09-05-1961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

275 Appeal Appl. No. 35 Variance Appl. No. 1516 Nolan S. Cooper, et ux Appeal Appl. No. 36 Variance Appl. No. 1527 Ernest A. Reuter Resol. No. 61-210 Granting Variance The proposed dwelling is designed for bachelors, retired people and single persons. 706 South Birch Street, Communication was presented from Mrs. John LeOolux/protesting the granting of this Variance and on motion of Councilman Brewer, seconded by Heinly and carried, the eo~mmtuication was received and filed. The Council having unanimously waived the reading of the Resolution, on motion of Counc~.lm-u Heinly, seconded by Schlueter and carried, the following Resolution entitled: "Resolution No. 61-209 granting Appeal Application No. 34 by Russell D. Shields where Zoning Administrator denied Variance" was considered and passed by the following vote: Ayes, Councilmen Henry H. Schlueter, Dele H. Heinly, Royal E. Hubbard Noes, Councilmen Bob Brewer Absent, Councilmen A.A. Hall Appeal Application No. 35 of Edward A. Cline was presented on Variance Application No. 1516 filed by Nolan S. and Dorothy CoOper, to erect four detached single-family dwellingSon property located 150 feet east of the northeast corner of Hazard Avenue and Bewley Street, in the R-2 District, wherein Appellant requests denial of the Variance. The App~!l~. objected to the grantf~ of the Variance as the lot does not comply with the minimum requirements set forth in the Building Code and would establish a precedent for $m~1 l rental units in the area; there are two houses on the east and two houses on the west of the property and the residents desire to re- rain the property as it is now. Mr. Cline further stated there was no objection to two residences on the lot, such residences to be placed in line with other houses in the block. Mr. J. A. Anakin, 291 Santa Aha Avenue, Long Beach, favored the recommendation of the Planning C~mission and stated there are multiple dwellings, duplexes and a seven-unit building in the area. The property in question is approx~ fmately 97' x 120' and the fo~kr detached single-family dwellings would enhance the value of the property. On motion of CounciLman Heinly, seconded by Brewer and carried, Appeal Application No. 35 of Edward A. Cline was denied and Variance Appli- cation No. 1516 filed by Nolan S. and Dorothy Cooper was granted, subject to con- ditions, for the reason t~ A~pellant had no legal grounds for appeal. Appeal Application No. 36 of Elsa Reuter Armstrong was presented on Variance Appli- cation No. 1527 filed by Ernest A. Reuter (Reuter-Reason Buick) to establish a new and used car retail sales 'and accessory garage repair activities on property at the northeast corner of Fruit Street and Grand Avenue, in the R-B District, wherein Appellant appeals the decision of the Planning Commission. Attorney W. ~,mner Holbrook, Jr., 458 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, on behalf of the Appellant pre- sented protest letters from Mrs. Elsa Reuter Armstrong, 902 North Grand Avenue, Wesley J. Morgan, 724 North Grand Avenue, R. R. Burnette, 742 Grand Avenue, John L. Gillespie, 734 North Grand Avenue, Marcia E. Garrett, 1345 East Fruit Street, and Terrence L. Pangham, 1345 East Fruit Street, and on motion of Councilman Heinly, seconded by Brewer and carried, the communications were received and filed. Attorney Holbrook stated the Variance Application was requested to allow for the construction and operation of a new car sales business and in the original application there was no reference to the used car sales and mechanical repair business. Attorney HolbroOk further stated the Planning staff recommended approval for the reason that Grand Avenue should properly be developed to "P" and C-5 land uses, none of which are eon- templated for the use of the applicant. Immediately back of subject property, to the east, on Fruit Street there are 178 apartment, units housing approximately people; on the other side of Grand Avenue, on Stafford Street, there are 46