06-18-1962 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 9 3 Co~uunicat ion obert S. Bar~es Amend. Appl. No. 381 L. L. and Juanita ~ onkle surrounded by several churches, a playground area, a High School, and a trailer park. Douglas Clark~ 1510 North Mar-Less Drive~ stated as we have Study 19~ which was ap~roved~by the Planning Commission, for the West Santa Ana area, south of Bolsa Avenue, there should be consistency of action~ and we should try to retain the remaining residential area. This City should make plans for the future as other cities are doing. A Master Plan, and Study 19, is a step in the right direc tion, and we need something to go on for the next 20 years. Mr. Clark pointed out the possiblility of the applicant applying for a Variance if the request for a change is denied, and stated a Variance would be as undesirable as a zone change, also, the Planning C~ission has recomended denial of this application. Ann Rigoni, 916 Tolaud Street, stated a visitor to her home informed her there ~as no reason for any objection to the zone change, and stated the reason for the objec- tion is the close pro. fruity of the High School and she does not feel the students should be subjected to commercial zoning near the school. William F. Watkins, West Toy Place, spoke in favor of the Amendment App~C&ti~n ~ and stated he had re ceived and analyzed quite thoroughly, a copy of Special Study 19 and it appeared to him it would be the same thing if he and his neighbors had prepared a Study 20 to advise the Council how to operate l?th and Bristol Streets. Mr. Watkins stated the people in the immediate area are in favor of commercial zoning on the property in question, the change would not affect the people who are objecting as they are not closeby, and c~mmercial zoning has a tendency to increase the value of surrounding property. Lloyd ~nsley, 4209 West Flight Avenue, speaking also Delbert W. Michael, 917 S~th Toland Street, who wes unable to attend the meeting~ cc~m~ended the Planning C~mmtssion, and stated the residents are opposed to any mercial zone changes in the neighborhood as they prefer the area to r~in resi- dential, and there is a shopping center in the vicinity large enough for any neigh borhood. Mr. Jensen stated Study 19 has its merits, but it is a blanket study. Regarding the intersection, it is not suitable for residential purposes, no one adjacent to or near the property in question has offered any opposition to the posed commercial zoning. Mrs. Rlgoni stated the people in favor were appro~tel 90 per cent renters who have no interest in whether or not the value of the ty increases or decreases. Mr. Watkins, and N. W. Quick, 610 South Newhope Street each stated the people in favor were predominately home owners who had been in the neighborhood longer than the individuals in opposition. Mr. Clark stated even tho~ he ~as not in the immediate vicinity of the proposed zone change, he felt that everyone should take an interest in the development of the City; and as far as his individual interest in the proposed zone change, he was instrumental in the annexation to the City of this particular area in 1959; and further stated there are approximately ~00 residents opposed to any zone change in this area, as the value of the residential section would decrease if apartmentm or c~ercial is permitted. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Brewer and carried, Amendment Application No. 388~ filed by Joe L. Serna, was denied as rec~ended the Planning Ccmmaission. C~mmmnication wa~ presented from Attorney Robert S. Barnes rec~m,,ending approval of Amendment Application No. 381, filed by L. L. and Juanita Conkle, amending Sec- tional District Map 16-5-10, to reclassify from the A-1 District to the R-3 and C-1 Districts, property at the northeast corner of Verano and Sugar Streets, all