Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 19, 1972 City Planning Commission Regular Meeting, September 19, 1972 Chairman Backes called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. Present , were members Banks, Bowers, Bradshaw, Dixon, Hull, *Bee, McManama and Chairman Backes, Absent: Burton. The Minutes of the meeting of August 15, 1972 were approved without comment. Chairman opened a regularly noticed public hearing on'the application of Crater General Hospital for Conditional Use Permit to allow for some interior remodeling of the existing structure and to allow an addition=aof approximately 3300 square feet to provide additional bed facilities. Mr. Phil Patterson.of the firm of Patterson, Longford and Stewart, Architects and Planners presented renditions and verbally explained the proposal. After a short discussion period the plans and proposal was accepted and a Conditional Use Permit was approved on a motion by Dixon, seconded by McBee and a unanimous affirmative vote of Commissionmembers present and voting. The pre iminary Plat--of Valley Estates Subdivision approved at the regular meeting of August 15, 1972 subject to the City Engineer was ' presented revised to reflect the City Engineerfi recommendations. The City Engineer advised the Commission that all of the original recommendations had been complied with and he would recommend approval. of the plat. The City Administrator advised that a communication from the post office had requested that Georgina Way be named Freeman Road from Hopkins to Beall Lane and that the post office had ' agreed to pursue the renaming of Georgina Way to that portion in the County and not a part of the Subdivision. On a motion by Hull, seconded by Banks the revised preliminary plat approved by the City Engineer was approved. A revised preliminary plat for Malabar Estates was presented by P. Zim¢merlund, Engineer and Louis D. Farnsworth, owner-developer.. The original plat had not been approved at the last regular meeting of the Commission to allow for redesing of Street system and to increase frontage of lots facing cul-de-sacs. This revised map was recommended for approval subject to determination of improvement to be required of Chicory Lane. Much discussion mas. held concerning Chicory Lane and the fact that units of the Subdivision on the east bouncary would have their rear line. on Chicory lane and this lane is the only separation between an area which is scheduled to be developed residential and' an area which is currently used industrially. Mr. Farnsworth explained his contemplated treatment which would include fast growing hedges with .laager fast growing trees interspersed to provide a separation. On a motion by Mrs. Bradshaw, seconded by Banks the subdivision was approved subject to the City Engineer's recom- mendation and with the provision that covenants be filed which would require permanent plantings on the Chicory lane boundary and would prohibit entrance to the lots on Chicory lane from that road. Motion was carried by.an affirmative vote of all members present except one Commissioner; McBee voted nay. Robert Russell, agent, for ';J.L. Moore Construction Compa m next presented a revised plat for the Moore Park Subdivision. Considerable discussion was held on the fact that one straight, road with a cul-de-sac or dead end at each end basically put lq Lots on each cul-de-sac road which is in excess of the amount allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance and ventilating traffic to the west was not accomplished by the one outlet from the Subdivision which under the circumstances could not get traffic to Crant Road. becaiise of the intervening property which could not be acquired at this time. On a motion by Bowers, seconded by Ranks, the subdivision was approved as presented subject to the recommendation of the City Engineer which included. . recommend tentative plat approval. subject to design approval of drainage, water, sewer and street plans,.and an agreement that a tentative- plat for the unit to the west (containing the street connection to Grant Road) be filed prior to the recordation of the final plat of the subject subdivision. . . . . ", and that the plans be altered to show a cul-de-sac at both ends of the north-south street. The motion was carried by an affirmative vote of all members present and voting except two; members Backes and Di:con voted no. .next, Mr. Fletcher of Fletcher/Finch Associated, architects and a Mr. Baker presented themselves to discuss the proposed development- on West Pine Street to be.known at the Conifer 313 Apartments. Mr. Fletcher presented an artists rendition to describe the general layout and briefly explained the plans including some revisions generally agreed upon by the Staff and Architect. After a general - discussion, it was moved by McBee, seconded by Bowers that this matter a be continued and be the subject of a special meeting sole to study this proposal. on Monday , October 16, at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried by an unanimous affirmative vote of Commissioners present and voting. The petition of Dr. Paul and Eleanora Rutter to annex approximately 14.5 acres at the corner of Hopkins and Bursell .Roads was presented as referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council to recommend back to the Council the desirability