11-04-1963 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On motion of Councilm~n Hubbard, seconded by Counci~mau Schlueter and carried, Appeal Application 98 was referred back to the PlAnning Commission for re- consideration. HEARING - APPEAL 99 Mayor Hall opened the hearing on Appeal SCANLON Application 99 filed by MaryAnn Scanlon fro~ the Planning Commission's denial of Variance 1839 to construct a 23 unit, two story apartment complex on C i and R i property at 1609 N. King Street. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was given by the Planning Department, that evidence thereto was on file, and that no ~ritten communications or objections had been received. Acting upon the request of the P~-~tng Director, on motion of C~uncilman Hubbard, seconded by Councilm-- Schlueter and carried, Appeal Application 99 was referred back to the planning Co~nission for reconsideration. HEARING - APPEAL100 Mayor Hall opened the hearing on Appeal GUARANTY CHEVROLET Application 100 filed by Guaranty Chevrolet appealing conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in its approval of Variance 1829 to construct a new and used car sales and service facility on R 1, RiB, R 2 and C 4 property located at 807 E. 17th Street. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was given by the Planning Department, with evidence on file, and that no written communications or objections had been received. Dale Hefnly, 6il W. 8th Street, attorney for the appellant, reviewed conditions itemized in the appeal regarding the proposed 50 foot sign, planting strip and walls in Santiago, dedication and improvement of Santiago while it is R l, improvement of 17th Street as a major arterial, and driveway entrance location on Santiago. Mrs. Russell Macy, 1720 Santiago, objected to location of "Service Depart- ment'' sign and driveway entrance on Santiago. Clark Miller, 1802 Santiago objected to appellant's proposal of chain link fence instead of block wall to separate R 1 property from service installation. Clarence L. Borchering objected to chain link fence and requested specific binding terms governing applicant's develolm~ent on Santiago such as display areas. Leo~ewd Lippett, 1810 Santiago, objected to chain link fence and 50 foot sign. Mr. He~ly agreed the sign On Santiago could be moved to the south of the driveway entrance, which would be 10 feet south of the first residential property on the west side of Santiago, stated the chain link fence would not even be seen at 110 feet and with planting; reiterated the need for 50 foot sign, that it would not affect properties in area. It was noted by the City Manager that the City pays cost of construction of streets in excess of local street requirements for thickness and width. There being no further testimony, the hear~-E was closed. Mayor Hall declared a five minute recess at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. with all Councilmen present. It was moved by Councilman Gilmore, seconded by Councflm-- Hubbard, and carried, that the City Council grant the appeal and overrule the Planning C~,.mission with respect to Item 2 of the Appeal to modify condition 14 (g) to read after the words 17th Street and "that portion of the easterly one half of Santiago Street measured from the centerline of 17th Street to a point approximately 240 feet north of the centerline of 17th Street"; with respect to Item 5 of the Appeal to modify condition 15 (c) by adding after the words of existin$ pavement "that portion of santiago Street mentioned in Condition 14 (g) above"; with respect to Item i of the Appeal to modify condition 5 Cl~ COUNCIL - 231 - November 4, 1963