|
the east and west sides of Ritchey between Newport and Edinger. Planning C~mmls-
<br />sion Resolution 5658 recomm~aded denial without prejudice. The Clerk reported
<br />that notice of the hearing was published in The Register on November 16, 1969,
<br />and that no written c~-..~uications or objections had been received.
<br />
<br />Dale Heinly, 611 W. 8th Street, representing property owners Wynn, Borchards,
<br />Snows, Bullocks, Goulds~ and Missler, stated that the request was for pre-zoning
<br />of an area not yet in the city; that it could be developed in the County or in
<br />another city; and that applicants would concur with a staff recommendation for
<br />continuance until submission of the General Plan Progress Report.
<br />
<br />On motion of Councilman Harvey, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried,
<br />Council continued the hearing to January 20, 1964, 7:30 p.m., in the Council
<br />Chamber, 217 North Main Street.
<br />
<br />HEARING - Vice Mayor Hubbard opened the hearing
<br />AMEND. APP. ~1 on Amendment Application ~81 filed
<br />CASE SWAYNE CO. by Case Swayne Company, Inc., to
<br /> reclassify property from the R 2 to
<br />the M 1 District on the north side of Palm between Wright and Mabury Streets.
<br />Planning Commission Resolution 5659 recommended approval of Exhibit A.A. 481-A.
<br />The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was published in The Register on
<br />November 16, 1965, and that no written communications or objections had been
<br />received.
<br />
<br />William Wenke, 2014 N. Broadway, attorney for the applicant, stated that the
<br />c~m~any was unable to obtain a loan because of the non-conforming use; that under
<br />present ordinances, if major repair work were needed, c~y is hindered on the
<br />basis of assessed valuation; and it is necessary to protect sizable investment
<br />that employs large number of people and has been in operation long before there
<br />were any homes in the area.
<br />
<br />Claude M. Hunter, 1654 E. 4th Street, presented a petition in opposition from
<br />about 73 property owners in the area. On motion of Councilman Harvey, seconded
<br />by Councilman Gilmore and carried, Council received and ordered filed the petition.
<br />Mr. Hunter stated tbmt the applicant's legal description was vague as to the
<br />area to be reclassified and cited as reasons for denying the application, the
<br />possibility of expansion by the company, around-the-clock operation of the busi-
<br />ness, possible sale to any M 1 industry, excessive noise and odors, all of which
<br />would devaluate property values in the neighborhood.
<br />
<br />W. G. Statemen, 308 N. ~Jright, spoke in opposition, submitting four pictures
<br />showing traffic congestion and improper purking by trucks in the area. On motion
<br />of Councilman Harvey, seconded by Councilman Gilmore and carried, the pictures
<br />were received and ordered filed. Mrs. Mason, 16~4 E. Palm, also spoke in opposition
<br />noting lack of parking.
<br />
<br />Mr. Wenke cited the Cai Compack Company rezoning to M 1 as setting a precedent
<br />for this case. Amos Swayne, 19241 Canyon Drive, Orange, stated that his company
<br />had no plans to expand as there was insufficient land to do so, and that
<br />improvements would be interior only. There being no further testimony, the hear-
<br />ing was closed.
<br />
<br />On motion of Councilman Harvey, seconded by Councilman Gilmore and carried, Council
<br />approved the reclassification and instructed the City Attorney to prepare an
<br />amending ordinance according to E~hibit A.A. ~81-A.
<br />
<br />HEARING - Vice Mayor Hubbard opened the hearing
<br />APPEAL 105 continued frem November 18, 196B on
<br />V.A. 18~2, GONZ~LW~ Appeal 105 filed by Louis E. Gonzales
<br /> from the Planning Commission' s denial
<br />of Variance Application 18~2 to operate a drive-in food service at 2~28 W. McFadden
<br />in the R 2 District.
<br />
<br />C~TF COUNCIL - 260 - December 2, 1963
<br />
<br />
<br />
|