|
William Mo Todd, 1~87~ WoodBury Drive, Orange, on behalf of the applicant,
<br />requested that the rezoning be granted because Of hardship to applicant caused
<br />by 62~ higher taxes in 1964 o He stated that equitable prices had been offered
<br />hcme OWners for their property in order that they could Buy comparable property
<br />elsewhere; that it is difficult to get lessees without the evidence of proper
<br />zoning. He also described the advantages of the location in relation to the
<br />freeways, stating that the opposition majority is not located within the
<br />developmental pattern and would probably not be affected for another five or
<br />ten years o Mr. Todd expressed regret that he could not present a written
<br />financial commitment to Co~ucil, and introduced Earold Gereton, 1030 No Harbor,
<br />Fullerton, a real estate broker, who stated he ccasidered the proposed develop-
<br />ment ideally suited for the location, and a firm had been found to do the
<br />financing But o~ly an oral c~mmitment was available without the resorting.
<br />
<br />Ralph G. 0rum, 2733 N. Flower, speaking unofficially for residents living between
<br />~ristol, Flower~ Memory Lane~ dud Orange Road, recalled the petition presented
<br />to Co~ucil at the last hearing with 100% signatures of that area~ and read the
<br />statement in the petition protesting encroachment into the residential area,
<br />increased traffic, loss of Business downtown, and overshadowing of the area by
<br />the high rise buildings, and the applicant's refusal to establish a buffer°
<br />He quoted from Mr. Tocld's literature, which described the possibility of a tall
<br />edifice which, when lighted at night, appeared to float in the sky and could Be
<br />seen for five miles; stating that this would affect the hames to the south.
<br />Mr° Crum stated that Mr. Todd had failed to follow the Cou~cil's instructions
<br />to contact people in the area. He concluded that the area is strictly residential
<br />for ten Blocks; that the response to the new Buffer homes in the area is very
<br />good; that the applicant was asking for a variance Before he has a zone change;
<br />that the ~evelopment would detract fr~a the attempt to Build up downtow~ Santa
<br />And an~ southern Santa Ama areas, that rezoning of the 9~ acres only is Being
<br />considered and on that amount of land there would be no room for such large
<br />buildings.
<br />
<br />W. W. Morningstar, 27~9 N. Flower, supported Mr. Crum's statement, adding the
<br />State had paid To~d $83;000 for access to the north and left him with 231 feet
<br />on Bristol.
<br />
<br />W. E. Van Riper, 2902 ~ernwood Drive, stated that on December 31, 1~6~ the Board
<br />of the Villa de Flores Homeowners Association~ of which he is Vice President,
<br />decided that since no effort ha~ been made by the applicant to explain his
<br />thinking and no indication of financial responsibility ha~ Been me~e, that the
<br />Backing of the group should not be given. A protest was circulate~ ~anuary 2,
<br />1~6~, and 72% signed, requesting denial, and in the event of approval that
<br />Buffer ~e required and ~dscaping and cul-de-sac Be completed on Orange Road.
<br />Mr. Morningstar read the petition's statement, and on motion of Councilman
<br />HuBbar~ seconded by Councilman Schluetar and carried, the petition was ordered
<br />filed o
<br />
<br />Raymond Ball, 2755 N. Flower, unofficially speaking for Dr. Crum's group,
<br />s,,-a-rized previous action and petitioue received, and mentioned the years of
<br />expense Borne by residents to build up their property, statiu~ that firm
<br />evidence of financial backing should have Been shown, with at least a letter.
<br />of intention. Richard Easter, 2720 Freeman Lane, protested that the Beautiful
<br />view of mountains would be destroyed by a high rise development. Burr Campbell,
<br />~720 1~o Olive Lane, Realtor, also spoke in protest.
<br />
<br />~n rebuttal, Mr. To~d stated that in the Master Plan the area was tentatively
<br />zoned retail commercial; that reference to sales in ~estwood Estates was unfounded
<br />as the property was recently sold in lieu of foreclosure; that a buffer zone
<br />would Be acceptable if development were not required ~mmediately~ and that there
<br />would be underground access and par~g entirely. There Being no l'~rther
<br />testimony, the hearing was closed.
<br />
<br />Upon question by Counci~=-~ Gilmore, Will Teeter, Assistant Planuer, stated that
<br />the access on Bristol was By easement owne~ By State and he did not know if it
<br />had been declared surplus. Mr. Todd stated he felt it would be on request by
<br />City.
<br />
<br />CIT~ COUNCIL - 137 - January ~, 1965
<br />
<br />
<br />
|