Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-11 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Steve Armitage called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Chris Hearn, Mike Morris, Kerry KenCairn, Russ Chapman, Marilyn Briggs, Mike Gardiner, and Alex Amarotico. John Fields was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FINDINGS Gardiner moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the December 14, 1999 Hearings Board. Amarotico seconded the motion and the Minutes and Findings were approved. Briggs moved to approve the Minutes of the December 14, 1999 Regular Meeting, KenCairn seconded the motion and the Minutes were approved. Chapman moved to approve the Findings for PA99-128, Ken Cairn seconded the motion and the Findings were approved. PUBLIC FORUM JOHN REYNOLDS, 505 Helman Street, asked if there would be discussion about lighting at North Mountain Park. McLaughlin explained the public hearing tonight involves the ordinance interpretations about lighting as related to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, but the decision to install lighting at the North Mountain Park is the decision of the Parks Commission. Reynolds expressed his opposition to night lighting at the North Mountain Park because of the detrimental effects on the adjacent wildlife. PLANNING ACTION 2000-008 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCES BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 18.108.160 APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Chairman Armitage read the Planning Commission Statement explaining the proceedings. There are ten issues that will be discussed this evening. Ex Parte Contacts - Hearn said Sam Davis is a retired partner of his law firm and Hearn had a discussion with him many months ago regarding tonight’s issue but only to the extent that he referred Davis to Hassen’s law firm. Hearn believes he can be unbiased. Armitage said three letters were presented to the Commission this evening. If the writers wish to have their letters read into the record, please let Armitage know. He has a lengthy document (12 pages) from William Wilson. It will be difficult for the Commission to read through it at this point. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin said the Procedures Chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) contains a section on Ordinance Interpretations that is utilized when there is doubt regarding intent, suitably of uses not specified, or the meaning of a word or a phrase in the ordinance which then allows the Staff Advisor to make an interpretation which is then forwarded to the Commission to review and either accept or modify. The Commission’s recommendations are then forwarded to the City Council for final determination. The action tonight is not an application to review a driving range for the golf course. It is not an application to review ball fields at the North Mountain Park area. Instead, the action tonight is about specific ordinances that may relate to the driving range or ball fields. The Commissioners’ task is to look specifically at the ordinances and ask if the interpretations being presented to them are reasonable and acceptable interpretations of the existing ordinances. McLaughlin briefly outlined each item. 1. Is a public golf course a public recreational facility as that term is used in ALUO 18.20.020.E? Permitted Uses in the R-1 zone lists a public recreational facility as a permitted use. A public golf course serves and functions as a recreational facility for the public and that is how Staff has interpreted this in the past. 2. Is a driving range in conjunction with a public golf course an outright permitted accessory use to a public recreational facility in ALUO 18.20.020? In the Single Family zone, listed under Permitted Uses it states: “The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright”. It is Staff’s interpretation that a driving range in conjunction with an existing public recreational facility (golf course) is an accessory use to that golf course. It is incidental and subordinate to the main use of the property. It is not the primary purpose of the property but subordinate and incidental and located on the same lot as the main use. 3. Are planning staff responses to questions regarding the intent or meaning of the ALUO proceedings which constitute a planning action as that term is defined in ALUO 18.08.595? A planning action is a formal application brought to the Commission monthly. People coming to the counter requesting clarification regarding setbacks, etc. are not formal applications subject to a planning action. It is Staff’s opinion that those types of discussions and interpretations at the counter are not specific planning actions, but merely discussions and clarifications of the ordinances. 4. Does the term “structure”, as defined in the ALUO 18.08.750, include poles or posts, standing by themselves or connected to each other by fencing, netting or utility wires or cable? The definition in ALUO of structure is very broad. (Refer to Staff Report for full definition.) It has never been Staff’s interpretation that a post is a structure. Building permits and reviews are not required for the electric company to put up utility poles, whether connected by cables or wires. 