Minutes 1955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

like to be given the opportunity to bring in the sign manufacturer's side of the story. Mr. P. Arnold Anderson, Executive Vice President of the Municipal License Tax Association addressed the Council and requested a 30 -day delay to allow the Association Committee time to analyze the proposed ordinance. Letter was also, received from the Northern California Outdoor Advertising Council requesting a post- ponement of 30 days. Councilman Royer stated that the Sign Committee would be willing to meet with any- one interested on Tuesday, August 9 at 4 :00 p.m. in the City Manager's office to discuss the matter and bring the matter up for the meeting of August 15 for action. Councilman Royer so moved, seconded by Councilman Granger and carried. PETITION, 26 NAMES, PROTESTING PROPOSED 60' TOWER, MARKET AT ROOSEVELT AND UPTON STREETS, UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Councilman Granger questioned whether or not the petitioner has the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission it being his g g , g opi n- ion that the petition appeared to be of the nature of an appeal. City Attorney Currie stated that question involved was whether or not the tower was a part of the building or strictly separate sign. If a sign, a use permit would be necessary and the petitioner could appeal the decision. If a part of the building, it appeared that no appeal could be allowed. Councilman Granger stated that in his opinion, the petition protesting the tower was in the nature of an appeal and suggested setting a date for public hearing, the contractor to be notified to take no further action. Councilman Granger so moved, seconded by Councilman Spillers. Councilman Jones was of the opinion that the Planning Commission's decision was based strictly on architectural approval and had no relation to a sign and was thus passed by the Planning Commission. Mr. James MacDonald, member of the Commission, stated that Councilman Jones was correct, that the Commission had approved the tower as a part of the building. City Attorney Currie stated the issue still to be determined was whether tower was sign or a part of the building. He suggested the matter might be referred back to the Planning Commission for further discussion and treated as an appeal. Mr. Harold Drew, 2192 Euclid Avenue, addressed the Council, strongly urging that the tower be denied calling attention to the fact that the general area was zoned first residential and height and designs of buildings should be restricted to conform to the general residential architecture in the area. Councilman Britschgi stated his opinion that the height of the building should be controlled. Motion to refer mat- ter back to the Planning Commission and builders to be notified to take no further action for the time being was carried on roll call, Councilman Jones voting "No ". After further discussion, Councilman Britschgi moved that the Building Inspector request the contractor to discontinue construction until final decision-is reached, seconded by Councilman Spillers. City Attorney suggested the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration, they to take any steps neces- sary if it is decided that they have the necessary authority. Councilman Royer off - ered an amendment to the motion that the matter be placed on the Planning Commis- sion Agenda for July 26, suggesting that they reconsider their previous action pr- viding the City Attorney determines they have the authority and that the contractor be requested to cease construction. Councilman Granger seconded the motion calling attention to the fact that at no time had the Planning Commission been criticized