Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-1019 JOINT SESSIONJOINT BOARD OF CO~IISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ASHLAND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY October 19, 1977 PLEDGE OF ALLEGI~{CE & CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was lead by Chairman Ragland in the absence of the Mayor. Present were Ashland City Councilmembers Phelps, Laws, Hamilton, Drescher. Jackson County Board of Commissioners present were Sickels, Moore, and Dory. Also present were Ashland Planning Commissioners Alderson, Trent, BillinRs. and Planner Himes. Jackson County Planning Commissioners Inman, Knotts, Moke, Planners Sims and Weaver were also present. Pavement Cut Request Ragland read a letter from an Ashland contractor requesting approval to make a 1' x 3' cut in the pavement on Coventry Place to bury a TV cable. for the Quiet Village Subdivision. Drescher moved to place on agenda. Second by Laws. Motion PASSED unanimously by voice vote. Drescher then moved the request be granted. Second by Hamilton. Motion PASSED unanimously by roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING Urban Growth Boundary County Planner Sims gave a brief history on the formulation of Ashland's UGB. She then presented a map showing both the Jackson County Planning Commission's proposed UGB for Ashland and tile Ashland Commission's boundary. She pointed out the two major areas where the Commission's could not agree on a boundary: 1. Telman Creek Road area 2. Valley View ~ north freeway interchange Ragland explained that the Council had requested Himes to draw up an UGB to reflect a possible future population of 21,000. Their main reason in picking the 21,000 figure was reflected on Ashland's present water supply capibil~ty. }limes then showed photo slides of the areas proposed for inclusion in the revised UGB proposal. He said for a proposed population of 21,000,879 acres would need to Le acquired. Sickels then called the Jackson County Board of Commissioners into session. Doty asked whether the open space or density issue was addressed in the reduction of acreage with the new population figures. Himes explained the density figure in the original Commission boundary was approximately 2.1 per acre, and now with the new acreage figure tile density would be approximately 4.5 (gross). Moore questioned the amount of industrial acres Ashland proposed to the amount of jobs that would be produced. He felt there was to sustain Ashland. in'relation not enough Ragland then opened the public hearing. 'Craig Hoffarth, 2290 East Main, commended the City planners and staff for W~t they had done, and stressed not to let personal feelings enter into decisions. He also felt the East Main area was the most desirable area to annex into the City. B. D. Greene, 1221 North Main, commented that approximately the past two years lot prices in Ashland have risen from $6,000 to $18,000. He stated if the UGB line is drawn way down, the builders would be forced to build on all lots within the City. Harlan Curtis, 496 Carol, felt strongly that if new views and feelings come up they deserve due consideration and all decisions should not be based only on previous work. Leonard Figman, 498 Lynn, felt that the growth rate of Ashland is larger than the population figures indicate. tte also agreed with the Council in lowering the proposed population to 21,000. Jim Ladell, 1370 Frank Hill Road, wanted to know why the south portion of Frank Hill Road had been excluded from the UGB. Himes said his only justification was to keep as close to the actual acres needed. Richard Stevens, 371 Idaho, representative of the Jackson County Homebuilders Association, felt that with t~e change in the proposed population figure that the Council should very seriously consider making changes in t~e growth policies. Herman Shelling, 492 Fordyce, said he would like to retain the rural character of the area. He also said that if the UGB line is drawn along the south bank of Bear Creek as proposed, the quality of the natural wildlife should be considered also as it plays a part of the overall quality of life. Brita Hazel!, 80~ Twin Pines Circle, felt the CAC testimony and conclusions should weigh heavily on the Council's consideration. She also felt that in many cases the Plan was not responsive enough to peoples wishes and should be more concerned with use than a boundary. Leo vanDijk, 1609 Jackson Road, said he has two parcels totaling approximately 40 acres at the north cad of town. The present zon~.ng is for farming uses, but is unfeasible for him due to costs. He wanted to ~ how how the problem of having a farm which is economically unfeasible to i~rm, but being forced to farm could be solved. Harlan Trent, 321 Clay, explained that the Planning Commission determined the proposed 25,000 population using a straight-line projection of current trends, assuming they would continue. The limiting factor on growth will be the water supply, he agreed. He felt if the straight-line projection was used for approximately 25,000 people by the year 2000 the City will be remiss if consideration is not given to future burdens that would exist beyond the 21,000 limit. Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenview Drive, favored as small a UGB as Ashland can possibly get by with. High-priced lots are not just an Ashland problem, they are high in all surrounding areas, she also stated. Cynthia Lord, 710 N. Mountain, felt consideration should be given that water will not be the only dividing line in population. The quality of the air and land around Ashland should also be considered. 