Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-22 Planning Joint SS MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION JACKSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MAY 22, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Ashland Planning Commission Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. at the Council Chambers of the Ashland Civic Center. Ashland Planning Commissioners present were Marilyn Briggs, Mike Morris, John Fields, Chris Hearn, Alex Amarotico, and Russ Chapman. Absent members were Kerry KenCairn and Ray Kistler. Members present from the Jackson County Planning Commissioners were Leon Hofford, Chair of the Jackson County Planning Commission, Richard Thierolf, Don Greene, Reeve Hennion, and Bryon Williams. In attendance from the Ashland Planning Department were John McLaughlin, Brandon Goldman, Bill Molnar and Sue Yates. Jackson County Planning Staff included Ali Turiel and Tom Bizeau. INTRODUCTIONS - Gardiner asked for introductions of the members present. Goldman introduced the draft plan of the Jackson County and City of Ashland Urban Growth Management Agreement. The purpose of tonight’s meeting will include a general overview of the document and discussion by both Commissions on how to proceed from this point. Goldman introduced Clay Moorhead, CDA Consulting Group who was hired to facilitate the process and negotiations between Jackson County and the City of Ashland. A Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant was awarded to the City and County for work on the Urban Growth Management Agreement. Moorhead said the Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) was originally approved was in 1982, 19 years ago. There have been no substantial amendments to the documents since that time. The document is an interagency agreement or a contract between the City and the County on how development may or may not take place within the Urban Growth Boundary. As both Commissions review this document, Moorhead would like them to consider whether there is reason an amendment is even warranted. Or, is there unclear language in the document? Cities and counties come from different perspectives when development takes place. County standards are different than city standards. It is understood that ultimately, the land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is intended to be urbanized and at some point is expected to be part of the city limits. Therefore, when development occurs is development taking place that really facilitates proper planning? Does the document still fulfill the planning needs for both jurisdictions? The City of Ashland initially proposed a grant program to undertake a review process. The City and County were awarded this grant in January. Work thus far has been at a staff level with Staff has reviewing the details of the existing UGMA as well as exploring possibilities of what the UGMA could achieve. What topics are possible to discuss in this contract? Moorhead noted there are state statutes that provide very broad authorization for both governments to reach mutual agreement by which they may give services or tasks. Moorhead said it seemed apparent there were three or four items that continued to stand out in staff discussions. The first was “jurisdiction”. Who should have authority to make decisions with the Urban Area (UA)? The UA is the land outside the city limits but within the UGB. Who should have control over this area? Presently, the County has primary control over all permits within that area. The second item was Ashland’s “gateway”--the western entrance to town from the freeway. Should Ashland standards or County standards be applied to development along the gateway? The third item that came up was cost and fees. Permitting fees in Ashland are different than permitting fees in Jackson County. How the City charges Systems Development Charges (SDC’s) is different than the County. The fourth area of interest was how permits are issued. Discussions surrounded Ashland’s design standards. The TGM grant is funded primarily from transportation dollars. Over the years, the Dept. of Transportation has found that planning has been integrally connected to transportation and because of that they allow planning issues to take advantage of funding and created this TGM grant. The City is the primary agent under the contract with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) administering the grant. The County is a partner as well. In order to achieve any kind of success with this grant, both the City and the County will have to reach agreement. The primary task of the grant is to prepare the draft document. Neither jurisdiction is required to adopt the draft under the grant. Moorhead and staff have developed an initial rough draft. It takes the approach that areas primarily commercial in nature are of greater interest to Ashland and proposes that special zones be created to identify these areas. Goldman continued with a slide show. He discussed project objectives as outlined in the packet. He showed a map of the current UGB along with some potential re-zoned properties. He also showed a close-up of the north interchange and explained the parcels within the UGB and included in Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. He showed areas south of East Main that are Single Family Residential and an area east of I-5 that will come in primarily Employment. Goldman discussed the local street connections and the potential connections south of East Main. Goldman explained the Area of Mutual Concern. These are