04-05-1965 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners as required by law on March 25~ 1965; that no communications other than from the Planning Commission had been received. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried, Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. HEARING - Hearing was opened on Amendment Application AMEND~ APP~ 5~0 540 filed by Co W. Todd proposing the amendment of Sectional District Map ~6-4~10 by reclassifying from A i to the C 4 and LP districts, property on the east side of Bristol between Memory Lane and Garden Grove Freeway° Planning Commission Resolution 5725 recommended denial. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was published in The Register onMarch l~, 1965 and that no written communications had been filed. William Mo Todd, representing the applicant~ stated that the proposed plans were the only reasonable usage of the land; that because of the location near the freeways and frontage on Bristol~ it was undesirable as residential property. He reviewed a questionnaire he had sent to homeowners, 25 of which had been returned~ indicating that 21 were members of the Homeowners~ Association; that 77.~ of the 21 stated they had been unable to vote on the issue at an association meeting; 95% returning the forms favored commercial zoning on their own property; 8~% would sign petitions now for com~ercial zoning~ with only 5% indicating opposition to the requested zoning. Mr. Todd then recited to Council the questions he had asked. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried~ Council ordered filed Mr~ Todd~s report. Raymond Co Ball, 2755 N. Flower~ spokesman for residents in area bounded by Flower, Bristol, Memory Lane and Orange Road, reviewed the petitions in opposition already filed and past efforts he and Dr o Crum had made, noting that he was appearing for the fourth time. He expressed concern over the limited ingress and egress constituting a traffic hazard; urged opposition to commercial zoning and suggested an ad hoc committee headed by the Planning Director and representatives from both sides° Robert Gardner~ 1048 Fairbrook Lane, President of the Villa de Flores Home- oMners Assoco, stated that 95~ of the members favored C 4 development~ but wished to see it done on a sounder basis than that proposed, and suggested a feasibility study. Mr. Gardner then read the heading of a petition signed by 65 members indicating that 5~ disapproved and 12 approved granting of the rezon- ingo On motion of Councilman Hubbard~ seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried~ Council ordered the petition filed. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Harvey and carried, Council denied the reclassification. HEARING ~ Hearing was opened on Amendment Application AMEND~ APPo 5~8 5~8 filed by Lido Construction proposing the amendment of Sectional District Map 4-5-9 by reclassifying from the R 4 to the R i district, property on the north side of Santa Clara between Tustin and the Santa Ana Freeway° Planning Commission Resolution 5727 recommended approval of Exhibit AA 5~8 ~. The Clerk reported that notice of the hearing was published in The Register on Narch l~, 1965 and that no written communications had been received. There being no testimony~ the hearing was closed° On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried, Council approved the reclassification and instructed the City Attorney to prepare an amending ordinance according to Exhibit AA 5S8 Ao CITY COUNCIL - 2o5 - April 5, 1965