327
<br />
<br />Variance
<br />J~mes E. Serven
<br />Reso. No. 57-242
<br />
<br />Variance
<br />Orange County
<br />Finance Company
<br />
<br />Variance
<br />Karl A. Hoeppner
<br />
<br />Variance
<br />Lyle W. Bryant
<br />
<br />Variance
<br />Raym0~d W. Kerr
<br />Reso. '57-243
<br />
<br />Petition
<br />Crossing guard
<br />and school crossing
<br />signs ~#~d
<br />
<br /> Communication was read from the Planning Cnmm~ ssion recr.~.~.~ending denial of variance
<br /> application of James E. Serv~n to permit conversion of existing accessory building
<br /> on property at 319 East Narwood Place, presently used as a gu~ shop, into a single-
<br /> family dwelling, decreasing the rear-yard requirements to five feet, in an R-1
<br /> District. The Council having unanimously waived the reading of the Resolution, on
<br /> motion of Counctlme~ Eubbard, seconded by Markel and carried, the following
<br /> Resolution entitled:
<br />
<br /> "Resolution No. 57-242 granting Variance on application of
<br /> James E. Serven where Planning Commission recnmmended denial"
<br />
<br /> was considered and passed by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes, Councilmen Royal E. Hubbard, Stanley C. Gould, Jr.,
<br /> J. Ogden Markel, Dale N. Eeinly
<br /> Noes, Councilmen A.A. Hall
<br /> Absent, Councilmen None
<br />
<br /> On motion of Coulle~lma- Hubbard, seconded by Markel and carried, the recommendation
<br /> of the Pla~tng Cc~mtssion was approved and the variance of the Orange County Finan¢
<br /> Company granted to permit construction of buildings on property at il20 North
<br /> Sycamore Street, in an R-3 District, deleting the rear yard and the north side-yard
<br /> requir-m~nts, the b,~!]dings to be used to house the Orange County Finance Company,
<br /> Personal Property Brokers and ventures which could be located in a C-1 District,
<br /> sub~ect to conditions of the Commission and the Department of Public Works.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Hall and carried, the recommendation
<br /> of the Planning Con~aission was approved and the variance of Karl A. and Doris E.
<br /> Hoeppner granted to permit construction of an addition to existing single-family
<br /> dwelling on property at 438 South Baker Street, in an R-1 zone, decreasing the rear~
<br /> yard requirements 2 feet six inches.
<br />
<br />On motion of Councfl~an Hubbard, seconded by t;~11 and carried, the recommendation
<br />of the Planntng Con~ission was approved and the variance of Lyle W. Bryant granted
<br />to permit construction of four triplex units on property situated at 2201-2205
<br />Kilson Drive, and 2202-2206 Hickory Street, in an R-1 Zone, subject to condition of
<br />the Planning Commission.
<br />
<br />Commnn~cation was read from the Planning Co~m~asion recommending denial of variance
<br />application of Raymond W. and Bertha Kerr for permission to construct a second
<br />single-family residence (25' x 29' in size) on rear part of lot at 2229 Cypress
<br />Avenue, in an R-2 zone. Co~a~uication was read from Raymond W. Kerr requesting
<br />favorable consideration of the variance application. The Council having unanimousl
<br />waived the reading of the Resolution, on motion of Councilman Gould, seconded by
<br />Hubbard and carried, the following Resolution entitled:
<br />
<br /> "Resolution No. 57-243 granting Variance on application of
<br /> Raymond W. Kerr where Planning Commission recnmmended denial"
<br />
<br />was considered and passed by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes, Councilmen Royal E. Hubbard, St-,ley C. Gould, Jr.,
<br /> A.A.Wall, J. Ogden Markel, Dale H. Heiuly
<br />Noes, Councilmen None
<br />Absent, Councilmen None
<br />
<br />A petition was presented signed by forty-nine persons requesting appropriate school
<br />crossing signs and a Guard at Fair, iow and Douglas Streets, for the safety of school
<br />children attending Smedley Junior High and Monte Vista Grammar School. On motion
<br />of Counc~m~n Gould~ seconded by Hubbard and carried, the letter and petition were
<br />received and filed. Two persons gave reasons why a Crossing Guard should be
<br />stationed at the intersection. On motion of CoUnci~m~n Gould, seconded by Hubbard
<br />and carried, the matter w~s referred to the Manager and Traffic Engineer for report
<br />at the next meeting.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|