Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-24 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wiAhing to 4peak at any Reaming Comm& s-on Meeting '1.4 eneounaged to do 4o. 16 you do wish to 'speak, p.2eaoe kite and agen you have been neeogn.%zed by the Chain, give your name and comp2.ete addne64. You wit ,then be Wowed to 4pealz. P.2eaiSe note that pub! La .testimony may be Limited ted b y the Chain.. a nonma22y -us no a22owed a6ten the pubt c heats Lng ha4 been ctoaed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING February 24, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St. II. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: 1. PA #82 -05, Site Review to build a flower shop on the parking lot adjacent to Orchard Lane Mall. Applicant: Kirk B. David. 2. PA #82 -06, Minor Land Partition at 779 Oak St. to divide the lot into two parcels. Applicant: Howard Tolliver. 3. PA #82 -08, amendment of a Site Review to allow the construction of a new structure at 265 Fourth St. in lieu of the relocation of the Depot building. Applicant: Erik Wallbank. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Revisions to Comprehensive Plan Map, outside the City limits, within the Urban Growth Boundary and Ashland /Jackson Co. UGB Agreement. (To be ad- journed to 3 -4 -82) 2. Revisions to the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps within the City limits: A Area added to Urban Growth Boundary B Area deleted from Urban Growth Boundary C Retail Commercial to Employment D Urban High to Multi- Family E Light Industrial to Employment F Heavy Commercial to Employment G Agriculture to Single Family Reserve H Rural Residential to Single Family Reserve I Agriculture to Single Family J Heavy Industry to Employment K Manufacturing to Commercial L Manufacturing to Employment M Commercial to Employment N Heavy Industrial to Employment IV. STAFF BUSINESS: V. ADJOURNMENT O Urban High to Multi Family P Suburban Residential to Townhouse Residential Q Urban Low to Townhouse R Commercial to Employment S Light Industrial to Employment T Rural Residential to Employment U Light Industrial to Industrial Reserve V Retail Commercial to Employment W Urban High to Multi- Family X Rural Residential to Woodland Reserve Y Forest to Woodland Reserve CALL TO ORDER TYPE I APPROVALS PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO COMP PLAN OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING February 24, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Jeff Barnes in the Civic Center. Members present were John Billings, Ethel Hansen, Gene Morris, Don Greene, Tom Owens, and Jackie Reid. Planning Director John Fregonese and Associate Planner Steve Jannusch were also present. 1. Planning Action #82 -05, a request for a Site Review to build a flower shop on the parking lot adjacent to Orchard Lane Mall; applicant: Kirk B. David. Fregonese informed the Commission that this request had been called up and would be reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of April 14. 2. Planning Action #82 -06, a request for a minor land partition at 779 Oak St. to divide the lot into two parcels; applicant: Howard Tolliver. Morris was curious as to where the bank, which drops to the flood plain, was located. Fregonese informed him that the drive has a gentle drop, and he also noted that there were major discrepancies with the official flood plain map. He indicated the Planning Dept. was in contact with the federal government in order to determine the actual location of the flood plain. He did note that the proposed units were located clearly out of the flood plain. The action stands approved. 3. Planning Action #82 -08, a request for an amendment of a Site Review to allow the construction of a new structure at 265 Fourth St. in lieu of the relocation of the depot building; applicant: Erik Wallbank. Morris asked about the nature of the rest of the lot. Fregonese in- formed him that the applicant would be attempting to purchase the depot building and move it to the proposed site. He stated it would require a future site review and Historic Commission review as well. Greene asked whether or not the new structure would look like the depot which was originally intended for this site. Fregonese stated the building would basically be a board and batt design with an aluminum roof. He felt this was in keeping with the architecture of the surrounding district. The project received approval. This item, which covered revisions to the Comp Plan outside the City limits,would not be discussed at this time but instead would be covered at the larch 4, 1982, meeting when the Jackson County Planning Com- mission would also be present. APC, 2/24/82, Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO COMP PLAN WITHIN CITY LIMITS Area C Retail Commercial to Employment Area D Urban High to Multi- Family Barnes outlined the procedures which would be followed for the hearing. Since items A and B on the agenda pertained to those areas added and deleted from the Urban Growth Boundary and would be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on March, 4, 1982, those two items were skipped. 