09-15-1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of their building, was waived on the motion of Council- man Evans, seconded by Councilman~Brandt, and carried 6-1 with Councilman Yamamoto dissenting. Douglas Davidson, attorney for Case S~ayne Co., Inc. presented their appeal and argued that subsection (g) of the Ordinance permits the City Council to designate, by resolution, areas in which the requirements contained in certain areas of the ordinance are inapplicable and would not be favorable or consistent with the develop- ment or construction in the area; that there are no curbs or sidewalks for 254' in front of the Case Swayne build- ing and the area is paved with asphalt with parking places at a 90 degree angle to the building for 25 cars; that the only other place to park is on Mabury which is in "very sad shape"; that the applicant does not feel that the neighborhood is predominately residential; and that the applicant does not see his project as one encom- passed within the ordinance and does not think the ord- inance is applicable in this situation. Mr. R. H. Kopel, Treasurer of Case Swayne in favor of the waiver. Co., also spoke CA 29.4 CA 35 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Variance 75-46 was COUNCIL DENIAL OF VA 75-46 referred to the Plan- ning Commission for rehearing on the motion of Councilman Ward, seconded by Councilman Yama- moto and carried 6-1 with Councilman Brandt dissenting. This motion followed a motion by Councilman Ortiz, seconded by Councilman Ward to reconsider Council's ac- tion on September 2, to adopt Resolution No. 75-134 denying Variance 75-46, to allow a dental laboratory at 602 West Edinger, in the Ri District and to grant appeal No. 354 filed by J. Odgen Markel. The motion carried 5-2 with Councilmen Evans and Brandt dissenting. Dr. Clifford Hostetler, who is making the request for reconsideration, stated that the variance was denied largely because of the inadequate parking for the den- tal office next door to the west; that he proposed changes in his application whereby six additional spaces can be gained and whereby vertification can be made that the four stalls on the east side of the building are usable parking spaces. J. Ogden Markel spoke in opposition to the reconsidera- tion stating that there is still insufficient parking; that it is not possible to provide any parking on the east side of the building because the driveway on the far side of Van Ness has to be closed; and that the residents of the neigborhood want the residential nature of the area maintained. CA 13.3 OLD CITY HALL - REQUEST FOR The City Attorney was REMOVAL OF REVERSIONARY CLAUSE instructed to prepare OF AGREEMENT an Owner's Participation Agreement, as recommended by Richard Goblirsch, Redevelopment Director, in his memorandums dated January 29, 1975 and September 9, 1975 for a term of one year, between the Redevelopment Agency and Del Pueblo Management Company, including the condition that the Old City Hall building be boarded up to prevent further damage, on the motion of Councilman Yamamoto, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 400 SEPTEMBER 15, 1975