5. Does the definition of height of buildings in ALUO 18.08.290 apply to the poles or posts described above? McLaughlin read the definition from the ALUO (refer to Staff Report). In all sections, the definition refers to a roof which is generally enclosing or covering a building. A post or pole does not have a roof, therefore, height of building, in Staff’s opinion does not apply to poles and posts. 6. Does the term driving range in ALUO 18.20.030.E (Conditional Uses) apply to a driving range which is an accessory use to a golf course? Under Conditional Uses in a Single Family zone, recreational uses and facilities are listed as Conditional Uses as opposed to Permitted Uses. These include country clubs, golf courses, swimming clubs and tennis clubs; but not including such intensive commercial recreational uses as a driving range, racetrack, or amusement park. Staff has looked at the context of those lists. In the list of Conditional Uses, three of the four listed are clearly considered private operations (country club, etc.), not public recreational facilities. Commercial recreational facilities such as racetrack, amusement park, or driving range are excluded in Single Family zones. A driving range that stands on its own as a commercial operation, perhaps operating 24 hours a day with multi-story tees, making it truly commercial, is not appropriate within a Single Family zone. Staff’s interpretation of a driving range as it is used in the Conditional Use section refers to stand-alone commercial operations and does not apply to an accessory use to a public recreational facility. 7. Is a vending machine of golf balls or other products, or is a vehicle with attachments, such as to mow lawns or retrieve golf balls, “mechanical equipment” within the meaning of ALUO of18.08.485? McLaughlin said that “mechanical equipment” is very specifically defined (refer to Staff Report). The list is specific to heating, air conditioning, solar collectors and parabolic antennas. It does not refer to vending machines or lawn mowers or golf ball retrievers. Staff has never interpreted the installation of any vending machine as triggering any sort of review process as mechanical equipment. 8. How is square footage measured as used in ALUO 18.108.030.A.6 when a structure is unenclosed or has no roof or floor? This section of the code explains when a Planning Commission approval is required for a project. Site Review approval is triggered when square footage is added to a building. It is Staff’s opinion that if a structure is not enclosed there is no square footage being added, or it has no roof or floor, then it is not considered a structure and therefore, does not trigger review. 9. Is outdoor lighting a use as defined in the ALUO 18.08.810 and is it subject to a planning action or any permit or approval under the ALUO? “Use” is defined as the purpose for which land or a structure is designated, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. Staff’s interpretation is that lighting is not a “use”. 10. How is “direct illumination” to be interpreted in ALUO 18.72.140? Staff’s interpretation of no direct illumination means the light source is shielded in such a way that one would not necessarily see the origination of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 the light. It does not mean that light won’t “bleed over”. If the light is not shielded, it may be visible but directed away or in a location that is not causing a glare. The goal of this section is to limit the intrusion of light but still recognize the needs, such as security. The Commissioners’ charge is to look at these ordinances in a global sense and confirm or modify that these interpretations presented tonight reflect the intent of the Land Use Ordinance. Hearn stated that the Commissioners are being asked to interpret ordinances. Someone else passed these ordinances; they did not draft them but are being asked to interpret. McLaughlin said in many cases there is no legislative history. There is the background he has given the Commission that result in Staff’s interpretation. The Commissioners are “judge-like” in their review of these ordinances. Clarifications: Item 3. There was an inadvertent omission of “It is Staff’s opinion” in this item. Item 9. Morris wondered if outdoor lighting is not a use, would the addition of light signify a change in use? Paul Nolte, City Attorney, said if it is a permitted use such as a tennis court and lights are added, that allows the use to continue longer, but he does not believe it is a change in use. As long as the lights do not conflict with glare and intensity, nothing in the Land Use Ordinance is triggered. Armitage asked if the use was a Conditional Use, would lighting be considered a change in use. Nolte said at that point the conditions of approval would have to be reviewed. PUBLIC HEARING FRED WILSON, is representing Mr. And Mrs. Delgado, Mr. And Mrs. Sam Davis, and Mrs. George Owens. He is with the Hassen law firm at 717 Murphy Road, Medford, OR 97504. The people he represents live in the Oak Knoll neighborhood along the fairway where the driving range is going to be installed. He will refer to them as neighbors. The reason they are here tonight asking for ordinance interpretations is because the Parks and Recreation Commission want to put up a driving range at Oak Knoll Golf Course without going through the standard public land use process. The Parks Department spoke to the Planning Department and got a nod to go ahead with a driving range. The 50-foot poles are already installed. The neighbors eventually appealed it to LUBA. The City Attorney argued this was a ministerial decision and they were too late to appeal. LUBA agreed with the neighbors that this is a land use decision involving discretion and there has to be some sort of process and it was remanded back to the City. They were told by LUBA they appealed in a timely manner. The neighbors would like the Parks Department to go through the standard land use process. He discussed the ten ordinance interpretations. 