flores et al, to overrule the Planning Commission approval <br />of Variance 74-13, filed by Taylor Made Meat Company, to <br />expand an existing legal non-conforming meat processing plant <br />and to waive a portion of the required landscaping in the C 2 <br />District, at 1201 East Fourth Street. <br /> <br />At that time Council had requested representatives of the <br />appellant and applicant to meet with members of the Planning <br />Department Staff in an effort to resolve their differences. <br /> <br />The report to Council dated September 30, 1974, from the Senior <br />Planner, set forth the decisions that had been reached by all <br />concerned parties. The Planning Director stated that the <br />conditions contained in the Senior Planner's report would <br />supersede existing Staff report conditions. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas O'Keefe, Attorney for Taylor Made Meat Co. stated <br />that an agreement had been reached which was acceptable to <br />his client, the neighbors and the City Staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Eugene M. <br />the residents <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Flores read a prepared statement, on behalf of <br />of the area, expressing satisfaction with the <br /> <br />The City Attorney was instructed to prepare a Resolution deny- <br />ing Appeal No. 343 and granting Variance No. 74-13, subject <br />to conditions set forth in the Senior Planner's letter dated <br />September 30, 1974, on motion of Councilman Yamamoto, seconded <br />by Councilman Ward and carried (5-1) with Councilman Markel <br />dissenting. (CA 13.3) <br /> <br />HERITAGE SQUARE CONCEPT Council considered <br />& THE WAFFLE HOUSE (1) the report dated <br /> October 2, 1974, from <br /> the Executive Director <br />of the Community Redevelopment Agency, recommending a develop- <br />ment proposal for, and approval of, Phase I of the Heritage <br />Square Concept, including the Waffle House; (2) the letter <br />dated September 26, 1974, from the Santa Ana Historical Preser- <br />vation Society, requesting preservation of the Carriage House <br />belonging to the Waffle House; (3) the "Proposal to Preserve <br />and Restore the Waffle House" presented to Council by the <br />Santa Aha Historical Preservation Society on June 5, 1974, <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 377 OCTOBER 7, 1974 <br /> <br /> <br />