Laserfiche WebLink
<br />16:6668 <br /> <br />the contents of a brochure which had been distributed to the City <br />Council setting forth in detail the proposed development. He stated <br />in part that the units would contain between 1900 and 3000 sq. ft. <br />and would sell for from $34,000 to $49,000 and was of the opinion <br />that the development would act as a buffer between commercial and <br />residential in the area; that about 50 buyers were awaiting its <br />construction which must start within one year if approved; that <br />about $25,000 has thus far been expended by the owner; that it is <br />not a speculative venture and that upon reviewing the minutes of the <br />Commission he had not noticed any opposition indicated. <br /> <br />Emanual Cooper, 542 and 602 Fairview Avenue, favored the development; 1 <br />that in his opinion the City is destined to grow and that the City , <br />should do all possible to attract an affluent type of tenant; and <br />that in his opinion the subject proposal would stimulate the <br />improvement of other vacant land. <br /> <br />Jack Stone, 503 W. Duarte Road, stated in part that he has favored <br />every project during the last 24 years which would benefit the City <br />and asked approval of this request for a zone variance. <br /> <br />Mrs. William Barton, 518 Fairview Avenue, expressed the opinion that <br />the separate building should not be 180 feet in length. <br /> <br />Vincent Isaacson, representing the lending institution, Prudential <br />Savings and Loan Association, indicated favorable action on the part <br />of the financing agency should the zone variance be granted: <br /> <br />No one else desiring to be heard, it was MOVED by Councilman Turner, <br />seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously that the <br />hearing be CLOSED. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued on the code requirements pertaining to such <br />development and the Councilmen set forth individual views as follows: <br /> <br />Councilman Forman explored the rezoning of areas of high rise con- <br />struction during the time he was a member of the Planning Commissio~; <br />and stated in part that from studying a chart it is indicated that <br />75 - 80 percent of the land use in the City is single family residence <br />which has been the character of the City, and because there is land, <br />yet to be developed under the R-3 zoning for high rise apartments he <br />was of the opinion that the present time is premature for high rise <br />condominium apartments especially in areas not so zoned; he added <br />that although the renderings are excellent and the land use good the <br />City might face experiences such as those reflected in national <br />publications concerning the difficulties encountered in inducing <br />persons to purchase such apartments; that in his opinion the City is <br />not ready for this type of development. <br /> <br />Mayor Reibold expressed concern that if the Commission denied the I <br />application because it did not believe in high rise development then <br />it was not following the already established policy of the City <br />Council and that this in his opinion would be sufficient reason for <br />appeal; that the City Council should not concern itself with the <br />financial difficulties of a developer; that if a person is willing to <br />gamble his money then all the City Council has to do is to give him <br />the chance to make the investment. <br /> <br />Councilman Turner stated in part that he favors high rise development <br />where indicated to be economically feasible and would be of benefit <br />to the City; that in his opinion the subject property is as near the <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />11-2-65 <br />