1. Is a public golf course a public recreational facility as that term is used in ALUO 18.20.020.E? Wilson agreed. 2. Is a driving range in conjunction with a public golf course an outright permitted accessory use to a public recreational facility in ALUO 18.20.020? Wilson said it depends. This zone specifically prohibits intense commercial uses and specifically a driving range. The only way to determine whether a particular driving range is incidental and subordinate or an intense commercial use is to look at the proposed driving range. The fact it is connected to a golf course does not determine whether it is subordinate and incidental or intense commercial. He does not think the Commission can make an interpretation that this is a permitted use in all situations without looking at the individual proposed driving range. There has never been a site plan submitted to the neighbors. A decision cannot be made until that has happened. 3. Are planning staff responses to questions regarding the intent or meaning of the ALUO proceedings which constitute a planning action as that term is defined in ALUO 18.08.595? Wilson said, again, it depends. A planning action determines someone’s rights under the ordinance and gives them an answer. He said LUBA case law and the statutes are clear a discretionary land use decision cannot be made and then evade a land use review because there is no form for that. Wilson said in his memorandum dated January 11, 2000, he talks about a “strawman”. He believes the City has set up a situation that it seems the neighbors position is silly and would be easy to knock down. In this situation the City has said people come to the counter everyday and ask questions and these cannot all be treated as planning actions. The overwhelming majority of those questions are ministerial decisions; they don’t involve interpretation or exercise of policy and legal judgment. But in the situation of Oak ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 Knoll Golf Course, it is quite clear a process has to be provided and it is a planning action. 4. Does the term “structure”, as defined in the ALUO 18.08.750, include poles or posts, standing by themselves or connected to each other by fencing, netting or utility wires or cable? Wilson said the definition mentions a structure or building is something that is constructed or built. It is pretty clear the driving range is something that is built or constructed. It also goes on...”any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in a definite manner, located or attached in, or above the ground”. This is a driving range. The Oak Knoll Master Plan says, “...several large trees must be removed to ‘construct’...". It continues “...The heating area must be enclosed”. 5. Does the definition of height of buildings in ALUO 18.08.290 apply to the poles or posts described above? Wilson said this is another “strawman”. This applies to height of buildings but not other things. He doesn’t agree that it would apply to “structures”. R-1 zoning regulations talk about structures, not about height of buildings. Wilson would answer “yes” to this question. The point of the ordinance is the a 6. Does the term driving range in ALUO 18.20.030.E (Conditional Uses) apply to a driving range which is an accessory use to a golf course? Wilson would answer “yes” to this question. The point of the ordinance is the affect the driving range has on the neighbors, not who owns it. It does not matter if it is public or private. 7. Is a vending machine of golf balls or other products, or is a vehicle with attachments, such as to mow lawns or retrieve golf balls, “mechanical equipment” within the meaning of ALUO of 18.08.485? Wilson said obviously a vending machine and lawn mower is not mechanical equipment. LUBA suggested that if there are new parking spaces or any mechanical equipment associated with the driving range, it would trigger Site Review. The neighbors do not know what is going to be on this site. The neighbors do not have any problem with this interpretation as long as it is clear it does not apply in order to give Oak Knoll immunity to Site Review. 8. How is square footage measured as used in ALUO 18.108.030.A.6 when a structure is unenclosed or has no roof or floor? Wilson said this another “strawman”. By using the definition of how square footage is measured avoids Site Review. If this is a structure over 2500 square feet, Site Review would be triggered. Square footage can apply to things that do not have walls and floors. It can apply to a driving range. Again, the neighbors do not have a problem with this interpretation as long as it is restricted to that particular ordinance and it is clear that does not apply to Chapter 18.72 which would preclude Site Review of the Oak Knoll driving range. Items 9 and 10 seem to apply to North Mountain Park and not to Oak Knoll driving range. Wilson concluded that whatever this is called--a structure, building, monstrosity--whatever it is, it is going to have a big affect on a lot of people. They are asking the driving range be reviewed in an open public forum. Armitage