11-04-1963 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to read "Signs as per p~ot plan except that the si~n shoal on the no.ch side of the driveway on Santiago be msved to the south side of said driveway, the north side of which said driveway shall be approximately 2~O feet plus or minus north of the centerline of 17th Street (approxt-~tely 10 feet south of the south line of the first residence on the west side of Santiago Street, located approximately 250 feet ~rth of the centerlime of 17th Street)"; and that all other conditions theret~ are applicable. ~EARINO - APPEAL 101 Mayor Eall opened the hearing on Appeal PACE Application 101 filed by Eer~-~ O. Pack f~m the Zoning Administrator's denial of Variance 1832 to construct a 58' Texaco advertising structure on C 1 property at 2101 S. Main Street. The Clerk re~orted that notice of the hearing was given by the P1A~-~ng Department, with evidence on file, amd that c~*--uaications favoring the variauce had been received from the following: R. L. Crutcher of the Jennie S. Crutcher Foundation, 3429 E. Coast Nighway, Corona del Nar~ T. L. Ca-non, 2101-A S. Main Street; Lloyd's Laundromat, amd EermA- Pack, the appellant. On motion of Coumclin-- ~bbard, sec~m~ed by Oounc21m~ Schlueter and carried, Council received sad ordered filed the communications o Bill Winterberg, ~20 Arley Place, Anaheim~ representing the applicant, noted the sign was necessary identification, could be modified to ~0 feet if ~8 feet too great. There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed. On motion of Councilman Earvey, seconded by Councilman Hubbard and carried, Council upheld the ~ecision of the Planning C~mmission amd instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Variance 18~. Mr. Winterberg requested further consideration of a ~0 foot sign and basis of Council decision. Mayor w_,ll stated Council's consideration was on ~8 foot sign only and applicant c~Ald su~mit application for different sign if desired. HEARING - APPEAL 102 Mayor Hall opened the hearing on DAVIS (DZEE~ZCE) Appeal Application 102 filed by Jack Davis from the Planning Commission's denial of Variance 1831 to construct a 232 unit, one story apartment complex with public streets on R i property located between Grand and Lincoln south of Santa Clara. The Clerk rePorted that notice of the hearing was given by the Planning Depa~:-ment, with evidence on file, and that a c~.-.=,~uicatiom had been received from the appellant ask- lng that the matter be referred back to the planning C,~--.-~ssion for re- a~alysis amd recmmmendation. The hearing was closed. On motion of Counc~l~- Hubbard, seconded by Coumcl!ma~ Schlueter and carried, Council referred Appeal 102 back.to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. ~EARING - APPEAL 103 Counctlma- Hubbard asked that he be HUNT disqualified from discussion amd action in the following matter because of a conflict of interest, and left the Council Chamber. Mayor Hall opened the heartnE on Appeal Application 103 filed by Barnes F. Eunt from the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 1836 (Tb~$ T. Russell) to construct a 40 unit, 10 building, 2 story apart- merit complex on A 1 property located at 4120 W. 5th Street. The Clerk. reported that notice of the heariug was given by the Pl,nnimg Department with evidence on file, and that no written communications or objections had been received. Norman Caldwell, 2020 N. Broadway, attorney representing 15 adjacent land owners, presented a petition signed by 155 laud Owners pretesting gra~ting of the Variance. On motion of Councilman G41m-re, seconded by COunc~m-- Schlueter and carried, the petition was received aud ordered filed. CITY COUNCIL - 232 - November 4, 1963