Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />HEARING <br />(Sugar) <br />'1;;/1 <br /> <br />4142 <br /> <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />CITY COUNC IL OF THE CITY OF ARCAD IA <br /> <br />ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />FEBRUARY 21, 1958 <br /> <br />Pursuant to the order of adjournment of the regular meeting of <br />the City Council of February 18, 1958, the City Council of the <br />City of Arcadia met in regular adjourned session in the Council <br />Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. February 21, 1958, <br /> <br />PRESENT: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips, Reibold and <br />Dennis <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Mayor Dennis advised that because there had been only three <br />councilmen present at the regular council meeting of February 18, <br />1958, the Hearing on Planning Commission Resolution No. 273, <br />recommending denial of application of Carl Sugar for zone <br />variance to permit neon roof sign at 600 West Las Tunas Drive, <br />had been continued to this adjourned meeting in order to have <br />all five councilmen present. At said meeting of February 18 <br />it had been suggested that anyone present who could not return <br />to this adjourned meeting might speak and the Council could <br />listen to a tape recording of their comments. Whereupon the <br />Councilmen listened to the tape recording of the comments of <br />Messrs. Ralph D. Stogsdill, Bernie J. Birnbaum, Saul G. Seidner <br />and A. Edward Erickson, as reported in the minutes of February <br />18, 1958. <br /> <br />Mayor Dennis then asked if anyone else desired to be heard, <br />either in favor or in opposition to the application. No one <br />desiring to be heard, he then asked the City Clerk if she had any <br />communications. Whereupon the City Clerk read a communication <br />from Mrs. Marie M. Nash, 519 Las Tunas, stating in substance that <br />she was in favor of Mr. Sugar being' permitted to erect a neon <br />sign; that perhaps this is one way there would be some light on <br />a dark street. The City Clerk also read a communication from <br />Mr. T" E. Brooks, 547 Workman Avenue, that was opposed to the <br />granting of'the request for a neon sign and also complained of <br />the restaurant's flood lights on the rear of the building which <br />shone directly into his bedroom. <br /> <br />The Councilmen examined a photograph of the proposed sign, <br />inquiring as to whether it was drawn to scale, as the height <br />from the roof top to the bottom of the sign appeared to be 8' <br />when they had been of the impression that it would be four feet. <br />They were informed that the artist had made an error, that the <br />sign was to be four feet from the roof top to the bottom of the <br />sign. <br /> <br />Councilman Phillips and Councilman Camphouse questioned the <br />matter of the complaint of Mr. Brooks regarding the flood lights <br />shining into his bedroom window, commenting that it was their <br />impression that flood lights were by city ordinance required to <br />be on the property line of the owner's property and the light <br />projected toward the owner's property and not adjoining property, <br />and that if the complaint of Mr. Brooks is justified that the <br />lights should be immediately adjusted. <br /> <br />Mayor Dennis inquired if, over and above the variance, the <br />proposed sign meets all the requirements of the sign ordinance, <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />2- 21- 58 <br /> <br />/'0 <br />