11/06/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M.:r..M.Qh:r .,caJ,l,~d-:attention to Councilman Williams' . request to speak regardless of the conflict of interest. Councilmen Hershner and Teague and Mayor Anderson re- ported they had the same conflict. - Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Teague to refer ~he rezoning request to a joint session of the Planning Commission and Council. Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr, Campbell, Bradshaw voting aye; Councilmen McDonald and. ** Beal voting no~*Councilmen Teague, Williams, and Hershner abstaining. ** Corrected - See Council minutes December 11, 1972. 3. East 6f Belt Line north 0atalina Street and west of Echo Hollow Road from RA to R-2 (Trans Western Investors) Planning Commission recommended denial October 3, 1972. Jim Saul, Planning staff, showed slides of the surroUnding area and explained the Planning Commission's recom- mendation for denial based on General Plan's low density for this area, impact of its development on Echo Hollow Road and the pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and the feeling that R-2 density would be excessive. I Ray Ackerman, 2930 Alder Street, speaking for Bethel School District; Eric Haws, 564 Sierra; and J. H. Sorensen, 4300 Avalon; opposed the rezoning because of anticipated increase in school enrollment, narrow roads and safety of school children. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to deny the rezoning to R-2. Mot~on carried unanimously. e F. Sign Code Amendment Recommended by the Planning Commission October 9, 1972 to allow separate identity signs under certain conditions when several businesses are located at one site. Copies of the amendment were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Saul explained that problems have been encountered by small businesses located in interior portions of shopping areas who do not feel they have sufficient identification. There is no way of identifying a building within a complex under current regulations for street signs. The proposed amendment would provide an option to use combined limited identity signs from the street and still retain wall signs on individual establishments. In answer to questions from Council members with regard to whether interested people were aware of the amendment, Mr. Saul said the sign inspector has been receiving com- plaints from merchants and the Sign Code Board of Appeals is aware the amendment is being considered. Public hearings were conducted before the Planning Commission. C()Uncil.Bill No. 114 - Amending Section 8.640 (a) 4. Outlying Commercial District re: Identity Signs was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill with unanimous consent of the Council be read twice by council bill number and title only, approved, and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, . the bill was read twice by council bill number and title only, given final passage, and numbered 16652. G. Annexation - Area north of Green Acres Road, west of Gilham Road (K.Ray Barnes) Planning Commission recommended denial October 24, 1972 because addition of this area to the City would create an island, there are no sewer problems in the island area at this time, a petition protesting the annexation was received, and sewer service for the annexed area would have to be extended across the unincorporated area. Boundary Com- mission has considered the request and postponed action until a recommendation is re- ceived from the City. Council members previously viewed the property on tour. Walter Sands, 1121 Balboa Street; Willis Beebe, 123 Holly Avenue; Joan Youngs 1128 Balboa Street; and Dan McCornack, 225 Holly Avenue opposed annexation of the Barnes property, saying it would create traffic problems, facilities should be available first, the planned development of the ,property would increase too much the density of the entire Cal Young area, overcrowd schools, and desire of "island" residents to come into the City at their own request. Ray Barnes, petitioner, said he was requesting the annexation as the only way to gain sewers thereby enabling development of the property. He argued that a".trunk sewer is - available to the area and addition of the property would increase the taxable value of the City. He asked annexation of the petitruoned area alone, with the understanding ~ that the "island" area would not be annexed until residents of that area petition for annexation. Mr. Sands said it was his understanding that the. trunk sewer referred to was installed for a trailer park being developed, and added that residents of the island area do not want additional planned developments with the resulting increased traffic surrounding them. 32.8 11/6/72 - 6