06-15-1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ING - APPEAL 128 ~yor Hall opened the hearing ~n Appeal ~T.?.w~AN 128 ff[ind by Victor C ~osea ~ the Zo~ his a~ro~l of Variance A~lication 1930 to eonst~ a so.ice s~atl~ ~d ~evta~e ~ the ya~s ~ the R 1 district at 1~01 S. Fl~er. ~e Clerk repo~e~ t~t n~lce of the hear~g ~s ~tle~ to ~acen% prope~y ~ers ~ J~e 8~ 1~ ~ t~t a letter ~d been ~cei~a fr~ ~ice J~ 1~05 S. Wo~a~ P~ce, ~ be~ of the a~ecte~ ~si~ents, proteot~ ~t~ of the ~i~ce. ~or ~11 restricte~ c~ents to t~e three conaitio~ appealed. Dale Heinly, 611 W. 8th Stree% attorney for the appellant, stated that a masonry wall Will be constructed along the property line and, therefore, it shoul~l not he required that the building be placed ten feet fr~a the_property line. Mr. Heiniy submitted to C~ancil a plot plan by Humble Oil Cca~e.]D'~ end stated that $3.3~ a'square foot is too high for the excess property described'in Condition 12a, Accor~E to Mr. Eeinly, a fair price per square foot would he $1.35 or $1.~5. Condition 6, reqUiring that no ha--ers, stre-~rs or st,.tlar devices be displayed, was also protested as Being unfair, since the other stations are now displaying these items. Robert L. Hmaphries, 18~7 Harbor Doulevara, Costa Mesa, representing Maurice J. ~ans~u~ expressed coucern because the hearing had been restricteA to three items, after Mr. ~aneon ha~ been ~ormed by the pl--~ing Department that the hearing would cover all issues. On advice from the Planning Director that he ha~ been so ~,~er~_e~ Because this ha~ always been the procedure in the past, ~ayor Hall rescinded the previous ruling an~ declared the hearing open on all issues. On ~otion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded By Councilmea Sehlueter an~ carried, Council received and ordered filed the letter fr~a Mr. ~_-~-on. ~r. Hum~hries noted that two of the three service stations operating on the corners were making an average income while ~ne was operatin~ sub-marginally~ that old tires an~ odors ~Ale the area unattractive. He su~aitte~ photographs illustrating his point, end on ~otion of Counc~~w~ Hubbard, seconded by Council- man Schlueter an~ carried, they were received and ordered filed. Fra~ Jaffe, 160~ S. Woodland, end Pe~y Janiss, 1522 Woodland, also spoke in Opposition. In rebuttal, Mr. Heinly cited as precedents several Variance Applications which ha~ Been granted in other areas, stating that a property right was being denied his client. There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed. On notion of' Councilman ~uhbar~, seconded by Councilman .qchlueter and carried, COUncil instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution ~verruling the Zoning A~ministrator's decision by deleting Conditions 1 an~ 6 fr~w the approval of Variance Application 19~0, but assuring the constx-action of the solid Block wall. HEAR]]~ - APPEAL 130 ~ayor Hall opened the hearing on A & P CO. Appeal 130 filed by The Great At~-tic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., from the Zoning ~iotrator' s denial of Variance Application 19~2 to remove a condition of approval from Variance 1892: (2a) that a ~-foot easement from center ]~ne to property line be provided on Bristol Street. The Clerk reporte~ that notice of the hearing was mailed to adjacent property c~ners on ~une 8, 196~ and that a letter from the appellant was received, aek~-~ for a c~tin,,a~ce to July 2~, 196~. On mo%ion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded By Councilman Harvey and carried, the hearing was continued to ~uly 20, 196~, 7:30 porn. in the Council Chambers. June 1], 1~