asked if the Commissioners have had adequate time to review Wilson’s memorandum. The Commissioners asked to move forward and listen to the testimony and decide at that point. Armitage read HOWARD AND DANNA BRAHAM’S comments, 800 Acorn Circle, into the record. They support Staff’s interpretations. TERI COPPEDGE, 2927 Barbara Street, stated she is a member of the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission and is speaking for herself. The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission took over the golf course several years ago. They made a Master Plan taking into consideration extensive public input. She talked about Item 1 and 2. Part of their mission for the City of Ashland is to provide recreational facilities. They have found a driving range is a critical part of a golf course because people want to get better at their game. A recreational facility is a permitted use and the driving range that goes along with it is a permitted use. Coppedge said the Parks Commission agreed to move forward and are in agreement with the Planning Director on the points mentioned this evening. KenCairn asked if the Master Plan showed the driving range and the layout? Coppedge said it was adopted about five years ago and the area is delineated. Hearn asked if the Parks Department thought early on about pursuing this as a regular land use application. Coppedge said as a Parks Commissioner, she relies on Staff to handle these details. McLaughlin said before construction began, the Parks Director came to him and asked if this was a permitted use. McLaughlin reviewed ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 the ordinance and determined it was a permitted use based as an accessory use to a public recreational facility. He did not detail out his interpretation at that point. He detailed it when it was remanded from LUBA. STAN FANCHER, 1126 Augusta Court, spoke about items 1 and 3. Under ALUO 18.20.020, it does not specify a golf course but under 18.20.030, a golf course is specifically listed as a Conditional Use Permit. He does not believe it can be both ways. It would seem if the writers wanted a golf course, it would have been included as a permitted use. Or, they could have dropped the word “golf courses” from the restricted use section. There is nothing in the ordinance alluding to the size of a driving range. Section 18.20.030 states positively that such intensive commercial recreational uses such as a driving range, are not permitted at Oak Knoll. He read from the R-1 code that the purpose is “to stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of the district and promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life”. JOANNE JOHNS, 650 Spring Creek Drive, submitted a letter and she read it. She said when the property owners had concerns about the driving range a committee was formed. They looked at alternate sites for the driving range. By consensus, the committee decided to use the site outlined in the Master Plan. STEPHANIE JOHNS, 650 Spring Creek Drive, has never played in a tournament where there is not a driving range. All courses have to have a driving range in order for people to get better at their game. How are kids going to be the future if they don’t learn how to play? SALLY JONES, 323 Maple Street, is on the Parks Commission. She mentioned the Master Plan that has been in place for about five years. She agrees with the Planning Director as far as the interpretation. The golf course is part of the entire parks system. It is very public. It is important economically for the golf course to have a driving range. GEORGE OWENS, 882 Cypress Point Loop, said he lives off the first fairway. He believes the interest of the ALUO is compromised if the Planning Commission accepts the interpretations and undermines the integrity of the planning process. Somehow the intent of ALUO 18.08.750 loses meaning when the definition of a structure is limited to those structures that have walls, ceilings and floors. It is hard to imagine that the proposed twin rows of netting (50 feet x 750 feet each) with the important function of sheltering golfers from errant golf balls is a non- structure in the planning process. It would be laughable if one did not have to look at this ‘monster non-structure” everyday. Owens believes the Parks Commission wants to try another commercial venture. However, this commercial activity will be classified as an accessory use with an existing public golf course to avoid being identified as a Conditional Use facility. WES REYNOLDS, 1265 Munson Drive, stated he wished to speak about Items 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10. There are several things about the history that the Commissioners should keep in mind such as the Comprehensive Plan policies that guide the ordinances, the purpose statement in the ordinances, the planning goals behind the Comprehensive Plan, particularly Statewide Goals 6 and 13 on Air, Land, and Water Quality and Energy Conservation. The line between ministerial and discretionary should be more tightly drawn than the Staff Report has mentioned. “Incidental and subordinate to” for accessory uses is really meant for things like a small greenhouse or a garage; something that is smaller than the main house in height, of less impact, of less value and not much different that what else is in the neighborhood. When things are taller in height--even taller than the trees--it is beyond the threshold of “incidental and subordinate”. Even