of annexing this property to the City and the recommended zoning for the property if annexed. It was pointed out that the zoning would have to be compatible to allow the application for a Conditional Use Permit as the plans for development was for a senior citizens mobile home park. -It was pointed out that only C-1, C-2, C-4 and R-3 zones permit mobile home parks and in each case these are not permitted uses but are uses subject to Conditional Use Permits. There was some discussion as to whether the proposed use would be compatible with surrounding uses as an R-1-8 zone would abut this property in the City to the west. County property lays north of this property across Hopkins and if this property should annex it would be reasonable to zone that C-4 (Commercial Tourist), and nearby both in the City and the County residential (single family) development had occurred. On a motion by McBee, seconded by Dixon this property was recommended for annexation and this property should be zoned R-3 (Residential mulitple family). Motion carried by affirmative vote of all members 0 present and voting except three; Members Hull, Mchanama and Bradshaw voting.no. Mr. Myron Corcoran, contractor, -next presented plans for remodeling the pharmacy front located at 4th and Pine Streets. It was brought out that this property was situated in Fire Zone I which required , any new work to be fireproof material. A general discussion of structural changes that would be necessary was had and comments were made that the plans were incomplete with respect to the absence of details. On a motion by Hull, seconded by Banks the rendition and plans were accepted with the understanding that all work and materials would. qualify with the restrictions of Fire Zone 1, of the City of Central Point. Motion carried by a unanimous affirmative vote of Commissionmembers present and voting. Next appeared Mr. Tom Whittle to discuss lot sizes,. building permit, and zoning for a corner lot located at Bigham and Oak Streets. Mr. Whittle stated that he had been refused a building permit for this property-and he stated that this had been declared a legal- lot, but did not identify the authority. McBee described-the information he had obtained on this property including the fact that the original building permit included the whole property and once the building had been completed the lot was split as evidenced by the deed to the purchasor. By taking this.action two substandard sized lots were, created. Further, the covenants for: this subdivision prohibited building on lots with less than 57-foot frontage. Some members of the Planning Commission who were acquainted with the facts at the time explained the situation as they knew it. A lengthy discussion ensued. On a motion by McBee,-:seconded by Bowers, the request to build on this lot was denied; the Council determined this notto be a legal lot and any permit to build on this property is denied unless ' it is adjacent to and a part of :the adjoining properties. Motion carried by a unanimous affirmative vote of Commissionme-mbers present and voting. The review of a Conditional Use Permit issued to Dan Haves to conduct a home occupation as an upholsterer at.'632 Manzanita was the next order of business. Having received no complaints of this 'operation during the ,90-day trial period and learning of the quality of the business a motion to extend this Conditional Use for another 90-days was passed by unanimous affirmative vote after a motion by Bowers, seconded by McBee. , The Commission was next informed of a situation and possible violation of the Conditional Use Permit as originally issued to the Northwest Printed Circuits Co. in the 300 block of Fast Pine Street. After a minimum discussion the Chairman appointed a committee consisting of Banks, Bowers and McBee to investigate the situation and report back to the Commission at the next regular meeting. The request of Johnson Construction Co. of San Diego to obtain clarification of a situation to allow a portion of a street setback as a means ofaaccess to the off-street parking requirements for a multiple family development was next presented. : Because of the hour, the length and amount of business handled, and not having a representative of Mr. Johnson's present, the Commission declined to take any action. There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m. Wednesday, September 20, 1972. a September 19, 1 To: Members of the the Planning Commission From: Allan Higinbotham, Fire Chief In reference to Mr. Corcorans building permit application for the remodeling of the Rexall Drug Store, 341 East Pine Street, the Fire Department makes the following notes: 1. The Rexall Drug is within Fire Zone one. 2. Construction in this zone must be of a non-combustible material. or if combustibles are used they must be fully protected - example, gypsum board over wood. 3. Within Fire Zone One roofs on all. buildings may be covered only with a fire-retardent roofing. The Code refers to two types of roofing as fire-retardent: A. Any class A or F built-up roofing assembly. E. Any mineral aggregate surfaced built-up roof. This is per section 3203, page 305 of the Uniform Building Code. Alterations contrary to the Code would increase the fire hazard 0 of such a building and to buildings attached. P.espectfully submitted /s/ Allan Higinbotham Fire Chief.