Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 30, 1972 Special Meeting City Planning Commission November 30, 1972 The meeting -was opened at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Bowers. Present were members Bradshaw, Banks, Bowers, McManama, Bull, McBee and Dixon. Absent were member Burton and one vacancy. Also present were Acting City -Attorney Bill Carter, City Engineer C. P. Westwood, Fire Chief Higinbotham, Building Inspector J.R. Chastain and City Administrator R.W. Hutton. It was noted that this meeting was for the purpose of a -public hearing which had been properly advertised and noticed as provided by law and was for the purpose of considering the revocation of a Conditional Use permit which had been issuedfbr 325 East Pine Street. Chairman Bowers gave a brief resume, of the situation leading up to the hearing and set out the basic ground rules for the conduct of the hearing to be held. C.P. 4Jestwood, City Engineer, was asked to read the narrative of his report, which he did. 11ext, Fire Chief Higinbotham presorted his report of the fire at Northwest Printed Circuits which occurred on July 17, 1972. Chairman Bowers questioned the Fire Chief as to the toxity of the smoke and it was reported that several firemen had been nauseated and others had complained of severe headaches following the fire. Upon questioning by McBee, Mr. Broughton, owner of the business in question admitted that his business was more manufacturing than assembly and confirmed that the Engineers report was a fair summary of the situation but explained that the 900 gallons of alcohol stored in the open in back was to be picked up early in December. Flammable liquids had been stored too close to the alley. Mir. Broughton explained that his type of business was conducted in both commercial and industrial areas in other cities. Explaining further, Mir. Broughton stated his business was opened in February, 1969 after having received his conditional use permit in December, 1968. Be presently has about 25 employees and is only running one shift with the exception that one drilling operation was on a 2—shift basis. He further stated that he had had as high as 55 employees and his turnover was high but this was primarily because of poor help which he had terminated instead of people leaving on their oian. Many of the present employees were ones who had started with him early in 1969. Mr. Charleen Menke identified herself as one of the first employees and indicated sha was in perfect health and two to her children work there also. Mir. Jim gray identified himself as an employee of 2 years in perfect health and his job is primarily with the various acids being used in the business. Mrs. Pedersen, office manager, stated that most of the testimony on health had been personal opinions but an inspection conducted by the Health Department on August 2, 1972 indicated the level of toxious vapors was well below the tolerable level. The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of December 5 and December 30, 1968 were read which indicated the application of the Conditional Use Permit was for a "printings' business. Mr. J.R. Chastain, building inspector, concurred with the findings of the Engineer's report. Mayor Manasco inquired as to whether it had been determined that there had been any damages to the sewers from the fluids dumped by this business. Mr. Broughton indicated the fluids carried about a 25% acid base. It was noted by Manasco that there had been some deterioration of the concrete floor and it was reasonable to suspect the same could occur to the sewers if they were concrete. ' Mr. LaForce, who indicated that he was the owner of the building in question and had reconstructed the sewers and had replaced his old "orangeburg pipe" which had collapsed and had replaced it with cast iron, was under the impression the the City main was ' also cast iron (on December 4 Vern Capps, public works superintendent indicated the City Sewer Main is concrete pipe in Pine Street.) Mr. Bowers inquired as to the agents or reagents being used which could cause a fire. Mr. Broughton indicated he had been using lacquer thinner and an accumulation of those vapors could have been the cause , of the fire in the sewer had there been a fire _in the fluid in the building. Mr. McBee inquired as to the suitability of the building and the future plans for the business. Mr. Broughton indicated ha had a 5-year lease on the premises and had about 1 year remaining.. The present building is totally inadequate - making it necessary to go out- side to go from one building to another which made for an inefficient operation: Mr. Broughton indicated he was planning on moving as soon as he could find an area and build and he was looking for facilities to remain in this general area. Mr. McBee inquired if the City determined damage to the sewer main and if this damage could be ,ditectly attributed to the operation would be, Mr. Broughton, be covered? Mr. Broughton indicated he would have to check with his insurance company and corporation attorney. Mr. Hull inquired as to whether there were any businessmen in the audience who were neighbors of this business and if so would they care to comment. Mr. William Langston identified himself as to the owner of Central Point Florist who was next door to the business in question-and who had been in business about the same length of time as Northwest Printed Circuits and stated he had had no reason to complain about the operation during the time. Mr. Bowers inquired to Mr. Broughton if it would be a hardship on the company to cover the City for any liability in case a future_ disaster happened before the proper corrections and arrangements were made. Mr. Broughton indicated he would be,happy,to, but would have to check with his legal counsel first. Fire Chief Higinbotham indicated that corroded electrical conduits and heating system presented a fire hazard that probably couldnIt be corrected 1 as long as the business operation remained as it has been. Mr. McBee pointed out some of the deficiencies noted ..:ere such small things to correct and wondered why it had taken so long. These were inadequate number of fire extinguishers, providing eye baths and showers :or the employees. Prs. Pederson indicated they had wanted to know their shortcomings, if any, and had called for an inspection by the State Industrial Ins. Co. which was conducted in April, 1972. At that time one extinguisher was in place and no comment was made about others being required. Mr. Bowers asked Fire Chief Higinbotham how many extinguishers would be required and it was estimated 3 or 4; and he had noted 2 were on hand in the office at the time of the fire. These were corroded; and the fire extinguisher service company had informed the Fire Chief that he would not- recharge these containers because of their condition. Kr. MCManama inquired if the City 8° sewer main could be T9'd and Pr. Westwood said it could and he would make arrangements for• it. There being no further comments from the Commission and none forth- coming from the public in attendance, the hearing was closed at 9:05 p.m. by Chairman Bowers. Mr. Bowers instructed the Commission and explained actions that could be taken. Mr. Dixon asked if Mr. Westwood could prepare a specific list of corrections necessary in detail and allow 30 days for compliance. Mr. Carter, Acting City Attorney, suggested that the Commission determine if the non-compliance is related to Ordinance requirements. If the answer is yes- what specifically are the items of non-compliance and if the Commission allows a grace period to comply, that period must be reasonable. When questioned as to how long it would take Mr. Broughton to comply with any list - Mr. Westwood stated he would have to hedge on his answer due to the uncertainty of obtaining necessary plumbing fixtures at this time and at the same time indicated the difficulty people had had in obtaining even the most common and used fittings and fixtures; but estimated that the correction could reasonably be expected within 90 days. City Administrator Hutton inquired of the City Attorney if the Commission was in a position to act inasmuch as nmanufacturing'' in a C-3 Commercial Business District is neither a permitted use of a listed Conditional Use. It was indicated that a legal decision would be desirable as to whether the Commission originally had the power to grant the Conditional Use and if it did not - there would be a difference in the action available to the Commission at this time. Attorney Carter indicated it was a pertinent question and he would not be able to answer the question without research. Under these conditions it was generally conceded that even though the hearing had been held and closed, the decision should be delayed pending the legal decision. On a motion by Dixon, seconded by McBee, and a unanimous affirmative vote of the Commission the decision on the revocation of the Conditional Use permit for Northwest Printed Circuits was continued to the next regular meeting of the City planning Commission to be held December 19, 1972. The meeting then adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. to allow a Commission_ Study Session on the proposal of Conifer Development of Oregon. Upon presentation of the plans and specifications-it was the unanimous consent of the Commission to send all material submitted the second time to-the City Engineer to check and compare with the previous plans submitted which had been denied by the Planning Commission. ' The matter vrill be presented to the Commission at the regular meeting of December 19, 1972 to determine the status of the reports deemed to be necessary before the Commission is in a position to make a decision. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.