Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HEARING <br />APPEAL NO. 230 (continued) <br /> <br />He presented a petition objecting to the granting of the variance containing <br />approximately 150 signatures. The petition was ordered filed, on motion of <br />Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Markel and unanimously carried. <br />Also speaking in favor of the appeal were Joe Munger, affiliated with a local <br />bank, who expressed the opinion that property values would be lowered, and <br />Tom Thorkelson, 1024 North Louise. <br /> <br />Speaking in opposition to the appeal was Jim Quinn, owner of the property <br />involved, who stated that the property was next to a commercial development <br />and that it no longer lent itself to R 1 use, and that weed removal had become <br />a tremendous problem because of the manner of development of adjacent pro- <br />perties. <br /> <br />The hearing was closed. <br /> <br />After a brief discussion, it was moved by Councilman Villa, seconded by <br />Councilman Patterson, to overrule the action of the Planning Commission, <br />grant the appeal, and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a' resolution <br />denying Variance Application 69-96. The motion was adopted on the following <br />roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES: Herrin, Evans, Markel, Patterson, Villa, Yamamoto, Griset <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />RECESS <br /> <br />present. <br /> <br />At 8:25 P.M., a five minute recess was <br />declared. The Council reconvened at <br />8:35 P. M., with all Council members <br /> <br />CROSSING GUARDS Council considered the letter dated <br /> February 16, 1970, from J. Nicholas <br /> Counter III, Rutan & Tucker, attorneys <br />representing the parents at Roosevelt and John Muir Schools, summarizing <br />the contentions of their clients and requesting a temporary guard at Fourth <br />and Grand for John Muir School while the present warrants are being studied. <br /> <br />On motion of Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Herrin, the <br />matter was deferred to the Council meeting of March 16, since the City Manager <br />advised that the warrant study would be presented at that time. Councilman <br />Evans voted "No" and expressed his opinion that each intersection should be <br />taken as it comes up, and he felt this intersection warranted a crossing guard <br />regardless of the signal light. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-61- March 2, 1970 <br /> <br /> <br />