Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-1129 ADJOURNED MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 29, 1977 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & The meeting was called to order by Mayor Prickett ROLL CALL at 7:40 p.m. on the above date in the English Lecture Hall of Ashland Senior High School. Councilmembers Phelps, Ragland, McCannon, Laws and Hamilton were present. Drescher arrived about 10 minutes later. Approximately 55 audience ~ members. PUBLIC HEARING ON AREA NO. 3 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Railroad District Planner Winterowd gave a presentation in behalf of the Historic Commission which covered: 1. An explanation of areas of difference between the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission proposal for the Comprehensive Plan Map. 2. Some land-use data figures for the area. 3. A slide presentation on the variations in the types of land-use found in the Railroad District. Winterowd explained that in Area #1 where the Planning Commission designated Urban High Residential and the Historic Commission proposes Urban Low Residential, if the Planning Commission designation was followed, gl3 units could be developed in the area, of which 353 are presently existing. If the Historic Commission's proposal of ULR was followed, 518 total units could be developed. For Area #2, the Historic Commission proposed Re.~il Commercial instead of the Heavy Commercial proposal by the Planning Commission, with the exception of the Fourth and "B" Street area. In Area #3, Winterowd explained that under the Historic Commission's proposal of ULR, 63 additional units could be placed in the area, to help compensate for the units lost in Area #1, if downzoned to ULR. Ragland asked Winterowd why in Area #2 the Twin Plunges site had been split into two designations. Winterowd said generally it was to extend the line down the alley to preserve the residential character on the one side, and the retail character on the other. Winterowd then showed photo slides of the areas. The Mayor then opened up the hearing for comments on the Railroad District. J~ Sims, Historic Commission Chairman, said for the area around "B" St_ ~t, 'the Historic Commission's primary interest was to try to work in a compatible ~zoning approach for Home Occupations that allow public access, which could exist side by side and within some of the older structures. It would also allow people to have a commercial use in their home, but at the same time get away from the extensive building alterations that would be required if in a standard commercial zone. Another change the Historic Commission proposed was to have the areas zoned for commercial be rezoned ULR to allow for more low density residential units. They also proposed that along "A" Street any existing C-3 uses be "grandfathere~ and try to regenerate the area for a lighter commercial use such as a retail commercial use. The Historic Commission was also opposed to the Heavy Commercial designation bordering Ashland Creek. They hoped to maintain many of the present historic structures along the Creek. Sims then made reference to a letter from Elisabeth Potter, Historic Preservation Specialist, dated November 25, 1977 dealing with the Historic District and the possibility of having the District placed on the National Register. Rod Reid, Historic Commission member, said adaptive new uses for an old structure are both economically beneficial, but also help continue the continuity of a community. Reconstruction of the older structures is labor inducive and create stimulus in the business community. Don Greene, 745 Valley View, said he owns two railroad lots on Eighth and Bmerick Streets. If designated ULR he could do nothing with the lots, not even put a duplex on the two combined, if under the square footage requirements of ULR. He said he felt the majority of the lots in the area are the same. He felt that by going to an ULR classification in the area, it would actually restrict the area to single-family units. Jackie Shivers, 269 "B" Street, said she lives i~ the neighborhood, is not a speculator, and feels the majority of the other residents feel the same way. As a member of the Housing Committee for the Plan, she stated that the Comprehensive Plan Map is not compatible with the CAC recommendations. An UHR designation would not be compatible with the existing homes, or would a proposed C-3 zoning on a block of all single-family homes. Allen Williams, 125 North Main Street, Chairman of the Ashland Heritage Committee, supported the Historic Commission's plan as submitted, and hoped that Ashland can keep its unique heritage. Don Greene made the comment that the residents knew when they purchased their homes that the area was designated UHR. They knew what they were buying and that there was a possibility of