05-01-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VA 7Z-21 ZACHARY T. PEDICINI - (Continued) There were no further proponents or opponents, and the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Yamamoto stated that when the sign ordinance was passed, he assumed something could be done about the pollution of City streets with signs; that people who make their living on signs are not allowed to erect them, but businesses are permitted to put them up. 1V[ayor Griset stated that the sign ordinance is very valuable and a necessary guide; that in certain situations it is necessary to grant variances, particularly where they have a rather unique situation in which visual opportunity is blocked; that the requested sign is not gaudy, but is very practical. Councilman Patterson stated that he would like to adhere to the sign ordinance, but the shape of this property is such that they can't have a sign unless they can put it in the location they are requesting; that it is not a major pollution matter. Councilman Evans stated that is is dependent upon Council to take into consideration the fact that the people who own the shops did not have the opportunity to enter into negotiations of the sign; that it will give the opportunity to some of the businessmen to operate and make a living. Councilman I-terrin's motion, seconded by Councilman Villa, to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution approving Variance Application 7Z-Z1 subject to conditions of approval contained in the Commission report, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Herrin, Villa, Evans, Griset, Patterson, Markel Yamamoto None RECESS At 8:30 P.M. a recess was declared. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 P.M. with all Councilmen present. APPEAL #302 The Mayor opened the public hearing on VA 72-22 Appeal #30Z filed by Ferman Alarcon FERMAN ALARCON appealing Planning Commission's denial of Variance Application 7Z-ZZ to expand a legal non-conforming wrecking yard into the R 2 District at 340Z West Seventh Street. The Director of Planning stated that the only item in contention on this variance is the driveway; that it is fenced off by a chain link fence on both sides; that it is not part of the operation; that the wrecking yard is a legal non-conforming use of this proper~y; that at the time a variance was approved on April 17, 1'967, a 5-year time period was placed on the use of the property and the time limit has now expired; that staff recommended denial because Seventh Street is only 27' wide and is residential; that there are a lot of children playing in the area; that trucks tow wrecked cars down the street; that according to photos, the driveway is presently being used for storage of wrecked vehicles in violation of the variance; and that the Planning Commission recommended denial. CITY COUNCIL -186- May 1, 1972