1. Harry Kieval, a member of the audience, requested a clarification of the terms expressed in the ad in the Tidings, which were those to be discussed this evening. Fregonese then read the definitions from the draft of the Comp Plan. 2. There was no public testimony on area C. 1. Al Willstatter, 128 Central, was concerned with the reasons behind the changes. He felt it was a sad mistake to eliminate the density potential of R -3 and change it to R -2. He felt there were more units needed in this area to provide shorter walking distances to town for the elderly. He noted that the R -3 zone in this district provided a buffer area for the manufacturing zones adjacent to it. Barnes replied that the rationale in providing a zone of the R -3 density revolved around the expected mass urbanization anticipated during the drafting of the original ordinance. In fact, this mass urbanization did not happen. Barnes also noted that projects presently being submitted in the R -3 zone were being designed to R -2 densities anyway. Fregonese concurred with this and stated that three -story structures would be necessary to meet R -3 density, and multi -story units just don't sell here. Wil- statter stated that it should be incumbent on the individual developer to determine his solutions for these problems, and a blanket change would not be good. He felt these projects should be looked at on an individual basis. 2. Irma Laible, 145 Central, after being shown the area being dis- cussed by Fregonese, informed the Commission that the neighbors want their area to remain as is. She questioned whether this change will alter the value of her property. Fregonese answered that it probably would not, if she lived in a single- family residence. 3. Duane Taylor, 450 Ashland, asked if all the R -3 was being taken out. Fregonese stated yes. Taylor stated he felt each project should be considered separately. He asked whether the Plan had been adopted by the City, and Fregonese informed him that it had. Taylor wanted the Commission to consider the time and money spent discussing this issue in the past. Some years ago, when this same issue arose, he could see no real reason for down zoning this area and still doesn't. He stated he would appreciate a written response to his letter. 4. Ron Kelso, local realtor, wondered whether we could discuss the entire R -3 issue, which included two other sections on the map posted in the Tidings. Barnes replied okay. The other sections were W and the 0 zone. That meant that we would be discussing areas D, W and 0. Fregonese identified these areas on the map. APC, 2/24/82, Page 2 5. Roger Vait, 879 Clay, wanted to know whose idea the rezoning was. Barnes informed him that this was a general concensus of those in- volved in the planning process. Vait explained that he didn't like the idea, felt there was no justification for the change, and felt the Planning Commission shouldn't be telling people that their property values wouldn't be changing. 6. Kelso read a letter from a client he represents who lives at 404 Bridge St. The client felt that properties would be devalued and that the number of potential units would affect the sale price. He stated that there was really no way that the City could adjust the tax structure for these people when the zone was changed. He then addressed the zone change relevant to a piece of property which he owned at 416 Bridge St. He indicated he would stand to lose 50% on the property value, which, incidentally, is across the street from a 54 -unit motel. He felt that being more selective about the location of R -3 districts would save some areas from over development. 7. Bill Wright, 595 Taylor, spoke against the elimination of the R -3 district. He stated he has lived in Ashland for over 40 years and has seen many changes, but this proposed zone change is one to which he strongly objects. He stated he was .a retired real estate appraiser. He then noted that he owns property that presently would support 15 units. If it were changed to R -2, only 6 units would be allowed on the parcel. This would create a devaluation of from $12- 15,000. He asked whether the City was planning on paying him for the devaluation. Fregonese replied no. Wright then asked if anyone on the Planning Commission even owned any R -3 land, and the answer was that none of them did. 8. Harry Kieval, 740 Park, spoke in favor of the change. He approved of the change because he felt it would reduce the amount of traffic running up and down Park St. 9. Myrtle Bunnell, 308 W. Hersey, wanted clarification of the difference between R -2 and R -3. She spoke in favor of the R -3. 10. Bob Williamson, 311 N. Mountain, questioned why the change was even being proposed. Fregonese stated that some of the changes were due to LCDC requirements, while others were merely updates. Fregonese stated that it was his belief and that of the Planning Commission that, by reducing the allowable densities, many of the existing neighborhoods would be protected. Williamson replied that this was basically unfair, because of those individuals who had purchased property with the under- standing of the greater densities which were allowed under R -3. He felt that to reduce the densities would unfairly penalize these people. 