Laserfiche WebLink
It was moved by Councilman Burk, seconded by Councilman Brooks and <br />carried, that Council approve the reclassification and instruct the City <br />Attorney to prepare an amending ordinance according to Exhibit 585 A. <br /> <br />HEARING - SERNA Hearing was opened on Appeal <br />APPEL 174, V.A.66-12 filed by Joseph Serna frcm the <br />~ Planning Commfssion's denial <br /> of Variance Application 66-12 to <br />construct a gasoline service station in R 2 district at 626 S. Newhope. <br />The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was mailed to adjacent <br />property owners on April 12, 1966 and that no c~mmunications had been <br />filed. <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Rickles, attorney, represented the applicant, and presented a <br />petition supplemental to those filed with Planning Commission bringing <br />total to 151 signatures expressing support of the variance. Mr. Rickles <br />described the proposed service station and others in the area, noting <br />application was changed from re-zoning to variance to insure controls; <br />that use would not generate traffic; that use was proper for primary <br />streets and a property right; that traffic would make it less desirable <br />for residential development. Mr. Del Michael, 917 S. Tolan, representing <br />Southwest Hcmeowners Association, opposed granting of the variance on <br />the grounds that it would be in the center of residential development. <br />There being no further response to the Mayor's call for testimony, the <br />hearing was closed. <br /> <br />It was moved by Councilman Gilmore, seconded by Councilman Brooks and <br />carried, that Council order filed the petition presented by Mr. Rickles. <br />It was moved by Councilman Herrin, seconded by CounciLman Burk that <br />Council overrule the action of the Planning CGnmission and instruct the <br />City Attorney to prepare a Resolution granting Variance Application 66-12 <br />subject to conditions recommended in Staff Comments dated 3-14-66. On <br />roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES, <br />NOES, <br />ABSE/f~, <br /> <br />COUNCILMEN: Gilmore, Burk~ Herrin, Markel, Harvey <br /> COUNCII~EN: Brooks, McMichael <br /> COUNCILMEN: None <br /> <br />HEARING - Hearing was opened on Appeal 175 <br />APPEAL 175, V.A.2176 filed by Emanuel H. Fink from <br />~ the Planning Cormaission's <br /> approval of Variance Application <br />2176 filed by William Rohrbacker to use an R i lot for off-street parking <br />at 1715 N. Flower. The Clerk reported that notice of hearing was mailed <br />to adjacent property owners on April 12, 1966, and that no co~anunications <br />had been filed. Mr. Conrad Schultz, 1811 N. Flower, speaking on behalf <br />of the appellant, Mr. Emanuel H. Fink, read and filed a statement in <br />opposition to the variance, noting the building for which parking is <br />needed was built under variance and it eliminated the parking. Mr. George <br />W. Johns, 1717 Heliotrope, agreed with Mr. Schultz' position and <br />suggested parking across the street from the applicant's business. <br />Mr. Dean Evans, 510 W. Chapman, representing the applicant for the variance, <br />Mr. William Rohrbacker, stated it was not economically feasible to pay <br />for frontage on 17th Street for off-street parking; that Planning Study <br />31 recommends need for more parking for businesses on north side of 17th -- <br />should be north of alley, east of Flower for 3 or 4 blocks; that applicant <br />had contacted Mrs. Logush as instructed by the Planning Commission who <br />supported parking lot but was unable financiall~v to develop. Mr. Evans <br />cu~ented on petition supporting variance and pictures showing cars parked <br />on Flower and Heliotrope filed with the Planning Ccmmission -- also a <br />rendering filed to insure the applicant would develop exactly as pictured; <br />stated employees and tenants would not use a lot on the south side of 17th. <br /> <br />In rebuttal Mr. Johns and Mr. Schultz noted safety in crossing 17th should <br />not be a factor since children crossed there until recently going to <br />school and the proposed lot would be twice the distance; that most cars <br />parking in front of residences are Post Office employees. There being <br />no further testimony, the hearing was closed. <br /> <br />The Director of Planning presented Exhibits which were compiled as a <br />result of a study of the 17th Street Parking Problem frc~ Flower to Main <br />CITY COUNCIL - 511 - April 18, 1966 <br /> <br /> <br />