10/19/~? Pg. 2 Cra~. ~ffarth, felt the UGB was not being looked at from a planning stand- Ipoint, only by lines and growth. Ashland should worry more about aesthetics an~ livibility within the City today. Eleanor Bradley, 854 Twin Pines Circle, commended the Council for being cool and rational at arriving at the 21,000 population figure. Gladys Greene, 1221 North Main, felt betrayed after coming to public hearings and meetings on the UGB and have the Council change it so suddenly. She also expressed her views on forcing people to farm land which is unfeasible to farm. Bud Wilderson, 785 Palmer, asked the Council and Board of Commission members why they were against the Plan and all the previous work, Sickels said she was against no Plan, she was present for public testimony. ZHamilton stated the same. Ragland said one of the critical reasons he felt was that Ashland could possibly be inviolation of some of the LCDC Goals and Guidelines. Drescher said after Council study of the Plan new considerations had to be ~aken into account, boundaries contracted, excluded, and population figures adjusted. John Billings, 1140 Jackson Road, expressed his concern also on forcing farmers to farm their land if economically unfeasible. He felt some land is proper to retain as agricultural land, and needs LCDC protection, but most of the land in Jackson County is not. Laws stated that justification on inclusion of farm land can not be done on the basis of benefit to the individual owner, it must be done on the basis of benefit to the City. The public hearing was closed. POLICIES Moore questioned the included for them: 1. Policy No. 2. Policy No. 3. Policy No. 4. Policy No. following terms, and felt definitions needed to be 2 "urban land use". 6 "intensive agricultural use". 7 "key facilities". 8A "existing development". There ~as then discussion by the Ashland City Council. Laws then moved that the Council include the Policies as stated in the text of the Plan. Second by Phelps. ~otion PASSED unanimously by roll call vote. Doty questioned whether section No. 8 really differed from No. 8A. She could see no difference and felt it was repetitious. Sims explained 8A was written to clarify the main body of 8. Doty also felt clarification of Paragraph No. 2 was needed. Moore addressed some of the thoughts that went into the drafting of land use law pertaining to "legislative" and '!quasi-judicial" matters. Drescher moved that the Ashland City Council adopt the Policies with the five phrases redefined, and direct staff to prepare an ordinance. Second by Hamilton. Motion PASSED unanimously by roll call vote. 10/19/77 Pg. 3 ,Doty ~nen moved that the Jackson County Board of Commissioners accept the Ashland Urbanizable Area Policies as written by the Staff, excluding the needed definitions that had been indicated and accepting those mutually agreed on. Second by Sickels. Moore voted No because of the use of "urban land use" in Policy No. 2. When discussing the concept of an "area of mutual concern" Laws suggested using the extra land in the Planning Commission's original UGB proposal as that area. Cynthia Lord felt the area should extend out further than the original UGB line had proposed. Drescher moved that the Ashland City Council adopt as Plan the one presented at the public hearing by Staff. Ragland called for discussion. John Billings said he would not support the boundary. a UGB for the Comprehensive Second by Phelps. felt the Planning Commission There was then discussion UGB dealing specifically with: 1. agricultural land 2. soil classes 3. water, sewer, police, 4. location of existing 5. public testimony on each area proposed to be incorporated fire, and related services developments from the areas into the After further discussion, Drescher then amended his original motion, and mcved that the Ashland City Council adopt as a UGB for the Comprehensive Plan the one presented at the public hearing by Staff tenative on public hearings of the areas, with particular attention given to the areas north of East Main and southwest of To]man Creek. Second by Phelps. Motien PASSED unanimously. AREAS OF MUTUAL CONCERN The areas specifically discussed as possible areas were: 1. County-owned streets in Ashland 2. Eagle Mill Road 3. Airport approach area 4. Grizzly Peak 5. Need for Site Review in County areas 6. North interchange area 7. One-mile notification radius Laws moved that the City Council adopt the subject areas as areas of mutual concern with County consensus. Second by Phelps. Motion PASSED unanimously. Doty then moved that the same seven items be determined as areas of mutual concern by the County Board of Commissioners in regards to the City of Ashland. Second by Moore. Motion PASSED unanimously. Doty then moved to instruct Staff to prepare documents to go to public hearing using the tenative boundary described by the City of Ashland Council with the 10/19/77 Pg. 4 same trade-off options that they described. Second by Sickels. Moore voted N~ because he still felt the boundaries proposed by the Ashland Comprehensive Pl'an were deficient in the land necessary to sustain jobs in the immediate area. ADJOURnmENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Nan~. Frlnklin City Recorder 10/19/77 Pg. 5