11. Carl Crafton, 1729 Siskiyou Blvd., also a realtor, was in favor of retaining the R -3 zone. He represented property owners who were cur- rently involved in a sale which involved some R -3 property. He felt this proposed change occurring during this sale was unfair and would affect the transaction negatively. APC, 2/24/82, Page 3 Area E Light Industrial to Employment 12. Jerry Shaller, 259 N. Laurel, stated he was in favor of the down zoning, although he would end up losing the potential for another unit on his property, but this loss would be outweighed by the reten- tion of his property and neighborhood as it was. 13. Edwin Chapman, 270 N. Laurel, was opposed to the down zoning. He asked whether Billings still owned property at Laurel and Van Ness and Billings replied that he did. Chapman said that Billings should have stated so earlier. He then stated that he felt R -3 was an absolute necessity within the City of Ashland. He further stated he has spent $15,000 developing lots which will be changed, and this change would create a hardship for him. He stated that the neighborhood in which he lived was currently zoned R -3, and it had been previously zoned R -2, and he would have no problem with the change there. He stated that all planning was unfair, but the nature of this planning was the most unfair of all. In response to a previous comment made by a concerned citizen, he stated that if the City should pay for down zoning, those people who stand to gain from the up- zoning should be forced to pay for the profits gained. 14. Arnold Weeks, who owned property at 166 Laurel and 195 Van Ness, spoke in favor of retaining the R -3 zone. 15. W.R. Welch, 132 Susan Lane, spoke in favor of retaining the R -3 zone. 1. This area encompasses Hersey and Water Sts. Fregonese pointed out this area on the map, and explained the differences between the Light Industrial and Employment districts. He noted that the Employment district allows light industrial uses as well as some commercial uses. It is, therefore, a more flexible zoning jurisdiction. 2. There was no public comment on this area. Area F 1. Fregonese noted there was a mistake made on the map for the change Heavy in this area. It would not be Heavy Commercial to Employment, which was Commercial to indicated in the paper; it would be Heavy Commercial to Single Family. Employment 2. Harry Skerry, attorney for Albert Wolber, spoke for his client. Skerry noted that, for this area to be zoned single family, it would be an improper utilization of the property, after considering the employment and commercial zones for the parcel. He felt the parcel would be more appropriately considered under the R -2 jurisdiction, in that it would be compatible with the condominiums which abut it. Fregonese concurred with Skerry's conclusions, and noted it would be a natural area for apartment use. Barnes pointed out it might be a natural area for a neighborhood store. 3. Daniel Liebowitz, 1470 Pinecrest Terrace, felt the R -2 designation would not be appropriate, and would result in clumping the area into a hodge -podge of zones. He noted the corner was contiguous to an R -1 -5P property, and this would be a more logical use of the area. APC, 2/24/82, Page 4 Area G Agriculture to Single-Family reserve Area H Rural Residential to Single Family 'reserve Area I Agriculture to Single Family Area J Light Industrial to Employment Area K Manufacturing to Commercial Area L Manufacturing to Employment 4. Greene questioned whether this change would have any effect on the condominium properties adjacent, and Fregonese noted that it would. 1. These properties were located within the North Mountain /Nevada St. area, which is primarily Agricultural and Rural Residential, now being designated as Single- Family Reserve and Single- Family. Fregonese noted that the reasons for these changes were that LCDC required that no Rural Residential properties be located inside the City limits. The Residential Reserve indicates that the area will be used in the future for Single Family Residential. 2. Johnny Hodges, 192 N. Mountain, wanted to know why the top of Mountain, just below the railroad tracks, was being excluded from this area. Fregonese pointed out that it is already Single Family Residential in this area, and therefore is not changing. Hodges then wanted to know what Single Family Residential meant in terms of minimum lot size. Fregonese noted it would be 5000 sq. ft. minimum. 3. Morris asked Hodges whether or not he had tried in the past to build on this property and whether he had received negative responses from the City on this. Hodges indicated that he had. 4. Barnes noted that since this area was presently zoned for this use, Hodges could build a PUD there. 5. Morris wanted to know what the frontage requirements were in an R -1 -5 zone, and he was told it would be 50 ft. 6. Hodges noted that his attempts to develop this area occurred roughly 10 years ago. The Commission encouraged him to submit plans for develop- ment of this area at this point if he so chose. 