Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-04 Planning MINNOTE; -n Anyone wizhing to 4peafz at any P.Canni,ng Commbsz ion Meeting encounaged to do 4o. i4 you do w.voh to 4pea!z, p.2ecc6 e /Um and agen you have been necogn-Lzed by the Chain, g.Lve youn. name and eomp2e to addne 's you uuLe then be ateowed to z pealz. P.2eaz e note that pubtie tatimony may be Limited by the Chain and notcmaP.ey Ls not allowed agek the pubtLe hewing hay been oz ed I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ashland /Jackson County UGB Agreement 2. Areas added to Urban Growth Boundary 3. Areas deleted from Urban Growth Boundary 4. Comprehensive Plan Changes Outside the City Limits III. GENERAL DISCUSSION IV. ADJOURNMENT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING March 4, 1982 CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING ASHLAND/ JACKSON CO. UGB AGREEMENT MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING March 4, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Ashland Civic Center by Chairman Jeff Barnes. Members present were Don Greene, Jackie Reid, Gene Morris, John Billings, and Christian Apenes. Also present were Jackson County Planning Director Bob Britzman and Jackson County Planning Commissioners Helen Levine, Billie Dickerson, Bill MacKenzie, and Tim Kelley. Planning Director John Fregonese and Associate Planner Steve Jannusch were also present. 1. Fregonese gave an overview of the agreement after emphasizing the definitions. Policy statements included the following: A The Ashland urbanizable area. B The area of mutual concern. C The area of future urbanization. D Procedure for contract annexation. E The definition of rural lands. F The policies regarding lands zoned f or exclusive farm use. G The policies regarding provision of urban facility services. H Provisions for sewer and water services within the UGB and the area of future urban expansion. I Policies regarding unincorporated urban lands. J Amendment procedures for the UGB and urbanization policies. 2. A letter from Curt Weaver and Robert Dickey was read into the record. They represent property owners at the North Ashland Interchange. 3. A letter from BCVSA was entered into the record. 4. Fregonese showed the area of mutual concern and also the area of future urbanization on the map furnished by Britzman and on the map furnished by the City of Ashland. He indicated the location of BCVSA sewer service lines. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Robert Dickey, 129 N. Oakdale, Medford, attorney, spoke for his clients who owned property at the North Ashland Interchange. He requested some changes in the agreement's wording as follows: Under definitions, paragraph J, rural lands, he requested the word "developed" be omitted. APC, 3/4/82, Page 1 After "area serving the needs of rural population," insert "for the needs of the traveling public in appropriate locations." Under Amend- ment Procedures for the Urban Growth Boundaries and Urbanization Policies, Dickey requested that the Planning Commission omit completely the paragraph beginning "A major revision shall include any boundary changes that would necessitate..." and have the next paragraph revised such that it begins with "Major revisions will be considered by both the City and the County..." 2. As a part of his letter, Dickey had included a part of the LUBA decision #80 -124, City of Ashland vs. Jackson County. Dickey contended that, in response to the LUBA decision, the County could maintain a limited commercial zoning district at the North Interchange and still not be in violation of Goal 14. Fregonese responded by citing the findings of the LUBA decision, by stating "Cities and counties are not in competition for urban developments. Cities are the housing, employment, shopping and service centers and providers. The whole point of Goal 14 is that rural lands are not available to satisfy the State's housing, shopping, non resource employment, and other non farming, non forest- related needs." 3. Curt Weaver, 333 Ardmore, Medford, requested that the County put on their public hearings schedule review of this area, so that the applicants can submit findings for commercial zoning changes in this area. 4. Duane Smith, representing the land owners' association in the North Ashland area, stated that the majority of the land owners did not want to be part of the City, but that they desperately wanted sewer service. He stated their opposition to the agreement without a guarantee of sewer availability. He requested clarification as to Section 10, policies regarding unincorporated urban lands, subsections b and c, regarding in -fill developments. He wanted to know if he could continue development to a commercial use, since the County had a Rural Residential designation and the City proposed Commercial. Smith stated that his understanding for the need for the agreement in this area was to expedite the sewer availability to the affected properties. He continued by stating that it was necessary for this guarantee by the City and County to ensure against the patchwork development of this area, with drainfields and holding tanks. 5. In response to a County Commissioner's question as to how many land owners were represented at the North Interchange, Fregonese in- dicated that there from 20 -25 individuals expressing concern. 6. Eric Dittmer, Rogue Valley Council of Governments, stated that though the BCVSA was not signing the document, they requested a chance to challenge the document. He stated the BCVSA, upon reviewing the preliminary document, found the language was unacceptable to them. His attempts at reaching a compromise with BCVSA regarding the document had failed. APC, 3/4/82, Page 2 7. Dennis Beatty, owner of Horse Country, located at the interchange, stated it was his understanding from the last County Planning Commission meeting that a 200 -ft. buffer zone of EFU land would be appropriate for this area. Fregonese stated that if this was within the City limits, this figure would be in the form of a 300 -ft. deed declaration. Beatty stated this would be acceptable to him. Dickerson stated that, after the public hearing, it was determined that 200 ft. would be too much, and these buffer zones would be considered on an individual basis. 