|
Hearing
<br />Establish Precise
<br />Alignment w~sterly
<br />ext.Willit s -Bishop
<br />Street
<br />Reso .No. 59-S16
<br /> dP II ~
<br />
<br />Reset hearing
<br />date Amendment
<br />Appl. No. 286
<br />
<br /> Variance Appl.No. 1220
<br /> I.H.and Hart Pennington,
<br /> et al
<br />:Reso. No. 59-~17
<br />granting Variance
<br />
<br /> "Ordinance establishing future right-of-way lines
<br /> along Santa Clara Avenue on both sides"
<br />
<br /> was introduced~ considered and placed on file for second reading.
<br />
<br /> This being the date set for he,ring to establish the precise alignment of the 'westerly
<br /> extension of Willits-B~shop Street, between Suliivau and proposed Fairview Street,
<br /> as shown on Precise Plan SHll0, Exhibit l, as recommended by the Wlanning Commission,
<br /> no protests were received and the hearing was declared closed. The Council having
<br /> unanimously waived the reading of the Resolution, on motion of Councilmen Hubbard,
<br /> seconded by Heinly and carried, the following Resolution entitled:
<br />
<br /> "Resolution No. 59-B16 sdol~ting precise al~gr~ent of westerly
<br /> extension of Willits~BiShop Street~ Sullivan to Proposed Fairv~ew~
<br />
<br />was considered and passed by the following vote~
<br />
<br />Ayes, Councilmen Royal E. Hubbard~ Stanley C. Gould~ Jr., Dale H. Heinly,
<br /> Bob Brewer, A. ^. Hall
<br />Noes, Councilmen None
<br />Absent, Councilmen None
<br />
<br />On motion of Councilman Heinly, seconded by Gould and carried, Amendment Application
<br />No. ~86, in~tiated by the Planning Commission, was taken from the table, involving
<br />the reclassification from the R-1 District to the C-1-PK District of property situa-
<br />ted at the southeast corner of the intersection of Fairview Street and Delhi Road
<br />(size of the property is approximately 780 feet by 780 feet). On motion of Council-
<br />man Hubbard, seconded by Brewer and carried, the date of hearing on ~mendment Appli-
<br />cation No. 286 was reset on January 18, 1960.
<br />
<br />Co~-,uication was read from the Planning Commissiou rec~endiug approval of Variance
<br />Application No. 1220, filed by I. H. and Hart Pennington, Evadua and C. Perry, and
<br />Jack Rimel, Attorney-in-fact for Violet Holt, on property at 201-05-05½ South Broad-
<br />way and 212-214 West Walnut Street, in R-3 District, to permit use of the property
<br />for customer and employee parking only, subject to conditions. The applicant re-
<br />quested the use of the property for the storage of new automobiles. Mr. L. G. Cone,
<br />211-213 South Broadway, inquired if ingress and egress had been located to this
<br />property as set out in the application, and if such an entrance, or exit, is placed
<br />on the south side of his property, it would create a traffic hazard on this eight-
<br />foot common driveway. It was moved by Councilman Hubbard that action be postponed
<br />until the next meeting. Motion lost for lack of a second. Marty Lockney, 120 South
<br />Sycamore Street, stated many restrictions have been imposed on this property and the
<br />original application asks for the storage of new cars. Mr. Lockney said he has
<br />made a substantial monetary improvement on this facility for the specific purpose of
<br />storing new automobiles and protested the condition of erecting a concrete block
<br />wall along the west property line as a chain link fence is located on the easterly
<br />and northerly boundary. It was moved by Councilman Gould that a Resolution be
<br />adopted overruling the Planning Commission, and that the Variance be granted subJe~t
<br />to conditions l, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll and 19, and that condition 4 be modified
<br />that no new or used cars shall be stored on such property for the purpose of sale
<br />from said lot, and that no sign larger than 12 sq,~-we feet identifying the business,
<br />but excluding commercial advertising, be placed en the property. Motion lost for
<br />lack of a second. Mr. Lockney stated they have a new car facility for 160 vehicles
<br />but do n~ have facilities for repairs and there will be cases where cars must be
<br />readied for display purposes. The reading of the Resolution having been waived, it
<br />was moved by Councilm-u Gould, seconded by Brewer and carried, that an amendment to
<br />
<br />
<br />
|