10-19-1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lawrence L. Brixey, ]P23 S. Evergreen, stated that he has an eight foot block wall behind his propex~cy, separati~ him frc~ the market, ~ud that it is highly inadequate, since he finds litter in his yard. Rober~ Green, 1105 E. Oxford, stated that since the property was purchased as R 1 by Mr. Lukens, it sh~al~ be maintained as R 1o Mr. Lnkens spoke in rebuttal, cc~paring the number of chi/~lren passing by his other 4.rive-in facilities with no problem; that the~e is adequate ro~ for ~riveways. ~rs. Joseph Serra~o, 1110 E. Griffith, noted that the children using the street in this area are elementary students instead of Junior and Senior High School students as those stated by Mr. Lukens. There being no further testimcmy, the hearing was closed. ~n motion of Councilman Gilmore, seconded By Councilm~n ~ubbalxl and carried, cOUacil upheld the action of the pla,,ing C~ssion and instructe~ the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Variance 2005. ~FJtRING - APPEAL 139, V.A. 2002 CA t~.~l ~ayor Hall opened the hear~ on Appeal 139 filed by George Callens fr~a the Planning Cca~mission's denial of Variance Application 2002 to establish a beauty shop with less than required parking in R 3 district at 1~23 So Broa~ay. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners on October 13, 196~ and that a letter in opposition had been received from E. B. Jackson, ~166 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles. On motion of Councilmam Hubb%rd, seconded by Cc~nci1-~- Schlueter and carried, Council ordered the letter filed. ~eorge Callens, appellant, stated he was available for answering questions. Jo Ogden Harkel, 181~ S. Patton, expressed approval of the appel~--t's request, stating it appeared to be in harmony with the area; that the appel~--t will live on the premises an~ will undoubtedl~ maintain the yard, and because adequate off- street parking has n~been provided for. Willis Clemens, 1~15 S. Broadway, representing STC Corporation, ow~ building next door, declared he was unopposed as l~g as adequate park~ was provided. james Fan~ k-,er, 2116 ~ain, lease holder of the property, offered to answer any questions about the operation of the business. There being no further testimony, the hear~ was closed. It was moved by Councilm~ Hubbard, seconded By Counci~-~ Gilmore and carried, that Council overrule the action of the Pl~--*~ C~$sion ~,a instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution granting Variance 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. That develol~aent be according to plot p~a~ except for m~-or medifications approved by the pl...~.E Department. 2. That one single faced or double faced non-flash~n~ sign not to exceed 12 sq. ft. be permitted; said sign to be approved by the Planuing Department. (These are the "P" District sign regulations. ) 3. That the first park/rig stall (in the front yard setback) be eliminate~. ~/~/,~ APPEAL 1~0, VoAo 2022 Mayor Hall opened the hearing on ADVANCE ~EON SIGN COo Appeal 1~0 filed by Advance Neon Sign Co. fron the Zom~ Administrator's denial of V~i~ce A~licati~ 2022 to erect a ~' ~ee st~g a~is~g si~ ~ C 1 ~istrict at 1071 W. 17th. ~e Clerk reposed t~t n~ice of the hear~g ~s ~iled to ~Jacent pro~y o~ers ~ October 13, 1~ ~ that no ~itt~ c~ications or objections h~ ~ee~ recei~d. CIT~ COU~CIL -76 - October 19,