Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-12-06MINUTES OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers,.Civic=�eAter Huntington Beach, California 1 NOTE: A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING14 , ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1966 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:- Miller, Worthy, Bazil,'Lawson, Royer. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:` Tom, Larkin MINUTES: On motion by Worthy and seconded by Miller, the Minutes of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission of November 1, 1966, were accepted as tran- scribed and mailed by the Secretary. TENTATIVE -TRACT MAP NO. 6117 - EXTENSION OF TIME SUBDIVIDER: - Shields Developm6nt The Secretary read a letter submitted by Robert Gulino, representing the subdivider, requesting a 4 one year extension of time on Tentative Tract Map No. 6117. The Subdivision Committee Report was read by the Secretary. ,- Larry Shields, applicant addressed the Commission and gave his reasons for the request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WORTHY AND SECONDED y I BY LAWSON TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME ON TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6117 UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of this Tentative Map shall be null and void unless UV #66-64 is approved by the City Council. 2. All provisions of Article 998 shall be complied with. 3. All conditions of approval of,the previously approved tentative map shall be complied with. ROLL CALL VOTE:, AYES: Miller, Worthy, Bazil, Lawson, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: Larkin, Tom. THE MOTION CARRIED. USE VARIANCE_ NO. 66-64 Applicant - Shields Developm6nt To permit the following; 1. 46 ft. and 54 ft. right-of-way streets as indicated on TT. 6117. , 12/6/66. Page No. 2 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. 2. 10 ft.,minimum front yard setbacks for fences not over six ft. in height and for garages with a side approach. 3. A minimum 3 ft. side yard on one side of a lot provided the abutting side yard is not less than 5 ft. 4. A 15 ft. minimum roar yard setback on irregular shaped lots and on other lots only where a front patio is provided. 5. Lots in each block to average 60 ft. in width with 6,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Minimum lot will not be less than 50 ft. in width, with 5,000 sq, ft. of lot area, 6. 45 ft. property line radius on oul-de- sacs, with 40 ft. curb return radius on cul-de-sacs. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. The hearing was opened to the audience. Larry Shields, applicant, addressed the Commission and explained the proposal. There being no other comment the hearing was closed. ' A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY ROYER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF USE VARIANCE NO. 66-64 TO THE CITY COUNCIL UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. All streets shall comply with standards proposed by the Depart- ment of Public Works and approved by both the Planning Commis- sion (August 3, 1965) and City Council, (September 7, 1965• 2. The minimum front yard shall be 10 ft. except the minimum front yard for garages entered directly from the street shall be 22 ft. This condition of approval is not general in nature and a precise plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall delineate the house location, on each lot. 3. A tree, equivalent to a 30 inch box tree, as approved by the Park Supervisor, shall be planted in the front yard of each lot and in the exterior side yard of each corner lot. 4. The minimum lot frontage shall not be less than 50 ft. wide with 5000 sq. ft. of lot area. An average lot width of 60 ft. of frontage with 6000 sq. ft. of lot area shall be provided for each six contiguous lots in a block. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Worthy, Bazil, Lawson, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: Larkin, Tom. THE MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONER TOM: Commissioner Tom arrived at 7:40 P.M. and assumed his duties, -2- 12/6/66. Page No. 3 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. COMMISSIONER LARKIN: Commissioner Larkin arrived at 7:44 P.M. and assumed his duties. USE VARIANCE NO. 66-65 Applicant '- Shields Development To permit the construction of a medical - dental complex and a small convenience - type shopping center in R-A residential Agricultural District. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. The hearing was opened to the audience. Larry Shields, applicant, addressed the Commission and gave his reasons for the request, Dick Schlegher, representing Shields Development, addressed the Commission and distributed drawings of the proposal. �. There being no other comment, the hearing was closed. Commission discussion was,held. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 66-65 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Yorktown Avenue and Brookhurst Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to City Standards. Improvements shall include street -trees, street signs, and street lights. 2. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water'system. 3. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system. 4. The`property'shall participate in the local drainage assessment district. 5. Preliminary and final soil reports shall be submitted by an approved private soils engineer to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. 'All utilities shall be installed underground.. =.7. The water, sewer, and fire hydrant system shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. 