01-17-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPEAL #286 - VA 71-52 G.L.A, DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - (Continued) Councilman Yamamoto stated that he is against high density in the area; that he does not believe building a 25 unit per acre project would solve the problem of development of the site but would create a permanent problem to the residents in the area. Councilman Villa commented that residents within 300 feet of the site are notified of the public hearing, but there were none present. In response to Councilman Markel's question, Mr. Argyros stated that there were numerous problems ~vith the site because of the small size bounded by two arterial highways, the shape, and an unhealthy soil situation; that 21 units per acre would be acceptable, but 15 units per acre is too low a density to warrant professional management. Councilman Evans stated it was inconceivable and uneconomical to expect a builder to put in an R 1 or commercial development; that the developer has indicated he is willing to cooperate with the City in reducing the density and increasing the open space. Councilman Evans' motion, seconded by Councilman Villa, to grant the appeal and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution approving Variance Application 71o52 subject to conditions of approval contained in the Commission report, except that Condition 6-A shall read: "Submit revised plot plan showing project with minimum 50% open space and a density not to exceed 21 units per acre carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Evans, Villa, Herrin, Griset, Markel Yamamoto Patterson RECESS At 8:10 P.M., a recess was declared. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 P. M. with the same Councilmen present. The Mayor announced that Mr. Robert R. Washer was in the audience waiting for a decision on the public hearing held at the January 3rd meeting. Councilman Herrin's motion, seconded by Councilman Evans, to hear Agenda Item #80 next, was unanimously carried. APPEAL #288 Councilman Yamamoto stated that he CUP 71-34 had inspected the area involved at ROBERT R. WASHER 3500 W. 17th Street; that he believed the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission for a planter and trees were necessary; and that he was not in favor of granting the appea]~ Councilman Herrin stated that Mr. Washer~s neighbor had the same requirements lifted under very similar circumstances and that he believed everybody should be treated the same, CITY COUNCIL -29- January 17, 1972