02-17-1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OPPONE~2S' Nathan W. Tarr~ 902 E. Avalon, spoke in TESTIMONY opposition, stating no hardship had been proved by the proponent as required by the Municipal Code since the property is owned in fee by the Rohr family~ w~s leased to Bellehurst Apartments subject to existing zoning with fixed rental, provided however that the owner would assist in obtaining rezoning if desired by lessee; and based on decision in Minnie vs. Azusa~ self induced hardship is not hardship referred to in Code. Mr. Tarr stated brochure introduced by applicant setting forth tax advantage was immaterial and should not be considered as evidence. At the request of Mr. Tarr and on motion of Councilmau Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried~ petitions filed by protestants in preceding hearing were received and filed as part of this hearing. Mr. Tarr stated Mr. ~runer's testimony regarding econOmic hardship was opinion of person directly involved based on hearsay testimony of others not present for cross examination; stated also that area is already adequately buffered. Walter L. Harwoed~ 2110 Santiago, an appraiser with a loan institution and resident of area, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that devaluation of surrounding properties would be frOm two to three thousand dollars, citing an example in Tustin, and stated assessed valuations were used in brochure and are not considered evidence of actual market value. He also stated it will be harder to obtain financing in area if this proposal is granted. The following property o~ners also spoke in opposition: Mrs. O. A. Budlong, 1006 E. Catalina; K. W. Jacobs~ 915 E. Avalon; Mrs. E. R. Siegfried~ 1201 E. Avalon; E. H. West~z~er, 622 E. 20th; Gail Whittesey, 253~ Santiago; Albert H. Jones, 910 E. Santa Clara; Harold Craig, 806 E. Catalina; noting number of hOmes selling o~ B~ffalo for $36,000; that sOme apartments mentioned by pro- ponents are sold and not rentals; that apartments shown are not on same sectional district map and not in vicinity of proposal; that increased revenue frOm taxes would be offset by services required; that proposal is for ten acres out of forty leaving possibility of more apartment development; t~at in experience of Mr. Albert Jones employed by Orange County in appraisal field, deva~_~,-tion of surro~n~ing properties has occured following apartment develop- ~ent. STAFF REPORT The Plamuing Director reviewed action of the pIA~i~g C~m~,.lgsio~, which denied application because there were no special circumstances, no denial of substantial property right, amd because they felt that this was one of the few prime R 1 areas remaining in the city. REBUTTAL Mr. Rickles claimed hardship applied to property iselfs not owner; that devaluatioa of surrounding R 1 property may occur in isolated areas, but not generally; that n,~,~m~ers of oppomeats or propOments is not proper criteria; that same architect has beea engaged as for projects shown; that staff c~!~ents dated November 11, 196~ (read by Mr. Rickles) expressed belief application would represent land uae chauge and no rec~-,mendation was made; that special circ~astances do exist because ten acre, squsre parcel made R 1 design almost impo?sible,~ and at prohibitive per lot cost. A layout for R 1 development at $29,575 per lot was received and ordered filed on motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Council- ma~ Schlueter and carried. Mr. Craig pointed out per lot cost was ~ased on amortization of lease and that develolxaents shown were all over o~e mile from subject property. There bei~ no further testimo~F, the hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Harvey, that the City Council uphold the action of the Planming C?..~ssion and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Variance Application 18B4. On roll CITT COUNCIL - 323 - February 17, 196~