8. Fire alarm system conduit and appurtenances shall be installed by the developer at locations and to specifications provided by the Fire Department. 9. Off-street parking facilities including landscaping., arrange- ment, access, paving and striping shall conform to Article 979- Parking for the medical -professional building shall be redesigned for one point of ingress and egress. Said design shall be approved by the Planning Department. 10. No structures, other than those shown on the approved plot plan, shall be'constructed within the project. -3- 12/6/66. Page No. 4 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. 11. A minimum 50 ft. building setback shall be maintained along Yorktown Avenue and Brookhurst Street. 12. A 10 ft. side yard setback shall be maintained along the west property line. AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Soil problems exist on the subject property. 2. The proposed construction will back up to an existing trailer park. 3. The parcel is not suitable for R1 construction because of its size. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6322 - Continued Applicant - Robert Raab The Sub division Committee Report was read by the Secretary. Robert Galloway, engineer for the developer addressed the Commission and stated that there were no objections to the conditions suggested by the Subdivision Committee except conditions # 4 and #5 pertaining to the required street widths. Commission discussion was held. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6322 UPON THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS AS AMENDED: 1. The Tentative Map received October 14, 1966, shall be the approved layout. 2. Approval of this Tentative Map shall be null and void unless UV #66-58 is approved by the City Council. 3. The "Not A Part" Parcel shall be included in the subdivision and -given a lot number or a division of land application shall be submitted to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. 4. Kenyon Lane shall be-60 ft. wide. 5. "A" Circle, "H" Street and "F" Circle shall be 50 ft. wide. 6. All public streets shall comply with City Standards. 7. The flood control channel shall be fenced to Flood Control District Standards. 8. All utilities shall be installed underground. 9. A stub street shall be provided to the "Not A Part" parcel if said parcel remains zoned R-A or is zoned R-1 and a revised map shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval; -4- 12/6/66. Page No. 5 ,Minutes: I-I.B. Plannijig C-6imiss'--.on Tuesday, December 6, 196&� however,, if said p4i-c'e'l is zoned for.: '--, Commercial or ]Professional I use said stub street shall not be provided, 10. All "Standard C6 n-ditions-, 'of AppriovbLV' for tentative tracts that are applicable shall be complied witk: ROLL CALL 'VOTE, AYES,:, rMiller, BaZili - T 6 j ; Law". s 6A'' 1 W6' r t'b"7' NOES: Larkin,'Royer. ABSENT:' -None. THE MOTION. CARRIED. ''USE VARIANCE NO. 66-58 C'0 ntinued' Applicant Robert Raab To permit the following: I., Front yAtd,- setback , q of 10 ft. with side entry garages; 2 5000 sqft­ . minimum: Iots with 6000 sq." ft'.' lot' average; 3." 50,',ft,*.,',mi'p'al4um..;o't!,Wi'4th..With'.�60 fti, min;hum, aver ge At the setback line; 40 Street':sections. , as- . proved,by: the -- C ' 'C' ' ""I ' 8 pap 'ity ouncl -on. 6 tember 7, 1965. The St&ff-:RepQrt was read bythe Secretary. Thd hearing was opened to the,,audience. Robert Raab, appli6ant$,addressed the Commission and.gave his reasons for the request. There being no other comment the hearing was closed. A NOTION WAS MADE,BY,.LP.WSQN AND_.SECONDED BY WORTHY TO -RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF.,USE­,URIANCE NO. 66-58 TO THE CITY-COUNCIL.UPON THE'FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: All streets shall comply with,standards proj%6se,d,.by,'the, Department of Public Works ,and ,approved -by,'.both the,,,Planning Commission (August 3, 1965)'and City'Cou'ncil'(Sbptember 71 1965). 21. The minimum ' front yard. - 6hai�'. �e', iO- f t. �'-bxcppt, the.: minimum,.front yardfor garages entered dir6ctiy�trom,,jhe street shall be 22 ft. This condition of, apprqval,,is',iiot,:general in nature and a precise plan' shall be''submitted ,to -the,,Planning Department for approval prior --to' o-�,any: building , a al pr ­ I 'h "'se location on .permits-., s i& plan' shall 1 deli'n 6ate t h' e house each lot,", . 'as approved by the' 3. A tree, equivalent to-a,30 inelh'','box tree,., , Park, Supervisor;Supervisor;shall :be:plant�ed, ins the 'front, yard, of each lot and in the exterior 'side' yard'df each corner lot. --- 4. The minimum, lot, frontage,.s, ipss an, 50ft.wide with '5000 sq. ft, of,lot `area.'_ of.,.60 ft. of frontage ,with 6000 s _(�f lot -area shall be provided _ i for each six contiguous lots ''n, L a block ROLL- CALL VOTE AYES:, Miller, Bazil, Laws6n, Worthy. NOES: Larkin, Royer, Tom.` ABSENT:; - None. THE MOTION CARRIED.- -5-' 12/ - 6/ , 66. Page No. 6 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. ZONE CASE NO. 66-65 Applicant - Andrew Holtz Change of zone from R-A Residential Agricultural District to C-1 Neighborhood 'Commercial District with setback provisions. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. The hearing was opened to the audience. Robert Raab, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of the subject zone change. There being no other comment the hearing was closed, Commission discussion was held. It was the consensus to continue Zone Case No. 66-65 to February 7, 1967, with the consent of the applicant. It was agreed that the matter will be brought up for discussion at the January Study Session. