Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 19, 1972 Regular Meeting City Planning Commission December 19, 1972 - The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Bowers. Present were members Banks, Bradshaw, Dixon, Hull, McBee and McManama and Chairman.Bowers. Absent were members Burton and one unfilled vacancy. On a motion by Dixon, seconded by Hull the minutes of the regular meeting of November 16 and the Special Meeting of November 30, 1972 were approved as mailed. Chairman Bowers opened a regularly advertised and noticed Public Hearing on the application of Central Point Development Co. to rezone property bounded by Amy, Oak, Haskell Streets and an alley northerly of and papa llel.to Oak Street from R-3 Residential Multiple Family to M-2 Industrial General. A plan of the proposed development was presented for reference. A Mrs. Richardson presented herself and declared that she was appointed as spokesman for a group of residents on Haskell Street across from the proposed development. She indicated that the residents of the area,;were still against the change and basically there was nothing different before the Commission than had been presented about a year ago when a similar request had been denied. McBee said small area maps available to the members of the Commission would be important and indicated he had contacted some of the residents in the area and described the area by noting it was next to railroad tracks and the Aschenbrenner Molding Mill and there uras a saw sharpening and w.00dstock cutting business and the general area was bounded on the north by M-2 Zone. Ile further stated that the property owners should be assured that nothing detrimental to the neighborhood would be allowed. Mrs. Harrison of Central Point Development Company described and explained the Company's plans for developing the property in question. There being no further comments from the public assembled, the hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. by Chairman Bowers. Informal comments from Commissionmembers followed. McBee indicated that the type of structure and the operation would appear more compatible in an M-1 zone instead of M-2, Mc Manama thought the proposal needed more study inasmuch as the plans were not made known until this meeting. Banks was in favor ofhthe M-2 zone, ASrs. Bradshaw believed the property and area should be industrial rather than residential and Dixon could see no reason why the M-2 zone should not be recommended to the Council.. Chairman Bowers indicated he was in a rather difficult position; being a property-owner in the area and Chairman of the Planning Commission and did not comment directly on the proposal. Upon question of whether M-1 on this property would be a spot zone, the City Attorney indicated that this would not be a spot zone under Oregon Iaw, but is in fact spot zoning - but did not constitute an illegal spot zone. A motion was made by Hull, seconded by McManaml to continue the decision until the regular meeting of January 16,1973. This motion was defeated by a2to5vote. A motion by Dixon, seconded by Banks was made to recommend to the City Council that the zone be changed from R-3, residential-multiple family to ICI-2, Industrial General. McBee, Hull and Mc Manama voted nay and Banks, Bradshaw and Dixon voted in the affirmative to break the tie. Motion carried by a 4-to 3 vote. The final plat £or Sierra Vista .Subdivision Unit #2 was presented for Commission approval and if approved; for proper signatures. Some comment was made that the plan shouldrnt be approved until the matter of the reimbursement of the Germann Off-site sewer line for Pinecrest Subdivision was settled, but it was pointed out that this unit and Sierra Vista Unit No. 1 and Temple Court Subdivision were not completed and acceptance could be held up until this matter vras settled, but approval of the plat in question would allow the developer to proceed with the construction of- Public Improvements. A motion by Banks, seconded by McBee to approve the plat as presented was carried by a unanimous affirmative vote of Commissionmembers present and voting. A discussion of the proposed plans for the Conifer Development on Jest Pine Street was the next item for consideration. It was explained that the plans for the development as presented with the written request for plot plan approval had ,just recently been returned from the City Dngineerts office for checking against the original list of deficiencies. It was pointed out that no staff comments were possible at this time due to the circumstances. Mr. Stuart Foster, attoreny, 39 South Central St., Medford presented himself and asked for early approval as the plans had been available for some time and the ' proposed project did comply with the zoning of the property and the engineer had reported on the correction of deficiencies. It was stated to Mr. Stuart that no on had been-available to consider the plans applying the provisions of Ordinance No. 1068 and that this would take additional time. Relative to this and on a motion by Bradshaw, seconded by McBee the City Administrator and Staff were instructed to prepare an impact study on this development for the regular meeting of January 16, 1972. Motion carried by a unanimous affirmative vote of Commissionmembers present and voting. The matter of a decision on the proposed revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for Northwest Printed Circuits Co., 325-329 East Pine Street having been continued from the Special Meeting of November 30th was next for the Commission. -The City Attorney presented his previous letter addressed to Chairmn Bowers on this matter and explained the provisions of a resolution he had prepared for Commission consideration.. In general, the resolution indicates that the business was being conducted in such a way as to creat a fire hazard and that the business being conducted beyond the scope of the Conditional Use Permst. After some discussion by the Commission an additional paragraph was inserted which provided for compliance with recommendation and correction of noted deficiencies by January 18 (the date of the next regular commission meeting). F` ph.. Hull inquired as to how long it would take the Company to relocate. Mr. Bruce Kellington, attorney, indicated that to find the property, build and relocate would take a year which would coincide with the termination of the lease on the buildings being occupied by the business. A discussion ensued during which the Commissioners were asked to_ indicate the time or date to be given the Company to cease operations at this location. Most of the replies were either 6 months or 9 months and some would recommend provisions for extension of time. On a motion by Bradshaw, seconded by McBee the Resolution as amended by the additional paragraph was adopted providing for June 30, 1973 to be _the day by which all operations are to cease at this address and the deficiencies as noted in the City Engineer's report be rectified by January 18, 1973. The motion carried by a majority affirmative vote of the Commission. Members Hull and Dixon voted in the negative. Attorney Kellington again addressed the Commission indicating the provisions of the Resolution were not acceptable to his client and that the Commission's decision would be appealed to the City Council as the next step. ;r. Kellington was advised that the appeal must be in writing and received by the City Recorder within_ 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. The plans for a lumber shed for Cheney Stud Products Company was presented for Commission consideration. No representative of Cheney was present. L`pon examination of the plans, it was determined that the plans were in conflict with the provisions of the City Fire Code. The conflicts involved the__ pillars and roof construction. 0n a motion by Hull, seconded by Banks and a unanimous affirmative vote of Co. ,ma:ssionmembers the said plans were denied. City Ach inistrator Hutton gave a verbal report on information that had been acquired also verbally from the utility companies concerning the proposed "leisure Iak_es° development on the east side of I-5 Freeway. It was pointed out that no word had yet been received from the Medford Water Cormmission, but it should be available in the near future. On a motion by Banks, seconded by IMcBee and an affirmative vote of the members of the Comm;.ssion, the matter was continued to the next meeting to be held January 16, 1973. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.m.