My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-05-1975
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952-1999
>
1975
>
05-05-1975
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 1:59:38 PM
Creation date
5/7/2003 10:01:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
5/5/1975
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
PUBLIC HEARING <br />APPEAL NO. 348 <br />CUP NO. 75-2 <br /> <br />on Appeal No. 348, <br />1740 Narva Street, <br /> <br />The Mayor announced <br />that this was the <br />time and place for <br />the Public Hearing <br />filed by Pacific Outdoor Advertising, <br />Los Angeles, on behalf of property <br /> <br />owner Jeamne Conlin, from the April 1S Planning Commission <br />denial of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. <br />7S-2, to permit the establishment of an off-premise adver- <br />tising sign in the C-2 District, 110 South Harbor Boulevard, <br />and he opened the Public Hearing. <br /> <br />Council received the Finding of Fact dated April 1S, 1975 <br />from the Planning Commission, which stated that the reason <br />for the denial was that the proposed use would not provide <br />a necessary or desirable use at the location, and would <br />not contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood <br />or the community, and that it would adversely affect the <br />6eneral Plan of the City, more precisely the Scenic Corridors <br />Element. <br /> <br />The Clerk of the Council reported no written communications <br />had been received. <br /> <br />The Mayor requested testimony from proponents or opponents. <br /> <br />Proponent of the Appeal, Jay Kingry, representing Pacific <br />Outdoor Advertising Company, stated that the.proposed sign <br />would be back 60 feet from the center line of the street, <br />and would not interfere with the right-of-way; that the <br />sign size conforms to ordinance requirements; that there is <br />no proof that it would create a traffic hazard; that the <br />proposed location is vacant property and properly zoned for <br />the sign; that there were no written or oral protests at the <br />Planning Commission hearing; that his company's lease with <br />the property owner is on a 30-day basis, which means that the <br />sign would be immediately removed if a higher use of the <br />property were contemplated by its owner; and that he objects <br />also to the conditions of approval suggested by the staff <br />Qhich would require landscaping (Condition 7 B) and dedication <br />(Condition 7 F). <br /> <br />There were no other proponents or opponents. <br /> <br />The Traffic Engineer read his report dated May 5, 1975, <br />analyzing the CUP application from the standpoint of increas- <br />ing the traffic hazard at the intersection of First and <br />Harbor Streets. He concluded that establishment of the <br />sign could very possibly be a factor leading to traffic <br />accidents. <br /> <br />Mayor Garthe closed the Public Hearing. <br /> <br />Councilman Brandt's motion to instruct the City Attorney to <br />prepare a resolution overruling the decision of the Planning <br />Commission to deny CUP 75-2, was seconded by Councilman Evans. <br /> <br />At the request of the applicant, the maker and Second to the <br />motion agreed to an amendment which would pro¥ide:that upon <br />application for a building permit and prior to the future <br />development of the property in question, removal of the sign <br />would be mandatory. <br /> <br />The motion was defeated on the following roll call vote: <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />189 MAY 5, 1975 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.