if something masses even more than a structure would mass, it should be treated as a structure. The Commissioners can direct their Planning Director to bring issues that are a bigger deal to come before them. As a former Parks Commissioner, he would like to add, the Commissioners would be doing the City a favor by having these spelled out and a lot of controversy they are hearing would be dealt with in a set procedure. What are the affects on neighborhoods? What are the visual impacts? DUANE WHITCOMB, 1179 Village Square Drive, also speaking on behalf of COLIN SWALES, 143 Eighth Street, said he lives near the North Mountain Park. Is a structure a pole or is it a building that has four walls? He referred to Comprehensive Plan Policies 9 and 14 detailing Parks Department Goals and Policies. These could be threatened without due process. The Commission can decide if they want loose interpretation or conservative interpretation. He feels the goals and policies are conservative. Visual resources seem important and he believes they should be interpreted conservatively. Is having a profitable golf course worth circumventing the process? Armitage read LAURIE BIXBY’S letter, 571 Oak Hill Circle, into the record in support of Staff’s interpretation. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 LAURIE MCGRAW, 423 Lit Way, stated she is on the Parks Commission. She supports Staff’s interpretation of the ordinance in terms of the outright permitted accessory use to a public recreational facility. She does not believe the Commission is being asked to make a conservative or loose interpretation of the ordinance. She is asking them to support the interpretation of the ordinance as it has been interpreted by Staff. McGraw believes perception has a lot to do with what is visibly aesthetic and what isn’t. Nolte responded to Wilson’s comments about the “strawman” to support Staff’s interpretations. Most of the “strawmen” were “red herrings” that Wilson raised to LUBA. When it was asked what process this driving range should be subjected to, Wilson said it should have been a Site Review which leads into a 2500 square foot structure. These were not a “strawman” to support an argument, but the things that were raised before by the neighbors in an effort to say, “This process is all wrong.” When people say there should be some due process, we have to ask, “What process is due?”. That is why McLaughlin’s interpretations are being presented to the Commissioners. If McLaughlin is wrong, the Commissioners have an opportunity to cure that here tonight. With reference to Hearn’s question about legislative history, Nolte said it is ultimately the drafters of the ordinance who will make the interpretation; that is the City Council. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Commissioners took a five minute break to review Wilson’s memorandum. Each Commissioner discussed the items of concern to them. The Commissioners were in unanimous agreement with Staff’s interpretation of Item 1. Is a public golf course a public recreational facility as that term is used in ALUO 18.20.020.E? Chapman felt Items 2 and 6 should be discussed together. He did not understand the distinction of a driving range that is not allowed as a stand alone facility versus a driving range that is part of a golf course. He would like the general public to be able to avoid confusion when reading the land use ordinances. Briggs kept coming back to “subordinate” in Item 2. It could be the subordinate use takes up less space but has a more intense use. Maybe it would go back to what Wilson said--it depends. She had trouble with Item 6, the words “public” or “private” are not mentioned in the definition but much use was made of the distinction between the two in the interpretation. It is not clear to her. Gardiner can see in Item 2 how the driving range can be accessory to the golf course just in size. The driving range is about one-tenth the size of the course. Gardiner can envision the difference not so much between “public” and “private” as a stand-alone driving range that goes to the limits of the property line as opposed to a situation where it is enclosed within a driving range. A stand-alone would be different than something incorporated into the larger operation. KenCairn questioned Items 2 and 4. She has a hard time not calling a driving range a structure. Driving ranges create a mass in the landscape so it would not seem to be subordinate to the golf course in that sense. It would be a subordinate use but not a subordinate landscape element. It becomes a focus just like the building at the golf course. Morris is concerned the accessory use (driving range) with the 17 tee boxes will create more use which will create more traffic than the remainder of the golf course. Hearn also cannot relate to whether this use is accessory as the driving range may create three times as much use than the golf course. He is grappling most with Item 4, the definition of a structure. Armitage said assuming a golf course is a public recreational facility, it could have a driving range accessory to it. But, if the same golf course used to be private and was picked up by the City, can it still be allowed to have a driving range as accessory to it? He has trouble with the mass of a driving range as well. McLaughlin explained that a driving range is a much more intense use on a smaller area of land (stand-alone) than ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 it would