|
475
<br />
<br />was introduced, ccasidered and placed on file for second reading. Councilman
<br />
<br />Hearing
<br />Amendment Appl. No. 388
<br />Joe L. Serna
<br />
<br />Brewer voted no.
<br />
<br />This being the date set for hearing on Amendment Application No. 388, filed by Joe
<br />L. Serna, amending Sectional District Map 16-5-10, to reclassify from the R-2 Dis-
<br />trict to the C-1 District, property at the northwest corner of Newhope Street and
<br />
<br />McFadden (Sugar) Avenue with approximately 230 feet of Newhope Street frontage and
<br />apprcxtmatel~ 160 feet of McFadden Avenue frontage, all as shown on Exhibit A.A.
<br />388A; c~mmication was presented from Ralph Jensen, Harry Tancredi Co., requeStin
<br />
<br />postpo~ament until June 18, 1962. Upon the written request of the applicant, and
<br />
<br />motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Brewer and carried, the hearing was con-
<br />
<br />C~ -am~nication
<br />Carl Arthofer
<br />Amend. Appl. No. 382
<br />Ralph J. Cover
<br />
<br /> tinued until She next meeting.
<br />
<br />C~nication was presented from Carl Arthofer, 218h Harbor Boulevard, requesting
<br />reconsideration of Amendment Application No. B82, filed by Ralph J. Cover, amending
<br />Sectional District Map 16-5-10, to reclassify from the R-2 and A-1 Districts to the
<br />R-3 and C-1 Districts, property at the northeast corner of Sugar (McFadden) Avenue
<br />
<br />and Newhope Street (a parcel approximately h37 feet on Sugar Avenue by 371 feet on
<br />Newhope Street, which was denied by Council May 18, 1962. Carl Arthofer, 218~ Har-I
<br />bor Boulevard, stated he owned a portion of the property in question and was re-
<br />questing C-1 and R-B; also an individual is being denied the r~ht to conduct a
<br />
<br />business, and this would be an ideal location for a small business, which would up-
<br />
<br />grade the neighborhood. Mr. Arthofer further stated there were a number of people
<br />
<br />in the audience who had not been notified of the hearing date and desired to be
<br />
<br />heard at this time. William F. Wakeham, 2622 West Toy Place, stated small business.
<br />
<br />es near residential sections were an asset, and would be consistent with the future
<br />
<br />development of the City. Lloyd Kinsley, 4209 West Flight Avenue, stated the plan-
<br />
<br />ning Commission adopted an excellent plan for this area; the residents are in acco~
<br />
<br />with it and feel it should be carried out. Joe L. Serna, 4~29 West Sugar Avenue,
<br />
<br />stated this would be an ideal location for a shopping center, and almost all of the
<br />
<br />tracts now reserve a portion of the laud for shopping centers. Ben Munoz, 4801
<br />
<br />Sugar Avenue, stated there are expensive homes in the area, and favored businesses
<br />
<br />at this location. N.W. Quick, 610 South Newhope Street, stated the majority ~of
<br />the people opposed to commercial or R-4 zoning are newto the area, and the'10ng
<br />
<br />time residents are aware of the increased revenue to the City from taxes:and favor
<br />the commercial or R-4 zoning. Mrs. Douglas Clark, 15lO North Mar-Less Drive,
<br />
<br />stated if 25 people are in favor and ~00 against, which ones are going to be heard.
<br />
<br />Arturo Mirano, 630 South Corta Drive, stated a shopping center has Just been com-
<br />
<br />pleted on Edinger Avenue and is nearby, and questioned the purpose of making a City
<br />
<br />plan if it is net going to be adhered to. Delbert W. Michael, 917 South Toland
<br />
<br />Street, stated o~e of the reasons presented in favor of the commercial zoning Was
<br />
<br />difficulty, due to traffic, in reaching the shopping centers in other locations,
<br />
<br />and he disagrees with this as he has no difficulty reaching the shopping center~.
<br />
<br />Hearing closed. On motion of Cou~e~lm-u Hubbard, seconded by Brewer and carried,
<br />
<br />the request for reconsideration on Amendment Application No. 382, filed by Ralph J.
<br />Cover, was denied, and the previous decision of the Council, denying the Applicatio$,
<br />was upheld.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|