|
~lr. Rick. les read frcu the D. D. Hillyard engineering report a statement that
<br />the ~ost logical use of the property would be suburban apartment dwellings;
<br />noted that R i develol~ent would result in homes of $40,000 in an area where
<br />average value is $18,000.
<br />
<br />Mr. Riekles displayed a drawing of the proposed architectural design of ~ units
<br />to appear as a large single hame and submitted a petition bearing approx~--tely
<br />~2 signatures favoring the rezonin~; On motion of Councilman Eubbard, seconded
<br />'by Councilman Schlueter and carried, the petition was received and ordered
<br />filed.
<br />
<br /> OPPONENTS Nathan Tart, 90S E. Avalon,
<br /> TESTIMONY representing s~,~- property owners
<br /> opposing the rezoning, referred to
<br /> Section 9~5 of the Santa Aaa
<br />Municipal 0o4~, stating that public necessity, convenience and welfare must be
<br />affected befOre a zoning cha-_-e could be initiated, requirements which he felt
<br />ware not met. Mr. Tart questionei whether proper notice of the hearing had been
<br />given, an~ accepted Counei~m-n Eabbard's explanation that there are alternative
<br />methods of notifying l~COperty owners, and one of these had been met;
<br />
<br />Eerwin ~acobs, 915 E. Avalon, ~escribed the area with the aid of charts, point-
<br />ing out buffers established by the COuncil between the R 1 area and Guaranty.
<br />ChevrOlet, and referred to a Pla-~tng Department report of 1960 which he felt
<br />refuted moat of Mr. Rick. les' contentions.
<br />
<br />Walter Earwood, 2110 Santiago, stated that he had been an appraiser for twelve
<br />years an~, in his opinion, apartment ~evelo~ment in an R 1 zone devaluates the
<br />R 1 properties; cited Buffalo Street houses at $~0,000 as an example that R 1
<br />development is feasible in the area.
<br />
<br />Walter Neubrander, 1202 E. 3uffalo, with graphs of vacancy rates in Santa Aaa
<br />for apartments an~ single homes, indicated shortage of single hcmes available
<br />conpared to apartments.
<br />
<br />Gene Westmyer, 20th and Santiago, expressed fear that approval of this develop-
<br />merit would lead to other apartments. Also. speaking in opposition were Mrs.
<br />john Madden, 2ll~ Poinsettia; Clark Bertram, 2405 N. Hathaway Lane; Robert
<br />l~udson, 120~ E. Avalon; and Mrs. Russell Macy, 1720 Santiago.
<br />
<br />A. H. Jones, 910 E. Santa Clara, expressed doubt that increased assessed values
<br />of apartment develolmzent would offset increase in governmental services. Howard
<br />Parker, 702 E. Santa Clara, commented on traffic problems that would result
<br />from R ~ development.
<br />
<br />Richard segerblom, 923 E. Jonquil Road, quoted Planning Department regarding
<br />community pride encouraged by individ,,~ home ownership. Harry Craig, 806
<br />E. Catalina, pointed out apartments referred to by Mr. Rickles are on another
<br />sectional district map and that subject property is surrounded by R 1 or R 1 B
<br />and does not ad. Join any C ~. Mrs. Janice Boer, 912 N. Lowell, commented on
<br />owners in southeast desiring rezoning for apartments, and the lack of high grade
<br />R 1 area.
<br />
<br /> P~UTTAL Mr. Rickles interpreted Santa Aha
<br /> Municipal Code Section 9255 regarding
<br /> public necessity, convenience, and
<br /> welfare to apply to the Council or
<br />C~-..~sion initiating proceedings on their own motions and not to verified
<br />applications. He noted the project is economically sound or the lending
<br />agencies would not approve; noted that responsible persons live in apartments
<br />as well as single homes; cited the apartment development at Warner and Raitt
<br />as being surrounded by R 1. There being no further testimony, the hearing was
<br />closed.
<br />
<br />CITY COUNCIL - 392 -
<br />
<br />May 21, ].964
<br />
<br />
<br />
|