My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-15-1969
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952-1999
>
1969
>
09-15-1969
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 2:01:00 PM
Creation date
4/28/2003 3:50:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
9/15/1969
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
APPEAL 224-VA 69-56 <br />(continued) <br /> <br />No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. <br /> <br />The Planning Director explained that denial of the freestanding sign by the <br />Planning Commission was unanimous after two Planning Commission <br />hearings. He statedihat when the shopping center was originally proposed <br />by Hartfield-Zody's and approved by the Planning Commission, it was <br />determined that applicant would construct a sign large enough io represent <br />the number of tenants in the center; that there is a place on that sign for <br />"Bob's" considerably larger than the original sign proposed to specifically <br />accommodate "Bob's"; that it is difficult to place any confidence in Hart- <br />field-Zody!s representations, particularly in view of the receipt of a similar <br />variance application from another tenant in the center; that East 17th <br />Street is unique in regard to signs; that with the exception of two, they have <br />been kept in good scale in terms of size of buildings, and that the more <br />recent buildings constructed on East 17th have cooperated to minimize <br />the number of signs, which was clearly pointed out to Hartfield-Zody's <br />before they constructed the project; and that for these reasons he <br />recommended upholding the Planning Commission decision. <br /> <br />The hearing was closed. <br /> <br />After discussion by Council, it was moved by Councilman Brooks, <br />seconded by Councilman Herrin, to uphold the action of the Planning <br />Commission and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution <br />granting Variance Application 69-56 subject to conditions in Planning <br />Commission's Finding of Fact dated August 25, 1969, except that <br />Condition 2 is deleted and a sign shall be permitted not to exceed 180 <br />square feet per face~ maximum of § feet projection, and maximum of <br />35 feet in height. The motion was adopted on the following roll call <br />vote: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Herrin, Brooks, Markel, Patterson, Villa, Griset <br />Evans <br />None <br /> <br />RES. 69-118 - EMPLOYEES; RESOLUTION 69-118 ENLARGING <br />RESIDENCE BOUNDARIES AND RE-ESTABLISHING AN AREA <br /> IN WHICH SANTA ANA CITY EM- <br />PLOYEES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THEIR RESIDENCE was <br />adopted, on motion of Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman <br />Villa, on the following roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Herrin, Evans, Patterson, Villa, Griset <br />Brooks, Markel <br />None <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-336- <br /> <br />September 15, 1969 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.