HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-10 Planning MINNOTE:
Anyone wishing to zpeadi at any Planning Commizz on Meeting -u5 encouraged to do 40.
14 you do with to 4peak, p1ecvse trise and a4ten you have been recognized by the Chan.,
give you& name and eomp1ete addness. you wite then be a2Powed to speak. Ptease
note that pub.P,%e testimony may be £.im-ited by the Chain and nonmatty .Ls not aUowed
a4tek the pubt c hews ng hays been c ozed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 10, 1982
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, Oregon.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of February 10, 1982
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. PLANNING ACTION #82 -11 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and Ordinance
Variance located at 319 Alta Street, to divide the existing lot into two
separate parcels of 13,000 sq. ft. and 11,500 sq. ft. The variance is nece-
ssary because the newly created lot will be wider than it is deep. Compre-
hensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 Assess-
or's map 5DC. Tax lot: 1600.
APPLICANT: Ed Bemis
2. PLANNING ACTION #82 -13 is a request for a Site Review and a Zoning Variance
for a proposed automobile repair and tune -up shop to be located at 165 Water
St. The variance request pertains to waiving the requirement to pave the
parking area and a waiver of landscaping requirements, pursuant to the M -1
zone, of 15% minimum coverage. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Light
Industrial. Zoning: M -1. Assessor's map 4CC. Tax lot: 2000.
APPLICANT: David L. Chapman
3. PLANNING ACTION #82 -14 is a request for a Site Review and Conditional Use
Permit for an addition to the Ashland Community Hospital lcoated at 280 Maple
Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public Facility. Zoning: R -2.
Assessor's Map 5DB. Tax lot: 2100.
APPLICANT: Ashland Community Hospital
4. Proposed Land Use'Or-dinance Revisions:
A. Miscellaneous changes, Staff memo of 3 -5 -82, page 3, items 1 -5
B. Other suggested changes
C. R -1:3.5 Townhouse Residential District
D. WP Woodland Preserve District
E. M -1 Industrial District
F. C -1 Retail Commercial District
G. E -1 Employment District
H. Physical Constraints
I. Solar Access
J. Site Design and Use Standards
1. Ban on drive -up windows
K. Street and Greenway Dedications
L. Manufactured Housing Developments
M. Off- Street Parking
N. Conditional Use Permits
0. Addition to Minor Land Partition Ordinance (memo)
5. Comprehensive Plan Adoption
IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS:
1. PA #82 -10, side -yard setback variance to allow for the construction of an
addition at 425 Liberty St. Applicant: Robert H. Steele.
2. PA #82 -12, Minor Land Partition at 720 Liberty St. Applicant: Ed Bemis.
3. PA #82 -15, Minor Land Partition on Alnut St., off Strawberry Lane. Appli-
cant: Judith Clark.
4. PA #82 -16, Minor Land Partition at 145 Manzanita. Applicants: Jay /Carol Lunt.
5. PA #82 -17, Site Review for conversion of a residence at 581 E. Main St. to a
bookstore. Applicant: Robert Collins.
V. LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter from Jackson Co. Dept. of Assessment Taxation re: MLP's
VI. STAFF BUSINESS:
1. Public Hearing 3- 24 -82; Comp Plan Decisions
VII. ADJOURNMENT
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES AND
FINDINGS
AND ORDERS
MINUTES
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 10, 1982
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Lance Pugh
in the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were
Jackie Reid, Don Greene, Tom Owens, Christian Apenes, John Billings,
Ethel Hansen and Gene Morris. Planning Director John Fregonese,
Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker
were also present.
The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of February
10, 1982, were approved as written.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -11 is a request for a Minor Land
PA #82 -11 Partition and Ordinance Variance located at 319 Alta Street to divide the
MINOR LAND existing lot into two separate parcels of 13,000 and 11,500 sq. ft.
PARTITION The variance is necessary because the newly created lot will be wider than
ORDINANCE it is deep. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential.
VARIANCE Zoning: R- 1 -7.5. Assessor's Map 5DC. Tax Lot: 1600.
BEMIS APPLICANT: Ed Bemis.
STAFF REPORT: Jannusch read the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Ed Bemis, P.O. Box 1018, applicant, stated he agreed with the
conditions imposed by staff. He noted that the property could poten-
tially be divided into 3 parcels according to the zoning requirements
for the area, but they chose to divide it into 2 lots because of the
slope that exists on West St. Owens asked why the lot lot appeared at
an angle. Bemis showed a larger rendering with a curved driveway to
reduce the elevation and to shorten the length of the drive. He noted
that, though the legal width of Alta is 20 ft. and the legal width of
West is 40 ft., both are in extremely poor condition and West is a
closed road and not graded or in public use at the present.
2) Charles Fiock, 684 Liberty, property owner, also spoke.