areas of development within the UGB and if there are planning actions within this area, Jackson County would notify the City of Ashland. The City of Ashland is proposing to add the area around Emigrant Lake to the Area of Mutual Concern. Molnar showed examples of how the Site Design and Use Standards have been applied to commercial building in Ashland. These standards deal with the basic elements of how a project is arranged on a property--the building relative to parking relative to landscaping. It does not get into specific architecture or materials. Some of the key elements of the Site Design and Use Standards are building orientation, location of screening and parking, streetscape issues and the preservation of natural features. A lot of site design goes toward trying to accommodate transportation policies. Over time, as the basic standards are incorporated, a desirable streetscape evolves. Molnar said the issue might arise in dealing with non-conforming sites that want to add square footage. The Site Review would look at trying to upgrade ten percent of the site. They generally look at the front yard and if there is no landscaping, try to add street trees to shade the parking, etc. Bizeau talked about the differences in Ashland’s zoning and Jackson County’s zoning. He handed out zoning and design standards comparisons for the two jurisdictions. Bizeau also compared the procedures for both jurisdictions. Goldman explained that the City would be proposing for areas outside the city limits that do not have services extended to them, that SDC’s would not be assessed for these properties at the city rate. City planning fees and building fees would apply. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION Reeve asked if we re-open the UGMA, are we going to have to consider all the aspects of a UGB agreement, for example, is there a 20 year supply of buildable lands? Or, can we focus on the areas Moorhead spoke about? Moorhead said the focus could be limited to the Areas of Concern. Buildable lands inventory is not a task in the management agreement. Goldman added that the City recently completed a buildable lands inventory and no changes are being proposed to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Moorhead said this would be served through periodic review. McLaughlin said the City does not have a plan or desire to expand the UGB. It is Staff’s belief they have enough land. Greene noted that he had been a member of the Ashland Planning Commission when this agreement was written. The County Planning Commission does a lot of long-range planning and regional planning for the entire county. An area of concern for Greene is the corridor between Ashland and Talent. This might be a time to open some discussions about this area. Right now it is a “no-man’s land. Moorhead said a way to get started is for Staff to continue development of the document or, they can say there is nothing compelling they want to change. Some things are fairly obvious. The document is 20 years old and there are some vague elements. Is that enough to support further review? Is there a need to discuss more interest from Ashland’s urban ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 JACKSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MAY 22, 2001 perspective as it relates to the gateway? Should Ashland’s design standards be applied to this area? Should there be some consideration when development takes place that Ashland’s standards are applied? Thierolf said with regard to the coordination of roads and streets that the hybrid agreement is the preferred alternative. If so, how does it meet the City’s concern to coordinate streets for the county only over commercially zoned property? Thierolf said the proposed agreement would let the County make that decision in a residential context. Moorhead said the City would be more interested in permit issuance of commercial applications and the County would continue the permitting of rural property. Theirolf asked how it would be coordinated. Moorhead said they would have additional access management standards that could include the map which Moorhead passed out. Thierolf wondered if the opinion of the people who own property in the areas in question would have anything do with whether we should go forward with an agreement. Moorhead said ultimately the draft would go forward with a formal review process and notice to property owners must be given. Goldman said a workshop notice was given for this meeting. After we get direction and a draft formalized, then notice will be given to all affected property owners. Reeve said it seems we are identifying our interests in the county, one being an interest in long-range planning. Secondly, what happens to the property owners who are in the County, if the decisions on the uses they can make of their property are being made by the City and they have no representation and no way to deal with that? Greene said the people in the County have no representation if the City is the ultimate decision maker. McLaughlin said Oregon has created this unique system of land use but somehow we left a hole (UGB). Where does the responsibility fall in this area? If we don’t reach an agreement ensuring that the long range vision remains, we will end up with the situation they have in Phoenix and Medford where no one wants this area. How do we meld the interests so everyone is fully represented and everyone’s interests are met? Turiel mentioned that the City of Tigard and Washington County have had a very successful agreement. There was representation