8. Russ Dale, 585 Allison, addressed the area of mutual planning con- cern. He stated that the watershed area should be considered under this mutual planning concern, since this area was vital to both the City and County. He felt this should be stated clearly in the document. 9. Dickey moved that the record be left open for one week to correct his copy of the agreement, which was the preliminary document, and to correct his letter accordingly, and also to give him an opportunity to review Mr. Miller's letter. Fregonese indicated to him that written testimony would be left open until the meeting of March 24. 10. MacKenzie requested that a common set of papers be made available to all parties affected by the document. This public hearing was then closed. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Fregonese reviewed the areas affected which include the area north AREAS ADDED of Quiet Village and east of the sewage treatment plant. The area is TO UGB owned by the City and is part of the Greenway. Referring to the north Ashland area, he showed on the map the property owners' proposal which staff supports, and the CPAC proposal. This area comprises approximately 90 acres, about 60% of which is developed under many uses. 2. A County Commissioner questioned why the City Planning Commission did not approve CPAC's recommendations. Fregonese pointed out that their proposal would in essence be a gerrymander and it would isolate a large piece of property between the existing UGB and the proposed one. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. John Chmelir, representing Mrs. Studebaker who owns property at 55 W. Nevada, presented a letter for the record and noted that 180 ft. of her property is in the City limits. It was his feeling that the UGB should follow the natural boundaries of the creek, and would like this parcel to retain a zoning of R -1 -5. He stated the parcel has all services. He then showed pictures of the property and a map of the 100 -year flood plain. Fregonese wanted to know if the sewage treatment plant was visible from this property. Chmelir said it was barely visible, and he noted on the map there was about 8 -10 ft. of the pro- posed property within the 100 -year flood plain. APC, 3/4/82, Page 3 2. Lucy Harrel requested that her property be included in the UGB. The property is located at the top of Park St. and is presently surrounded on three sides by the UGB. In response to a question by Fregonese regarding the topography of her property, Ms. Harrel indicated that the flag section of the property was level and there was a small swale adjacent to the level area. Beyond the swale, the property sloped gently to her property lines. She indicated there were about 2 -1/2 acres which she owned. 3. Leo vanDijk, 1609 Jackson Rd., owner and veterinarian of the Animal Medical Hospital in north Ashland, indicated his lb acres had been deleted by CPAC's proposal. He stated the property was his "hobby farm" and while the land slopes, it isn't steep. He felt it was absurd to preserve agricultural lands on tiny acreages which required a significant sacrifice of time and effort. He felt that EFU zoning was a modern form of slavery. He does not oppose being a part of the City, contrary to Duane's statement, but he does want orderly, controlled growth. Barnes asked if vanDijk felt multi family would be okay in this area, to which the latter replied yes. 4. Art Studebaker spoke for his mother regarding her property at 55 W. Nevada. He spoke in favor of its inclusion into the UGB. He stated his mother would be willing to dedicate any appropriate lands required by the City for Greenway. 5. Duane Smith again spoke in regard to the North Ashland Interchange area. He stated he was only opposed to the inclusion of this area in the UGB without a guarantee of the adequate services. He then quoted some figures for the record: There are 169 full -time employees in this area, which generate a payroll of $176,000 /month; 86 of the 169 live in Ashland; the businesses generate over $22 million total revenue annually; there are 100 mobile homes in the area; 20 residential homes; plus tourist cabins. 6. Ingeborg Ann Murphy, 1523 Ashland Mine Rd., submitted a letter for the record which stated she wished to stay in the UGB. 7. George Delaney, who lives south of the Murphys at 1601 Ashland Mine Rd., stated he wanted the area to stay as is. He objected to improvement of Ashland Mine Rd., as it would mean that he would have to pay for the 700 ft. of roadway which leads to his parcel. 8. Ken Hammerling, of Medford, owns property along Murphy's driveway. He stated he wants to stay in the UGB. 9. Fregonese indicated that the City Council had requested the area along Crowson Rd. and Highway 66 which was proposed for deletion remain in the UGB. He stated the UGB could be extended on both sides of Crowson Rd. and would be designated as single family residential. APC, 3/4/82, Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING AREAS DELETED FROM UGB PUBLIC HEARING COMP PLAN CHANGES OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Jim Corbett, 300 Luman Rd., Phoenix, owner of tax lots 1700 and 1801 along Ashland Mine Rd., was in favor of their deletion from the UGB. 2. Lee Lucas, 1833 Ashland Mine Rd., was in favor of the deletion. 3. Fregonese indicated that Wrights Creek followed the new boundary line closely. He stated the proposed sewer would follow to Fox St., but it would split property lines. 4. Duane Smith spoke regarding a piece of land he owned just below Thornton Way. He felt it made more sense to move the line to the creek than to where it is proposed to be. 5. Delaney stated that since sewage does truly run downhill, it can go anywhere with gravity flow. 6. Chmelir pointed out that the sanitary sewer outflow usually does end up in creeks. 7. Kay Stein, 1060 Park, read a letter into the record. She stated that if the UGB were the creek it would divide their property. 