be surrounded by a golf course. Briggs said she thinks the key to Item 2 is “incidental and subordinate” and she cannot prove or disprove that is the case with the driving range. Armitage believes there is a lot here to make it a public process. Mclaughlin said the Parks Commission is an elected body and they made a public process decision on the driving range. After the poles had started up, the driving range became an issue and they did further reviews. The process has not been conducted behind the scenes. Nolte said they cannot make an interpretation that has the affect of amending the ordinances or the interpretation becomes invalid. Briggs interprets Item 2, because of the words “incidental and subordinate” to be exactly the opposite of Staff’s interpretation because there are too many unknowns. They need some adverbs or adjectives such as mass, volume, public use. She cannot agree with Staff’s interpretation that a driving range is considered accessory to the golf course. Nolte would not go so far as to say that the words “incidental and subordinate” are so vague they cannot be used because that would mean you would need a land use permit for such things as a garage, greenhouse, etc. Nolte said it would be more appropriate to say that Briggs does not think a driving range is accessory to a golf course. Hearn believes the language in this is much looser than, for example, it is for an accessory residential dwelling (square footage cannot exceed 50 percent of the square footage of the main house). McLaughlin said the Commissioners need to look at what it is accessory to--an accessory residential unit is accessory to a house--a driving range is accessory to a golf course. What is the primary use of the property and what is an appropriate incidental use to it? Item 2. Is a driving range in conjunction with a public golf course an outright permitted accessory use to a public recreational facility in ALUO 18.20.020?Vote: 5/3 in The Commission grappled with this decision. favor of Staff’s interpretation. Gardiner, Morris, KenCairn , Armitage and Hearn are in agreement with Staff. Amarotico, Briggs, Chapman are not in agreement. Item 3. Are planning staff responses to questions regarding the intent or meaning of the ALUO, proceedings which constitute a planning action as that term is defined in ALUO 18.08.595? Chapman does not understand the implications of discretionary vs. ministerial land use decisions. Nolte explained if it is something that involves discretion, it involves a land use action which LUBA has jurisdiction to review. LUBA does not review ministerial actions. It does not necessarily mean if a decision involves discretion, there is necessarily a procedure under the planning ordinance to address it. It does mean the decision of the Planning Director can be reviewed by LUBA. In the case of the driving range, that is what LUBA asked--that the Planning Director never explained why his advice to the Parks Director was not subject to some kind of proceeding. Vote: 8/0 in favor of Staff’s interpretation. Item 4. Does the term “structure” as defined in ALUO 18.08.750 include poles or posts, standing by themselves or connected to each other by fencing, netting or utility wires or cable? Briggs does not agree. She referred back to “that which is built, constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up”. Poles are a structure. Poles connected by nets or guy wires are under the category “any piece of work artificially built up”. She sees a huge contradiction between Staff’s interpretation and the text of the ordinance. Hearn asks what the plain meaning of a reasonable person reading our ordinance would see. Reading what Briggs read, he finds it hard to keep a straight face and say this is not a structure. It is a big, 50 -foot high netting with a pole structure that has joined parts in some definite manner which requires location in or above the ground. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 Chapman agrees with Hearn. The driving range provides a barrier, has a huge visual impact, and does enclose the use. Vote: 0/8. The Commissioners all disagreed with Staff’s interpretation on Item 4. McLaughlin asked for a clarification. Is it the Commissioners interpretation to separate out the stand alone poles and utility poles and say those are not structures but things connected like a net that enclose the use is a structure? Armitage said it would be poles joined together in a definite manner. Hearn said the poles with utility lines are conveying electricity from one place to another. This is a net that is forming a definite barrier to catch flying golf balls. Briggs said even if the poles were lined up without the nets, they are artificially built up in a pattern. McLaughlin said if they take it to that level, they could be reviewing utility pole placements on private property. Item 5. Does the definition of height of buildings in ALUO 18.08.290 apply to the poles or posts described above? Amarotico asked if buildings or structures are used interchangeably, he wonders why one height would apply to a building and not a structure. Briggs did not understand what was expected of her to interpret. The wording in the ordinance addresses roofs and gables. Nolte said the only place where height of buildings is addressed is where it is defined. If they considered poles connected by fencing a structure, does that fall under this definition of height of buildings? He reads structure and buildings the same. Vote: 