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. USE PERMIT NO. 65-15 - Continued' To allow the construction of Applicant - Huntington PacificCorp` 107 apartments on 5.976 acres in the 0-1 and 0-1-0 zone. The Secretary informed the Commission that this request and Use Variance No. 66-63 apply to the same parcel of land and the public hearing should be opened on both items. The Secretary read the Staff Report for Use Permit No. 65-15 and Use Variance No. 66-63. The hearing was opened to the audience. Jack Froggatt, representing the Huntington Pacific Corp., addressed the Commission and gave his reasons for the request. hearing was closed. There being no other comment the A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 65-15 UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The plans received on November 2, 1966, and dated July 6, 1965 shall be the approved plans. 2. Ocean Avenue shall be fully improved to City and/or State Standards. Improvements shall include street trees and street lights. 3. A 3 ft. wide easement along Ocean Avenue shall be dedicated to the City for sidewalk and public utility purposes. 4. Vehicular access to Ocean Avenue shall be restricted to two driveways. Said access shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer. -6- 12/6/66. Page No. 7 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. 5. A �O ft. wide service road shall be provided adjacent to, but outside of the project for public use and improved to Depart- ment of Public Works Requirements. Improvements shall include street lights and easements for street lights shall be provided to City requirements. Said service road shall be located adjacent to the beach, at beach level, it shall not be separated from the beach by a wall or other obstruction, and it shall connect to the existing service road. 6. Pedestrian access shall be provided'to the service road at 6th and 9th Streets, or as approved by the City. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing the following: a. Location of a service road along the entire beach front. b. Points of vehicular and pedestrian access from Highway No. 1 to the beach and service road. c. Standards for improvement. 7. Two emergency ramps shall be provided to the service road at 6th and 9th Streets, or as approved by the City. 8. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system. 9. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system. 10. The water, sewer, and fire hydrant systems shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. 11. All utilities shall be installed underground. 12. Preliminary and final soil reports shall be submitted by an approved private soils engineer to the City prior -to issuance of any building permits. 13. The apartment complex shall be constructed on pilings, or in another manner approved by the City to assure protection from possible damage caused by beach erosion. Said plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and -the Building Department. 14. Off -Street parking facilities including landscaping, arrange- ment, access, paving and striping shall conform to Article 979 and requirements of the Traffic Engineer. 15. A division of land application separating the subject property from the entire parcel shall be submitted to the Board of Zoning Adjustments prior to issuance of any building permits. 16. The maximum building height shall be 35 feet. Said height shall be established from street grade. 17. A revised plot plan incorporating the foregoing conditions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 18. Items 6 & 7 shall be complied with prior to final inspection of the building. -7- 12/6/66. Page No. 8 Minutes: H.B. Planning•Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. USE VARIANCE NO. 66-63 Applicant - Huntington Pacific Corp. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LARKIN AND SECONDED BY LAWSON T& APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 66-63 WITH THE SAME CONDITION AS USE PERMIT NO. 65-15. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ZONE CASE NO. 66-55 - Continued Change of zone from R-3 Limited Applicant - Power, Inc. Multiple Family Residence District to C-4 Highway Commercial District with setback provisions. The Secretary read a letter submitted by William F. Power, requesting continuance to January 17, 1967. The hearing was opened to the audience, there being no comment the hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WORTHY AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON ZONE CASE NO. 66-55 TO JANUARY 17, 1967, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: Larkin. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. USE VARIANCE NO. 66-56 - Continued To allow the construction of Applicant - Power Inc. a 104-bed convalescent hospital in the R-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District. The Secretary read a letter submitted by -Power, Inc., requesting a continuance on Use Variance No. 66-56 to January 17,.1967. The hearing was opened to the audience, there being no comment the hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROYER AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON USE VARIANCE NO. 66-56 TO JANUARY 17, 1967, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLIQANT. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: Larkin. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -8- 12/6/66. Page No. 9 _- Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. ZONE CASE NO. 66-43 - Continued Change of zone from M-1 Light Applicant.,- Freeway Industrial Park Industrial District to C-2 Community Business District with setback provisions. The hearing was opened to the audience. Jim Croul, representing the applicant, addressed the Commisssion and spoke in favor of the subject zone case. John A. Murdy, Jr., property owner, addressed the Commission and gave his reasons for the request. There being no other comment the hear- ing was closed. Commission discussion was held at length. RESOLUTION NO. 66-43 A Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending Approval on Parcel 2 and Recommending Denial on Parcel 1 to the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-43 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-43 ON PARCEL #2 AND FURTHER RECOMMENDING DENIAL ON PARCEL #1 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: Parcel 2: -- 1. The subject property is near a regional shopping center. 2. The subject property is adjacent to a college and church. 3. Edinger Avenue serves as a natural barrier between the commercial and industrial property. Parcel 1: 1. Maintain Parcel 1 as M-1 until the Golden West College Board of Trustees submit their recommendation on the future use of the subject parcel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: Tom, Bazil, Larkin ABSENT: None. THE -RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. RECESS CALLED Chairman Bazil called a recess at 10:00 P.M. COMMMISSION RECONVENED: The Commission reconvened at 10:20 P.M. ZONE CASE NO. 66-64 Change of zone from R-A Applicant - Central Baptist Church Residential Agricultural District to R-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence Dist. The Secretary stated that the Staff recommends approval of Zone Case No. 66-64 because the rezoning was made a condition of approval on Use Variance No. 847 by the Planning Commission. The hearing was opened to the audience, there being no comment the hearing was closed. -9- 12/6/66. Page No. 10 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. RESOLUTION NO. 66-64 A Resolution of the City Planning Commis- sion Recommending Approval of Zone Case No. 66-64 to the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-64 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-64 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. This zone change conforms to the Master Flan of Land Use and was required as a condition of approval for use Variance No. 84 AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. ZONE CASE NO.66-63 RESOLUTION OF INTENT Change of zone from C-2 Community Business District to C-4 Highway Commercial District with setback provisions. Floyd Belsito, Associate Planner, addressed the Commission and made a presentation on the subject zone case. The hearing was opened to the audience, there being no comment the hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 66-63 A Resolution of the City Planning Com- mission Recommending Approval of Zone Case No. 66-63 to the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-63RECOMNENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-63 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: Bazil ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. ZONE CASE NO. 66-61 Change of zone from: RESOLUTION OF INTENT 1. R-A Residential Agricultural District to C-4 Highway Commercial District with setback provisions; 2. C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District to C-4 Highway Commercial District with setback provisions; 3. R-A Residential Agricultural District to R-3 Limited Multiple Family Reside District; 4. R-1 Single Family Residence District, and M-1 Light Industrial District to R-2 Two Family Residence District; 5. R-A Residential Agricultural District, R-1 Single Family Residence District and C-2 Community Business District to R-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District; 6. C-2 Community Business District to C-4 Highway Commercial District with setback provisions. -10- 12/6/66. Page No. 11 Minutes: T.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. Floyd Belsito, Associate Planner, addressed the Commission and made a presentationon the proposal. The hearing was opened to the audience. The following property owners addressed the Commission and spoke against the proposed zone change: John"Leary, 615 S. Flower Street, Santa Ana, William -Carlson, 18080 Beach Blvd., City, and Mr. Peterson, City. - There being no other comment the hearing was closed*. RESOLUTION NO. 66-61 A Resolution of.the City -Planning Commission Recommending Approval of Zone Case No. 66-61 on Sub Items l-, 2, 3, 4, and 6 and Recommending Denial on Sub Item 5 to the City Council'. A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-61 RECOMMENDING -APPROVAL OF ZONE'CASE NO. 66-61 ON SUB ITEM #1 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. To implement the Master Plan of Land Use., ROLL CALL VOTE: - AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom,-Worthy,.Royer.. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: Lawson. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM AND SECONDED BY LARKIN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-61 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO 66-61 ON SUB ITEM 2 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. To implement the Master Plan of Land Use. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Worthy, Royer, Lawson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. A MOTION WAS MADE Bx TOM AND SECONDED BY LARKIN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-61 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-61 ON SUB ITEM #3 TO T E CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. To implement the Master Plan of Land Use. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Worthy, Royex, Lawson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WORTHY AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-61 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-61 ON SUB ITEM #4 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. To implement the Master Plan of Land Use. -11- 12/6/66. Page No. 12 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-61 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-61 ON SUB ITEM #5 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. The property owner did not want the zone change. ROLL CALL VOTE: , AYES: Larkin, Miller, Bazil, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: None. ABSENT: Nome. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAWSON AND SECONDED BY LARKIN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-61 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-61 ON SUB ITEM #6 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. To implement the Master Plan of Land Use. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Baz�l, Tom, Lawson, Worthy, Royer. NOES: Miller. ABSENT: None. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Commissioner Lawson was excused at 11:32 P.M. PRECISE PLAN NO. 66,-4 Resolution of Intent proposes to precise RESOLUTION OF INTENT plan the alignment of Lyndon and Nichols Streets and Washington Avenue. Floyd Belsito, Associate Planner, addressed the Commission and made a presentation on the proposed precise plan alignment. The hearing was opened to the audience, there being no comment the hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY ROYER TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF PRECISE PLAN NO. 66-4 BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Bazil, Tom, Worthy, Foyer, Miller. NOES: None. ABSENT: Lawson. THE MOTION CARRIED. ZONE CASE NO. 66-62 - STUDY AREA I RESOLUTION OF INTENT Change of Zone from: E. C-2 Community Business District to R-5 Office -Professional District; F. C-2 Community Business District and R-A Residential Agricultural District to R-2 Two Family Residence District; -12- 12/6/66. Page No. 1 Minutes: a.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. G. C-2 Community Business District and R-A Residential Agricultural District to all C-2 Community Business District with setback provisions; H. C,-2 Community Business District and R-A Residential Agricultural District to all R-A Residential Agricultural District; I. R-2 Two Family Residence District to R-1 Single Family Residence District; J. C-2 Community Business District to R-1 Single Family Residence District. Floyd Belsito, Associate -Planner, made a presentation on the proposed zone change within Study Area I to the Commission. The hearing was opened to the audience, there being no comment the hearing was closed. Commission discussion was held. RESOLUTION NO. 66-62 A Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending Approval of Zone Case No. 66-62 to the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WORTHY AND SECONDED BY ROYER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-62 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-62 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1. To implement the Master Plan of Land Use. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Bazil, Tom, Worthy, Royer, Miller. NOES: None. ABSENT: Lawson. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. INFORMATION: The Secretary informed the Commission that the City Council had referred Baker's Taco Stand application back to the Planning Commission for. a decision. The Commission reviewed the request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-64-TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The subject request is a permitted use in the C-3 zone. 2. There is no valid reason to deny the request, because the interim ordinance does not state guidelines for the Planning Commission to follow. 3. The applicant filed for a building permit 10 days prior to adoption of the interim ordinance. 4. The applicant has proceeded to start construction by demolishing buildings that were on the lot. -1 3- 12/6/66. Page No. 14 - Minutes: N.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 6, 1966. 5. The applicant had his plans approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. 6. The plans are in compliance with the Building Code. 7. The Planning Commission can Qnly make a decision based on existing zoning* ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Worthy, Bazil, Larkin. NOES: Tom, Royer ABSENT: Lawson. THE MOTION CARRIED. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 66-23 PLOT PLAN AMENDMENTS The Secretary distributed copies of the proposed code amendment pertaining to plot plan amendments. The Commission reviewed the proposed code amendment. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MILLER AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO SET A PUBLIC FEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT NO. 66-23 FOR DECEMBER 20, 1966. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Larkin, Bazil, Tom,'Worthy, Royer, Miller. NOES: None. ABSENT: Lawson. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION: The Planning Commission discussed the possibility -of starting Plan- ning Commission meetings at 6:00 P.M. and ending at 11:00 P.M., beginning in January of 1967. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED. K. A. Reynolds Robert Bazil Secretary Chairman -14- 12/6/66.