CC MIN 1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2og , J Resolutions�of Retirement . MOTION• Titles having been read, Councilman Leipzig introduced the following resolutions and moved, seconded by Councilman Norris, ,the�r adopt�on iRESOLUTION N0. 8059 COMMENDING AND CONGRATULATING GLADYS ' BRAASCH'ON THE OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT ; RESOLUTION NO 8060 COMMENDING AND CONGRATULATING DOUGLAS � �LEITH ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT � 'Mayor Barrett presented framed parchment copies of the resoluttons to Mrs. Braasch and Mr. Leith commending them for their years of service to the co�mnunity and wishing them many happy years of retirement. Public Hearing - Appeal from the denial by the Planning Cortom ssion � of a lication for Variance 2450 Ham ton Avenue - Jose Martinez, appellant continued at request of appellant from April 3 and 25, 1978) , Mayor_B'arrett declared open at 7•40 p.m. the sub,7ect public hearing, � noting it has been continued twice at the request of the appellant. City Clerk Hildebrand reported the affidavit of publication of notice of hearing and affidavit of mailing are on file in her office. Edward Hume, 777 Marshall Street, attorney representing the appellant, :suggested the Planning Coimmssion denial of the application of his ' client for a variance to permit"a structure to be constructed in the"front yard within one foot of the front lot line where a 15-foot minimum setback is required may have occurred,because the Cortmission had less than the entire record before them .� Mr Hume explained that through inadvertence his client failed to complete�the permit application with regard to �ustification because�he,believed he would be advised later by the Building Department if were neces- sary to�do so. Mr. Hume called attention�to the petition containing � some 108 names of neighbors of the appellant who favor allowing M s � structure to remain and to the appeal letter of March 13, 1978 filed by�Mr.�Martinez. Mr. Hume suggested that the appropriate action at this time might be to return the application for variance to the Planning Cortumssion for reconsideration on its full merits In response to question, Planning Director Schroeter advised that no investigation has been made of the points made in the appeal letter, stating that if the matter is returned to the PTanning Cortam ssion such investigation would then be made In further response to question, Mr. Schroeter advised that the structure may have some reuse value, but that it was built without a permit,and constructed improperly In response to question, Mr. Hume advised that his client is an iron worker and that the structure is one of decorative wrought iron ' Jose Martinez 2450 Hampton Avenue, appellant, said that although a neighbor has stated that he advised him a permit was needed before Reg.Mtg. -2- 5/15/78 , �