4/4. The Commissioners will return to this item. Item 6. Does the term driving range in ALUO 18.20.030.E apply to a driving range which is an accessory use to a golf course? McLaughlin said with the majority of the Commissioners agreeing with Item 2, it would be hard to not agree with Item 6. Briggs said Staff makes an issue of what is public and what is private but there is nothing mentioned about either in the definition. Therefore, she believes this is a huge leap in the interpretation and the distinction between public and private is not clear to her. She mentioned the skateboard park and ice rink. McLaughlin noted that these were both considered public recreational uses and were permitted in those zones. Staff’s reasoning for the interpretation is that if public recreational facilities are permitted then recreational facilities must be private. Vote: 6/2. Hearn, KenCairn, Gardiner, Morris, Chapman, and Armitage agreed with Staff. Briggs and Amarotico disagreed. Item 7. Is a vending machine of golf balls or other products or is a vehicle with attachments, such as to mow lawns or retrieve golf balls, “mechanical equipment” within the meaning of ALUO 18.08.485? Vote: 8/0 The Commissioners all agreed with Staff’s interpretation. Briggs moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and carried. Item 8. How is square footage measured as used in ALUO 18.108.030.A.6 when a structure is unenclosed or has no roof or floor? Nolte asked if you have a fence that is a straight line that is a structure, what is the square footage of the fence? What if you look at a fence enclosing only two sides of a lot, what is the square footage? If you have a fence enclosing four sides of a lot, what is the square footage of that structure? In the driving range, if the poles are connected by netting, is the structure still measured that as though it were enclosed? Is that the square footage of the structure when there is a floor? KenCairn said the area of the defined use equals the square footage of the structure. Hearn said the usable space is the netting catching the golf balls. Chapman said it gets muddied, for example a racquetball court--what if you measure the square footage of the walls? He likes the idea of using the area of the defined use. Briggs mentioned ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000 structures without roofs such as the skateboard park, the bandshell, the old Chautauqua, swimming pool that all have square footage. Nolte asked if a backyard enclosed by a fence creates a structure the size of that backyard? McLaughlin said we are talking about a building square footage that would trigger a land use action. Building a structure creates a land use process. A fence could be a structure by the Commissioners’ definition, but it would not have to have square footage. Vote: 7/1. Everyone agreed with Staff’s interpretation except Briggs who disagreed. Item 9. Is outdoor lighting a use as defined in ALUO 18.08.810 and is it subject to a planning action or any permit or approval under the ALUO? Briggs disagrees with Staff’s interpretation. Staff says outdoor lighting is not a use but without it, a particular facility cannot be used after dark. They go together. Nolte said lighting allows the use to be extended. It is not a change in the use. KenCairn said if there are intense uses at night it creates a different affect. Armitage said there is something to be discussed when you light up a large area for nighttime use. You don’t change the use but you change the expectation. McLaughlin said if adding a light creates a different use that would be conditional, and that would be completely different. Morris said if a facility was used for something only during the day, lighting could be added and that facility can now be used at night which may not have been originally proposed--what then? McLaughlin responded that if someone is using a portion of property for a parking lot, it is built and there is not lighting installed, but for security reasons, they decide to install lighting in accord with the other ordinances, it does not change the use of the property from a parking lot. It just becomes a lighted parking lot. Vote: 6/2. Gardiner, Amarotico, Chapman, KenCairn, Armitage, and Hearn agreed with Staff’s interpretation. Morris and Briggs disagreed. Item 10. How is “direct illumination” to be interpreted in ALUO 18.72.140? KenCairn feels it should be shielded and directed. Pointing a light down does not shield it. McLaughlin said they try to get neighbors to shield but it cannot be shielded in all cases. If the effort is made to direct light to the property, the direct glare is substantially reduced. There are times to shield, but you would have to fully cover it. Nolte said the lights at the SOU football field are shielded but you can see it from Terrace Street. If you can’t shield it totally, it has to be directed toward the field. Briggs feels this is a big problem. She wishes Staff’s interpretation hadn’t talked about light sources but about illumination. Vote: 7/1 Everyone agreed with Staff’s interpretation except Briggs, who disagreed. Item 5. (revisited). Does the definition of height of buildings in ALUO 18.08.290 apply to the poles or posts described above? Vote: 7/1 Everyone agreed with Staff’s interpretation except Briggs, who disagreed. OTHER - There will be a Joint Study Session with the Council and SOU on January 25th to discuss the SOU Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2000