1. This would be a change from Light Industrial to Employment. 2. Liebowitz raised some questions about this change. After a clarifi- cation by Fregonese as to the nature of the change, Liebowitz indicated he was in favor of it. Fregonese stated that any changes that would occur in this area, or, for that matter, in any area, that individuals affected by the change would be notified. 3. Morris wanted to know why Oak St. Tank and Steel and Parsons Pine were being changed to Employment. Fregonese pointed out that this was an error and the map would be updated. Area K will remain Commercial. Area L will be Multiple Family and not Manufacturing to Employment. APC, 2/24/82, Page 5 Area M Commercial to Employment Area N This area is Heavy Commercial_ to Employment, also on A St. There were Heavy no public comments on this change. Industrial to Employment Area 0 1. Jerry Walker, 115 California St., raised considerable objections Urban High to about why he had not been allowed to speak. His property was surrounded Multi- Family by apartments, and he had purchased his proeprty with the intention of developing it later. He stated he was definitely in favor of keeping the R -3 designation. Area P Suburban Residential to Townhouse Residential This change is on the south side of A St. There were no public comments on this change. 2. Dick Kirkpatrick, Century 21 real estate, represented a client who lived at 2225 Siskiyou Blvd. in opposing the change. 3. Hamid Ghavam spoke against the change. 4. Mike Morse had some questions about property he owned on Glenn St. He wanted a clarification as to whether the definition of the R -2 designa- tion would be changed. Fregonese pointed out that R -2 would remain the same. Morse noted that there were obviously some properties in town which lend themselves to R -3, and he was opposed to the blanket change. He felt that selective changes were more appropriate. 5. The audience, in one voice, raised the question of the difference between R -2 and R -3. Barnes explained the differences. The question was also raised about agricultural uses within the City. Fregonese pointed out that livestock is not allowed in any areas unless there is over 1 acre of property. Other agricultural uses were permitted anywhere, but there could be no specific zone designated as agricultural within the City limits. 1. This change was being proposed for the North Clay St. area. 2. Fregonese read the definition from the Comp Plan. 3. Gene Wright, 120 Clay St., was against this rezoning because of his concerns for the retention of this area as prime farm property. He felt the change was ridiculous. Fregonese explained the reason for considering this area as Townhouse Residential, specifically the require- ments LCDC had imposed on the Comp Plan. He indicated there was a definite need for medium density housing in the City, and this area was a logical place to provide for it. Wright felt it would be a "rape of the land." He felt the land deserves to be kept in farming. 4. John Conway, 140 Clay, asked whether this was a prelude for annexation, which would increase his cost of living. Fregonese stated that annexation would only occur upon request of property owners. APC, 2/24/82, Page 6 Area Q Urban Low to Townhouse 5. Doug McPhee, who is buying 140 Clay St. from Conway, stated that its location and distance from town was the very reason he was buying the property. 6. Ross Johnston, 301 Clay St., which is actually outside the City limits, stated he thought the property should be left as is as the street is narrow and in poor shape, and the City is too beautiful to ruin by increased housing there. 7. Jack Center commented on his property at 1932 Highway 66. He stated he wanted the property kept in Heavy Commercial in lieu of the change to the Employment zone. This area crosses Clay St. to the south of Area P. There was no comment on this area. Area R This area is located behind the Oak Tree restaurant and the Knights Inn Commercial motel and adjacent to Ashland Hills. There was no comment on this to Employment change. Area S Light Industrial to Employment Area T Rural Residential to Employment 1. This area was along Clover Lane which is under consideration to be changed from Light Industrial to Employment. 2. David Maltby, 615 Clover Lane, stated he was not sure if his property was included in this area, and would appreciate further informa- tion regarding this. Fregonese stated it would be included in this area and it would give more uses to his property. He again explained the new Employment district. 1. This is the area between E. Main and the Airport. 