Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MOTION <br /> <br />ZONE VARIANCE <br />(Erlingheuser) <br /> <br />(F :990) <br /> <br />15:6066 <br /> <br />that the appellant had built his home on both lots 8 and 9, the building <br />being primarily on lot 9; that both lots contain approximately 70,000 <br />square feet and changing the boundary line between said lots would give <br />lot 8 approximately 22,000 square feet, increasing lot 9 proportionately, <br />making a building site in excess of the Code requirement of 15,000 square <br />feet. That in his opinion the recommendation of the Planning Commission <br />for denial was based primarily on the factor that the structure on lot 8 <br />might be used as a single family home; that the appellant is prepared to <br />comply with any reasonable condition imposed by the Council to make this <br />impossible; also that the appellant is willing to comply with the <br />conditions recommended by the Planning staff that the kitchen facilities <br />be removed from the garage and guest house on lot 8 and to sign a <br />covenant running with the land stating that the guest house would not be 1 <br />rented. <br /> <br />In answer to questions of the Council, Mr. Holmes stated that the propose <br />lot split had been approved by the Board of Directors of the Rancho <br />Santa Anita Property Owners Association at a meeting held in June; also <br />by the Title Guarantee & Trust Co" the trustee under the deed restrictions; <br />also that the map had been signed by Mr. Vawter on June 23, 1963. That <br />with regard to the proposal that the rear of the property be 75 feet rather <br />than the 68 feet shown on the map, that this also would be agreeable if it die <br />not conflict with the deed restrictions which he thought required a 15 foot <br />setback instead of the 10 feet required by the Code. <br /> <br />The Planning Director advised that the Planning Commission's primary <br />concern was the size and shape of the remaining lot in Zone R-O, as it <br />would be considerably smaller than other lots in the area; however, that <br />it would still meet the requirements of Zone R-O, <br /> <br />Councilman Reibold 'then MOVED that the request of George A. Dudley, 1150 <br />Fallen Leaf Road, for a lot split on 1140 Fallen Leaf Road (Lot 8, Tract <br />11204) be approved subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />l. Remove that portion of existing a,c. paving overlapping onto the <br />proposed parcel 2, <br /> <br />2, Remove kitchen facilities from combination garage and guest house <br />on parcel 2 and sign covenant to run with land stating that guest <br />house will not be rented. <br /> <br />Councilman Balser seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote <br />as follows: <br /> <br />AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Phillips <br />NOES: None <br />ABSTAINED: <br /> <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilman Butterworth <br />from his residence) <br />Councilman Turner <br /> <br />(property is directly across the street <br /> <br />Planning Commission Resolution No, 485 recommending denial of the <br />application of Dr. R. F. Erlingheuser for a zone variance to permit <br />construction of an 8 story apartment building at 504-508 West Huntington <br />Drive, <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />The City Clerk advised that a communication dated August 6, 1963 had been <br />received from the applicant stating in substance that although it was too <br />late to file an appeal he would request postponement of action until <br />such time as action is taken on a similar zone variance request and <br />appeal of Mr. Vallone. <br /> <br />It being necessary to schedule a hearing on the appeal of Mr. Vallone, <br />Councilman Reibold ~ that action on the subject zone variance <br />request be taken under advisement until such time as the hearing on <br />the Vallone matter has been held. Councilman Butterworth seconded the <br />motion which was carried unanimously, <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />8-6-63 <br />