and immediate local government they could go to with full standing at the planning commission. There were some shifts in the political structure on the Council with much more representation for that area. Williams is not sure if some of the City standards can be applied through the gateway from Talent through Ashland. For example, the street itself is a lot different than Benson Way. Benson Way is more pedestrian friendly. Do we need a different direction for this overlay? Fifty-five mph is fast. Goldman said no doubt there would be special provisions that would apply to that area that is not in the Site Design Guidelines. Briggs said she would want to be more specific and have more standards apply to the zones in the UGB. Fields said he is in a huge learning curve. He can see some infrastructure issues (mentioned car dealership). On the other hand, if the agreement is not broken, how seriously do we want to tinker with it? McLaughlin said that over the last couple of years, as more development at the north interchange has occurred such as the two coffee stands, under Ashland’s zoning, drive-up uses are temporary uses. If that area does get annexed, we immediately have two non-conforming uses. The question arose: Do we continue to allow things to happen that are not in conformance with our Comprehensive Plan in our jurisdiction? We need some clarity on how this works. The County is much better and more knowledgeable in dealing with wells, septic, etc, but not as used to reviewing commercial uses. Perhaps the City would review commercial applications. Perhaps this is a step too far. Turiel said Jackson County administers multiple zoning codes for eleven municipalities. They classically defer to each city because the city is an expert in their own codes. That way, administration of standards is consistent and fair. Greene wondered about development fees and can there be flexibility on how they are set. Jackson County’s legal counsel said they can enter into agreements that establish fees. Reeve suggested that McLaughlin’s comments make a lot of sense. It would seem that rather than going just by the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 JACKSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MAY 22, 2001 commercial areas, look at the gateway and identify two or three geographical areas, both residential and commercial. In some way there would be a shift to the City for the ultimate responsibility that would accomplish what Ashland wants, which is a little more control over these areas and at the same time, the County would retain the rural residential. Gardiner said there is a lot of good reason City standards could be applied to the north interchange area since there is already that type of development at the south end of town. Thierolf asked if it was true that the City of Ashland will not allow car lots within the city limits. McLaughlin said it is a Conditional Use Permit but we would have to look at it. It is a different type of use and a different ordinance would have to be adopted to reflect this type of use. Greene said one of his concerns is that the process for approving planning actions in the County is less intense than the process through the City. Moorhead said there might be some ways to create phasing. Hofford said he came to this meeting a little apprehensive because he knows McLaughlin runs a tight ship. He loves Ashland and the standard and atmosphere we can appreciate. The answers he’s received have been helpful to his initial exposure to this. It has helped him develop an understanding. This will not be worked out overnight. This document can be cleaned up and the unclear portions strengthened. He suggested a steering committee comprised of County Commissioners and Planning Commissioners and staff. Moorhead said after hearing the comments from the Commissioners, it appears warranted to look at a draft and bring back a revised version. They will just keep moving forward. He would like to keep the good communication going and likes the idea of including a committee made up of both Commissions. Gardiner asked about a timeline. McLaughlin said the document is not so broken it can’t continue for at least three to six more months. There is a steep learning curve to see where we have been for the last 20 years and understand where we want to be next. There is no need to rush. Hofford also felt it would be good to come up with a schedule of events. Gardiner explained there would be ample opportunity for members of the public to speak. He opened the floor for those audience members to say a few words. Duane Smith asked not be left in “no-man’s land”--either bring them in or leave them out. The owner of Ray’s Garden Shop said he does not welcome the City of Ashland taking over this area. Chuck Butler said Ashland is different and it is going to be difficult to come up with an agreement everyone can agree upon. Hennion likes the idea of the steering committee. He would like to see another study session before a public hearing. He believes this meeting has been excellent to understand what is behind this process and something we can continue to explore in a positive way. Greene believes it is very important to have Commission liaisons. He has learned a lot tonight. It is important we are not totally staff directed. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Minutes submitted by Susan Yates, Executive Secretary, Ashland Planning Department ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 JACKSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES MAY 22, 2001