12/11/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, City -aid rezone the property R-2, recognizing the problems for single-family , use. In 1971 a request for C-l and RP was filed on this property and one lot to the west, the intent being to locate a bank, professional offi ces, and some apartments on the combined properties. That was denied. Mrs. Bea1 was cOncerned that rezoning this would constitute spot zoning and wondered about the reaction : of previous peti tioners should the Council now act to approve rezoning of the . corner. Mr. Pearson noted that the property is still in the original ownership, previous purchases were subject to appxova1 of zone changes. He said the Commission too was concerned about buffering arterials with mu1tip1e-fanri1y housing, but with about 50 miles of arterial roads wi thin the Ci ty it would not be possible or I feasible because of demand for curb cuts, etc., to have commercial zoning along that length of roadways. He continued that there is available and unused C-2 property directly across the street from this property, to the north and east, on which this bank could be located, and the Commission is more concerned with consistent planning than with artificial appreciation of a certain property. With regard to the Residential Professional zone itself, Mr. Pearson said, it is : not felt to be a practical or viable classification. He said it would seem best ; that it be stricken fxom the ordinance entirely if it creates confusion. Mr. 'Pearson was concerned with reference to renter-occupied dwellings vs sing1e- . family detached dwellings. He said there are no more in the Wil1akenzie area ,than throughout other parts of the City. People are accepting apartment and I rental living asa way of life. The comrndssion, he continued, felt intrusion 'of commercial use on this site would be a "leak in the dike" and put pressure on adjacent properties for similar quasi-commercial development. Too, the comrndssion would be bereft of any opportunity to halt that type of zoning with e the next borderline, since it is extremely difficult to draw a zoning line and . make it stick. Mr. Hoffman added that one of the considerations on property to the north of the intersection was installation of landscaping to buffer residential proper- I ties from commercial uses, and it would not seem pxoper to forget that effort. I . . Craig Robinson, president of Citizen's Bank, said his firm had been working with RP defini tions, and they are disturbed that halfway through the planning stages they find that those definitions do not seem to apply. If the RP zone is con- sidered a commercial zone, then it should be so defined. Mr. Robinson said that at no time in the past has the RP zone been petitioned on this property so it would be inconsistent to say that this is another commercial application. P revi ous ~ requests were to allow location of small markets, service stations, hamburger stands. The previous petition for location of a bank at that site was for a . Citizen's Bank office although they were not named on the petition. He said 'this proposed development would seem the best solution for the corner and the plans were flexible enough to allow his people to work with staff to prepare a plan without traffic or people pxob1ems and which would fit well with residen- tial on one sLge. and commercial on the other. He said there is not commercial , land which can be acquired north of this pxoperty, and that if there had been an , alternate site they would not have spent the time researching this location. : Jim Manley, 726 Royal, Medford, said there is property available directly across e : Coburg Road to the east for a development of this type. Mr. Pearson added that there is additional RP zoned land also. Comm It was understood the item would corne to the Council for public hearing on 11/29/72 December 11, 1972. Pub Hrng Council on November 27, 1972 referred to joint session of Planning Commission and Council (November 29, 1972 - see minutes above). Planning Commission on December 11, 1972 reaffirmed its decision to deny the rezoning to RP PD on the basis that it would be in serious conflict with the 1990 General Plan, the ~llakenzie Plan, and with previous Commission policy and actions with regard to properties in this area. The Commission felt rezoning this property to RP PD would create an undesirable precedent for other properties south of Cal Young Road. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to uphold the recommenation of the Plan- ning Commission and deny the rezoning request. Councilwoman Campbell expressed concern about the statement that the requested zone is not in line with the 1990 Plan. She asked if there was discussion or considerationbf:the. ~ Residential....Professional zone'Wh.eritJiisare.awas-designatednori':"'c6JIrinercial in the 1990 Plan. Also whether this r~quest is in conflict with the 1990 Plan since it is not for a strictly . commercial use. Manager replied that the Planning Commission';feels it is in conflict with the Plan. However, the Plan is not a zone plan - it is an indication of land uses and densities in general areas, so there is no specific answer as to where the line is drawn. Jim Saul, Planning department, said the Commission's discussion centered around the Plan's indication of residential uses south of Cal Young Road and dissatisfaction with the RP "35' 12/11/72 - 4