Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br />I <br /> <br />/0 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2. R-4 District Uses, Commercial Zoning - Planning COnmllssion Report January 10, 1972. <br />The Planning COnmllssion recommended amendment to Section 9.382 of the City Code <br />to allow certain uses under conditional pernrit - barber and beauty shops; delica- <br />tessens; grocery stores; professional offices for accountants, attorneys, physi- <br />cians, osteopaths, dentists, optometrists, opticians, chiropractors, and other <br />state licensees practicing healing arts; and restaurants, except drive-in or <br />walk-up. The amendment also sets criteria to be utilized in permitting the <br />conditional uses. <br /> <br />" <br />'I <br />il <br />,I <br />:1 <br />II <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I; <br />Ii <br />!t <br />I, <br />" <br /> <br />Mr. Williams questioned the exclusion of walk-up restaurants, and was informed no <br />eating is allowed inside the building for a walk-up restaurant; problems result- <br />ing from food being eaten outside was the reason for exclusion from uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Hershner questioned the requirement that commercial uses must be in con- <br />junction with residential uses except on very small lots, asking if it is neces- <br />sary to make the combination mandatory. The Planning Director said the R-4 <br />zone is basically for housing, but it is felt certain commercial uses should be <br />pro vi ded. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Williams asked about leeway in granting the conditional permit should a lot <br />be a fraction smaller or larger than the 6000 square feet designated. Planning <br />Director ex plained appeals on size of lot would go to the Zoning Board of Ap- <br />peals and their action would depend on what is presented and cri teriaof variance <br />procedure. ' <br /> <br />Further discussion followed with regard to mandatory combination of commercial <br />uses with residential uses on small lots, with understanding a decision on' adoption <br />of the amendment would be in form of a public hearing at the January 24, 1972 <br />Council meeting. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Comm <br />. +/19/7,2 <br />PUb Hrn'g <br /> <br />Mr. Williams asked with regard to conditional use permits for non-conforming uses in <br />R-4 zones whether physicians' offices permitted as an outright use would be permitted <br />to continue. He said he feels it is important and should be answered before the <br />ordinance is adopted. The Planning Director said there is no phase-out scheduled; no <br />specific answer so the attorney's opinion would have to prevail. Mr. Pearson said he <br />feels the uses referred to are not non-conforming uses, rather they are conditional <br />uses, and would continue as such with no phasing out intended. But if any expansion <br />is requested, the hearing procedure would have to be followed and a conditional use <br />permit obtained. The purpose of the amendment is to inject vertical zoning into the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto Poticha, architect, said he feels it appropriate if R-4 zones are to take con- <br />ditional medical uses, that the hospital area should be zoned the same way, and that <br />medical oriented facilities were permitted as an outright use when the hospital <br />project was started. He wondered why architects' offices were not included in the <br />uses permitted under the amendment. (See action on page 1..9 underC.B.9574, Ordinances.) <br /> <br />G. Street Name Change - North Shasta Loop (Planning CommissimReport December 13, 1971) <br />The Planning COnmllssion recommended denial of request to change the name of <br />this street located east of East Amazon connecting the south end of Agate <br />Street with East 43rd. A majority of the people with residences on that <br />street and using that address object to any change. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to sustain the Planning Commission's recom- <br />mendation (no change). Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Comm <br />1/12/72 <br />Pub Hrng <br /> <br />H. Vacations <br />1. utility Easement east of Hughes, between Pattison and Avalon, George Pyle <br />(Planning COnmllssion Report December 14, 1971) - The Planning COnmllssion recom- <br />mended approval of vacation of thie 6-foot easement. <br />(See action on page'!~f; of these minutes under C.B. 9575, Ordinances) <br /> <br />2. Bufton, north of Wes t 11 th between Wallis and Bertelsen, George Wingard <br />(Planning COnmllssion Report December 14, 1971) - The Planning COnmllssion <br />recommended vacation of this dedicated but unimproved street. The Planning <br />Director said a 100-foot easement is to be dedicated for the Amazon Channel <br />whii:i:h would take care of any remuneration which might be due for the vacated <br />property. (See action on page iq of these minutes under C.B.9576, Ordinances) <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Comm <br />1/12/72 <br />Pub Hrng <br /> <br />Comm <br />1/12/72 <br />Pub Hrng <br /> <br />3. portion Dillard Road at Snell, Gary Parks (Planning COnmllssion Report Decem- <br />ber 28, 1971) - The Planning COnmllssion recommended approval of vacation of <br />this area bordering on an annexation which the Boundary COnmllssion has ordered <br />and which will come into the City unless there is an appeal. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Williams said it appears that traffic congestion would result since the <br />property lies at the junction of the two streets; he asked if the value of the <br />property to be vacated has been est,Eililished. Public Works Director explained <br />the property is unimproved and vacation would actually improve the traffic situa- <br />tion since it would allow a 90ltdegree intersection instead of the wide "y" type <br />which now exists. He said there has been no appraisal of value. <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />1/24/72 - 3 <br /> <br />:,-.; <br /> <br />.... <br />