8. Mr. Keith, 1835 Ashland Mine Rd., stated he wanted his land included in the UGB. He felt that, since he bought his land when it was in the UGB, to delete it would be a financial loss for him. 9. Gertrude Beecher, who lives on the road that extends to Grandview Drive, stated she wanted to remain in the UGB. She stated she has been in and out of the UGB many times, and she was told there would eventually be a sewer line along the creek bottom. The holding tank and pump station were only temporary. She stated some concerns about the creek already being polluted by the sanitary sewer washing down the creek. She was concerned about the residents at the end of Grandview Dr. 10. Doris Thompson, who lives at the corner of Maywood Way and Highway 66, was in favor of staying in the UGB under the single family residential designation. 11. Fred Forney, 330 Crowson Rd., was in favor of staying in the UGB under the single- family residential designation. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Fregonese showed the areas of change on the map. 2. Morris wanted to know the differences between the Employment and M -1 zones. Fregonese indicated that the Employment zone was a com- bination of commercial and M -1 zones with an emphasis on high aesthetic controls, with a wide variety of uses allowable. APC, 3/4/82, Page 5 3. Don Rist spoke for a friend living at 760 Clover Lane who does not want to be in Industrial reserve and would like to be annexed at the same time as the industrial park. 4. Bob Weaver, 800 W. Clover Lane, stated he had property in the Industrial Reserve. He would like to be included in either the Employment zone or the Light Industrial zone, but did not want to be under a reserve designation. He asked whether his property could get water and sewer when those services were pro- vided for the industrial park. His concerns amounted to the fact that under this proposal there were no guarantees there would not be a moratorium established on building once the industrial park was approved. 5. Claude Benson, owner of 15 acres along Crowson Rd. and Tolman Creek Rd., wanted to be included in the Light Industrial or M -1 zone and not Industrial Reserve as proposed. 6. Vickie Neuenschwander, 455 Tolman Creek Rd., questioned the rationale behind having reserve land designated as such at all. She stated that some of the land proposed to be in the Industrial Reserve currently had water and sewer and was cheaper than the land in the industrial park. She stated that Tolman Creek Rd. is an agricultural area and people wanted it zoned as low a density as possible. She stated that LCDC required a buffer zone between commercial and residential zones. She was concerned about farmers being pushed out of the cities. She wasn't sure whether the County had done any soils testing in this area. Fregonese pointed out that some of the agricultural lands were class 1 -4 soils, but due to the proximity to the City and the need for urbanization, the were being included in the UGB. He stated that people could still farm on it since it was their land. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 1. County Commissioner MacKenzie suggested a discussion period to review the public hearing and some concerns that the County had. 2. MacKenzie cited the July, 1978, UGB Agreement. He asked whether we were currently operating under this agreement. Fregonese indicated that we were, and that it was the City's intention to submit a set of findings and make amendments to the UGB at the meeting of March 24, 1982. He stated the County Planning Commission would be sent the new document for their review. Fregonese noted that additional joint City/ County meetings could be scheduled if necessary. MacKenzie asked whether this new proposal included the Jackson Rd. area and Jackson Creek. Fregonese pointed out that part of it is included up to the Jackson House Restaurant. MacKenzie asked whether sewer and water were available in this area or were planned for in the future. Fregonese replied that City water was currently available there. APC, 3/4/82, Page 6 3. Fregonese stated it was the City's belief that the BCVSA should be responsible for the construction of subsequent sewer facilities. 4. MacKenzie continued with a discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the UGB proposed provided in excess of 100 acres to the year 2000 for the City. He also noted that the adopted agreement would require the addressing of a number of points. Fregonese responded by stating that these points were addressed in the draft Comp Plan. He questioned whether the County was saying that the North Interchange area should not be included in the UGB. 5. MacKenzie replied no, but the County was having problems with arriving at the proper findings. He stated that in the County's view the sewer question was the foremost problem to be addressed, and, secondly, the North Interchange area is the direct access to the City. Fregonese pointed out that it is already a developed urban area, and, because of this, should be included into our plans. 6. MacKenzie pointed out that the previous document indicated that this area was prime agricultural land. Fregonese responded that the County would be supplied with the City's findings when they had been filed. 7. County Commissioner Kelley asked whether the City had accurate soils maps for this area. Fregonese indicated that the County does have better resources for determining soils. 8. Barnes asked the County Commission what their thoughts were regarding the addressing of the watershed as an area of mutual concern. Britzman responded that the area could be adopted as an area of special concern at the City's request. Fregonese pointed out that the County has no jurisdiction over federal land. Britzman responded by saying that though the Forest Service controlled these lands, it was their hope that the feds would cooperate in the mutual concern for this area. 9. MacKenzie pointed out some ambiguities in the definitions for rural uses. Fregonese noted that the definitions for rural lands needed some work and would be addressed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. APC, 3/4/82, Page 7