12-15-1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director explained that the APPEAL NO. 228 - VA 69-86 subject appeal had been filed by the owners of Flomar's Kennels, which business is existing on the adjacent property to the south, and Municipal Code Section 4118 1 provides that a kennel cannot exist or continue to exist within increments of 300 feet or 500 feet of a residential use. I-Ie explained that the Planning Commis- sion took the position that its determination should be based on the desirability of the use proposed on the property in question and further took the position that it was unusual that an ordinance would prevent any residential use within 500 feet of a pre-existing use. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 228, filed by James F. and Mary C. Henry, appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Variance Applica- tion 69-86, granted to Marshall L. Morgan to construct a two story garden apartment complex in the A 1 District at 727 S. Lyon Street. The following persons spoke in favor of the appeal: C. Arthur Nisson, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Henry., the appellants, who requested that if the variance were granted for the apartment and no attempt was made to enforce the Code sections on kennel regulations, the plan be revised so that the patios on the south side of the project be eliminated on the second story and the requirement of a solid wall on the south side be extended to the roof line of the garages or carports so that the residents couldn't look over into the kennels; RobertK. Harr, 2370 N. Flower; Mrs. Ruth Lykke, 1328 Martha Lane; James Henry, 921 S. Lyon Street, owner and operator of Flomar's Kennels; Dolly Hutchins, kennel owner; Ronald Colvin, 2441 Zenith; Shirley Colvin, 2441 Zenith; Evelyn Casamabe, Cypress; Victor Wagner, 4109 W. 5th Street. Marshall Morgan, the applicant for the Variance Application, stated he would lke the Council to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant the variance. The hearing was closed. In response to a question by the Mayor, the City Attorney stated that if it were found thai the kennel had to be closed, the date of closing would be at the time of occupation of the building by people, but that the Code section could be revised by ordinance. The Planning Director stated that the re- quest for change of design of the building was not brought up at the Planning Commission hearing, that the concern was if the Code provision regarding kennels would be enforced. After discussion by Council, on motion of Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Brooks, the City Attorney was directed to bring back a revision in our ordinance which would make it legal for Flomar's Kennels to remain in operation and to table the decision on the appeal until the January 5 Council meeting, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Herrin, Brooks~ Evans, Markel, Patterson, Villa, Griset None None CITY COUNCIL -422- December 15, 1969