apartments locating in their neighborhood If the UHR is taken out of the area, it will have to be put somewhere, he said, and it will probably end up being put in a neighborhood where the residents bought at an ULR designation. Rod Reid felt the higher densities should be dispersed around town to bl~nd ,in throughout the community. Gene Merrigan, 132 Fifth, said he sensed a lot of generalities in the Historic Commission's presentation and some of the facts and figures presented. He said he bought his home knowing how it was zoned. He also requested the Council and Historic Commission not lose track of the people they are making the decisions for. There was then discussion on low interest grants and loans which would possible be available for the area if the entire Railroad District was placed on the National Register. Hamilton asked who set the boundaries of the Railroad District. Rod Reid explained they were drawn from the original plats and boundaries of the original City of Ashland in the early 1880's. Bob ttudson requested that the Council not let Oak Street become commercial. Mark Moscowitz, 363 "B" Street, spoke as a homeowner, and was concerned with keeping the residential area a livable one. B. D. Greene, said the area had been zoned R-3 for many years'past, and felt the area's multiple use developments have been very compatible in the past, and the UHR designation would not automatically create the building of multiple-family complexes on all lots. Larry Medinger, a member of the Historic Commission, said strong consideration should be given to Ashland's heritage, which can be so easily destroyed if financial incentives are present. Ragland said he felt the Historic Commission's treatment for the Railroad District was more compatible then the one adopted by the Planning Commission. He then moved to place it on the Unfinished Business portion of the December 13th agenda. Second by Phelps. Motio~ PASSED unanimously by roll call vote. SOSC CAMPUS BOUNDARY Laws commented that the boundary was the one adopted in 1969, and at that time the projected student population was 6,800. He felt the land included in the boundary is not commensurate with the needs of the College now or in the future. 2911 East Main Street - Daniel Hakes Mr. Hakes was not present, and there were no other audience comments. Southeast Corner of Tolman Creek Road/Siskiyou Blvd. Buck Taylor Mr. Taylor agreed that the text of the Plan does not agree with the Plan Map. Somewhere Ashland must provide for a higher density for those people who can not afford a $60,000 home, he further stated. ~ _erty North of the Airport - Harry Skerry · Mr. Skerry read a letter written by him to the Council representing Mr. and Mrs. Donald P. Thomas, owners of some property north of the Airport. He said a light Industrial designation would be the most appropriate from a business and zoning standpoint. He also said they knew of no objections of neighboring property owners of a LI designation. It was pointed out that the area has been designated in the Airport Master Plan as LI, as related to airport usage, for compatible and related to airport industrial use (hanger space, tie downs). Mr. Skerry said further clarification was needed of the definition of "airport related". It was also brought up that the Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan must concur with each other. Also, the Airport Zoning Ordinance ~ent to the County gave specific uses under "airport related uses". Eleanor Bradley, 854 Twin Pines Circle, read a letter from Jim and Ella Selleck objecting to the Light Industrial designation around the Airport, specifically the strip along Highway 66. She also mentioned that a majority of the residents in the area are also and always have been opposed to any industrial development around the Airport. Reasons for opposition were lifestyles, traffic, and related noise. Brita Hazell, 804 Twin Pines Circle, brought up four points: 1. The proposal for the area does not reflect the wishes of the neighborhood. ~ 2. The proposal also is not the recommendation of the CAC. 3. Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan had very good reason for designating the area as they did. 4. The Airport Master Plan consultant felt industrial uses other than airport related was not good. Phelps then moved to place on the agenda for December 13, the SOSC boundary line. Second by Hamilton. Motion PASSED unanimously by roll call vote. Ragland then moved to place on the same agenda tie question of the property north of the Airport. Second by Laws. Motion PYSSED unanimously by roll call vote. McCannon moved to put on the December 13 agenda the area south of the Airport. Second by Phelps. Motion PASSED unanimously by roll call vote. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Nan E~ Franklin ~ -- Gar~ Prickett Recorder Mayor