|
�. 8 6�
<br /> Vittiorio Cantalupo, i128 Woodrow Street, referred to his letter of
<br /> aNpeal dated March 4, 1977 in which he stated �t is h�s bel�ef that
<br /> Section 32.1�, (Open Space Requ�rements) does not apply to his par-
<br /> z�cular case because he wishes.to bu�ld only a single dwelling in
<br /> an R-4 District. He suggcsted that,�therefore, R-1 open space re-
<br /> qu�rements would be appticable. . .._ �- - - • - - '
<br /> Discussion followed and Plann�ng Director Schroeter commented and
<br /> replied to questions concerning the def�nition of "usable open space",
<br /> the d�fficutties presented by the small triangular-shaped lot; the
<br /> fact that set-backs are not usually considered as_usable open space,
<br /> the reasoning�behind the set-back requtrement,to,provide more flexi-
<br /> bility-�n order to avoid "box_type"�bu�lding; the fact that more
<br /> open space would be available by reduc�ng the size of the dwell�ng, ,_
<br /> and that�an application for a variance would be a more appropriate
<br /> means of acco�nodating the requ�rements=of the Zom ng,Ord�nance.
<br /> A�ter further d�scuss�on, City�Manager fales pointed out that Mr.
<br /> Cantaiupo purchased�the sub�ect°property�.from_the C�ty as_surplus -
<br /> r'or $3,713.00•or 90 percent_of,Yts_appraised,value; that the ap-_
<br /> praised valpe reflected.significant.reduct�ons,from the valuation
<br /> assigned to-"normal" lots, in view of°its-configuration and
<br /> locat�on. He�quoted for-the record the following,from the C�ty _ ,-
<br /> , Attorney'S memo� -'-'Indeed, at the time.the proPerty�was acqu�red,
<br /> Mr. Cantalupo°asserted.that.='unfortunately suth parcel has not
<br /> (sic)-bu7lding-potent�al'.:. T-.would.�l�ke to purchase the,parcel �n
<br /> order to (�lleg�ble)�a sma71 meadow,(,).plant_a few�trees and
<br /> rlowers"for the purpase of beaut�fy (s�c) this�frontage_,., and
<br /> pert�aps spend"�a few ��ours garden�ng which is rt�y favorite hobby.' ,
<br /> (Leczer dated �ct. 27, 1975�from Mr..�Cantalupo,to.�City Controller.)"-
<br /> � . J L � �r ' . « .. � .. � � 6 , L � � '�' '
<br /> ln response to questions for the reGOrd of the C�ty Attorney, hlr.
<br /> Cantalupo s�ated he recalled having,wrttten.the,letter,dated
<br /> Octcber 27, 1975 and'ackr�awledged he�had,received the�March�l8,
<br /> i977 ,��e,�� from the City Attorney to the.C�ty_Manager. <, �
<br /> , ..: ; �'.._y _
<br /> M07!ON Cauncilman Bar�ett moved, seconded by Councilman Biagi, to
<br /> upf�r�td �he dects�on of the Zoning Adm� m strator and deny the appeal
<br /> o° Vi�*or�a Cantalupo �or the construction of a dwell�ng at 1142
<br /> ' C s 7 r� �cn Street. . - • -� - • -- ~ -
<br /> ihe irot�on passed una m mously by voice vote.
<br /> _ __. . , . � - . (MINUTE ORDER N0. 77-58)
<br /> �Lport re ?ublic Works Employment Act 1976
<br /> C�ty kar�ager Fales refierred to the sub�ect report dated March 18,
<br /> 1977 and actachinq a memo from the Director of Finance dated February
<br /> Zg, 1977 Ne that �he Public Works Employment Act of
<br /> 1976 (°L94-369) Title II-Ant�-Recession Provisions auttiorizes for
<br /> � `�ve Guarters retroactive to July i, 1976, an-ant�-recession program
<br /> to assist Scate arrd �ocal governments to maintain public services
<br /> auririg per�ads of h�gh uneinpioyment. Mr. Fales noted that the
<br /> OT�ice o� �evenue Snar7r�g has ru1ed on expend�tures for '
<br /> 'i�tie IT mames: - � - - -
<br /> -2-
<br /> ��,.M��
<br /> ,/2i171
<br /> :sm - -
<br /> ��� _
<br /> ,
<br />
|