2. Curt Weaver, 333 Ardmore, Medford, representing a property owner who owns two tax lots in this area, stated his client was in favor of this change. Area U 1. Fregonese noted a change that should be reflected on the map. Light He suggested the residential lands should be shown along Highway 99 and Industrial to not along Interstate 5, and the railroad tracks should serve as the Industrial dividing line. reserve 2. Ron Grimes, 820 Crater Lake Ave., Medford, spoke for his clients, Messrs. Pedrojetti and Winan. He noted that their property along Clover Lane and Hwy. 66 is proposed to be split, as indicated on the map. He requested that all of their land be considered as commercial, as this split would complicate their planning and future goals. Fregonese indicated that this request should pose no problems. APC, 2/24/82, Page 7 Area V Retail Commercial to Employment Area W Urban High to Multi- Family Area X Rural Residential to Woodland Preserve Area Y Forest to Woodland Preserve This area is on south Siskiyou Blvd., directly to the south of Jacqueline St. There was no public comment on this item. There was no public comment on this area, which is adjacent to Area V to the west and south. 1. These properties are adjacent to Granite St. and above Strawberry Lane. Fregonese explained the changes from Rural Residential and Forest to Woodland Preserve, and read the explanations directly from the Comp Plan. 2. Mark Cooper, 1801 Siskiyou Blvd., commented on his property which is included in the Woodland Preserve area. He was concerned that this would have an impact on his development in this area. Fregonese indicated on the map where this was located. He also pointed out that this does not mean he cannot develop, only that the woodland character of the area needs to be preserved. He further stated that Woodland Reserve is the same as the 2.5 acre minimum of the Rural Resi- dential designation, only that it has slope density reductions imposed in it. 3. Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenview, stated the Woodland Reserve section cuts through her property. She wondered how much protection this would provide in view of the Lithia Homes project. Fregonese pointed out that the building sites were still zoned half acre. Briggs then asked for a clarification of where exactly the Woodland Preserve area was located within the Lithia Homes area. Fregonese pointed out that Woodland Preserve is included in the 11 acres Cooper owns which are not buildable. Briggs stated she felt the lines were inconsistent. Fregonese stated they follow the topography, and they were determined by the air photos and topographic maps. He then reiterated that Woodland Reserve doesn't prevent development, but it just restricts the density. 4. Lyle Stewart, planner, 45 Hawthorne, Medford, raised additional questions about the placement of the Woodland Preserve boundary lines. Barnes also asked for a clarification of this. Fregonese pointed out that these lines were established along tax lot lines where topography allowed, but we may want to readjust these lines in the summer when the topographic maps are available for this area. 5. Carl Oates, 351 Granite St., stated the Woodland Preserve lines were in some cases 500 -1000 ft. from Granite St. This does not seem to follow a 30% slope designated for this jurisdiction, which in actuality occurs closer to Granite St. Fregonese indicated there were ravines in this area, and these lines were followed along tax lot lines where possible. 6. Barnes stated there were saddle areas to be developed within the area Oates questioned. Oates still maintained that the line was too far from Granite St. APC, 2/24/82, Page 8 7. Fregonese stated that because the definition of Woodland Preserve may be confusing, it could be changed to Scenic Resource or something more appropriate for the steepness of the terrain. 8. Marilyn Marthoski, 514 Granite St., spoke in favor of the changes. She felt the property there had been rezoned incorrectly, since when Cooper bought his property it had been zoned 4.5 -acre minimum lot size. Fregonese pointed out that Marthoski is zoned presently at half -acre minimum. 9. Dick Stark, 837 E. Main, Medford, spoke representing the Harshmans. He expressed concern about his clients property relative to the Woodland Preserve designation. He questioned whether this land would be considered under future extension of City services. Fregonese pointed out that this area was a lower priority as far as the service extensions were concerned. He also noted that the change in the designation from Rural Residential 2.5 acres to Woodland Preserve meant only that this property would be subject to the new Physical Constraints Ordinance currently proposed and under consideration by the Planning Commission. 10. Ron Kelso then spoke representing the Molner family. He requested that their property is currently zoned .5 acre, and they did not want to be included in the Woodland Preserve district. 11. Ron Skog, Strawberry Lane, indicated that during neighborhood meetings the Molners requested that their property be removed from Woodland Preserve. Fregonese noted that it was an error on the map and this property would be maintained at .5 acre minimum. 12. Oates requested information regarding the findings of the Erosion Committee. Barnes pointed out that this would be discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on March 10. 13. Wilstatter reiterated his opinion that it would be a disservice to eliminate the R -3 designation completely. The public hearing was then closed. Barnes stated the discussion would be continued until the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 2/24/82, Page 9