3) Marion Felter, 321 Alta, an adjacent property owner, stated he
owned all the property to the north of subject property on Alta. He
stated he was not opposed to the partitioning, but he was concerned as
to the City's intent to maintain Alta. He noted that mud is a terrific
problem in the winter. He asked to have it graded wider a number of times
and the City has refused. He stated that some time ago a petition was
circulated in the neighborhood to have Alta paved and all the people along
APC, 3/10/82, Page 1
Alta agreed to the paving, but the City again refused.
4) Billings asked Felter to show where he lived on the map and Felter
so indicated.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Greene asked Fregonese how many people had actually signed in
favor of paving Alta. Fregonese pointed out that there were several
and all of them were on the north side of the street, perhaps 20 -25%
of those affected by the paving. He stated that paving would be
initiated if we could get 51% of the adjacent property owners to sign.
Alta could be paved with no parking. He noted that Hillcrest is paved
and it has a grade of 16 -18
2) Greene expressed concern about the runoff from West onto Alta.
Fregonese pointed out that the Engineering Dept. stated that the runoff
could be put in the road ditch.
3) Owens indicated he did not see exceptional circumstances which would
allow the granting of a variance. Fregonese clarified this.
4) Billings moved to approve PA #82 -11 with applicant's findings and
suggested conditions. The motion was seconded by Reid and passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -13 is a request for a Site Review and
PA #82 -13 Zoning Variance for a proposed automobile repair and tune -up shop to be
SITE REVIEW located at 165 Water St. The variance request pertains to waiving the
ZONING requirement to pave the parking area and a waiver of landscaping require
VARIANCE ments, pursuant to the M -1 zone, of 15% minimum coverage. Comprehensive
CHAPMAN Plan Designation: Light Industrial. Zoning: M -1. Assessor's Map
4CC. Tax Lot: 2000.
APPLICANT: David L. Chapman.
STAFF REPORT: Fregonese read the staff report and noted that staff's
recommendations would require 1170 sq. ft. of landscaping be included
in the project.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) David Chapman, 875 Cambridge, applicant, addressed his requested
waiver regarding the landscaping requirement. He stated this pertained
only to the landscaping within the fenced area due to oil saturation
and moving of heavy equipment on the existing site. He stated that
landscaping would be possible only immediately behind the fence. He
added that no vehicles would be left on the lot for a period exceeding
2 weeks and the property would not take on the appearance of a junk yard.
APC, 3/10/82, Page 2
2) Reid asked for a clarification of the site, and Chapman showed
the Planning Commission the site plan.
3) Hansen asked, what alternative means of parking surface would be
provided on the site. Fregonese stated it would be crushed rock.
Fregonese stated that the required screening would negate the importance
of the paving of the area.
4) Charles Kinney, owner of the property, showed some photos of the
parcel taken years ago and stated he supported the project, and that it
would be an anti polluting business by offering tune -ups. He felt
the property was in better shape now than it was at the time the photos
were taken.
5) Herman Wood, 173 Helman St., was opposed to the granting of the
landscaping variance. He felt the landscaping should at least be in-
cluded along Water and Van Ness Sts. and the screening was important
because the site was presently an eyesore. Billings stated he felt
screening would provide a hazard to traffic along Water and Van Ness.
Wood responded that it should pose no problem as stop signs exist on
Water, and with the lower speed zone in the area, an individual arriving
at the intersection would have full vision prior to a potential accident.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Fregonese reviewed the vision clearance ordinance as it pertains
to this site by diagramming on the chalk board the 25 -ft. clearance
triangle which would be required on Van Ness and Water.
2) Morris thought the Planning Commission should be consistent in its
requirements, since it had required extensive landscaping at the Western
Oil Burner property directly south of the current proposal. Fregonese
noted that Western Oil had been developing a new property, and this
proposal would be occupying an existing building. He noted further that
typically the policy had been to match the requirements with the invest-
ment of the proposals under discussion.
3) Greene agreed with Morris, but indicated that to require landscaping
around the fence would be agreeable to him.
4) Owens concurred with this.
5) Chapman noted that there might be some problems with placement of
the hedge along Van Ness since there are some water drainage problems
that exist, and the soil would break away with the planting of a large
hedge in this area. He did state that the placement of a vine would
be agreeable to him along this area.
6) The Planning Commission instructed Chapman to submit landscaping
plans to the Planning Dept. for their review and approval.
APC, 3/10/82, Page 3
7) Hansen moved to approve the application for a site review and
request for a variance of parking requirements for the project; the
request for a variance for landscaping and screening requirements was
denied, pursuant to the aforementioned testimony. The
motion was seconded by Morris, with the condition that those requirements
established in the staff report would be adhered to. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -14 is a request for a Site Review and
PA #82 -14 Conditional Use Permit for an addition to the Ashland Community Hospital
SITE REVIEW located at 280 Maple St. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public
CONDITIONAL Facility. Zoning: R -2. Assessor's Map 5DB. Tax Lot: 2100.
USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Ashland Community Hospital.
ASHLAND
COMMUNITY STAFF REPORT: Jannusch read the staff report, and added a condition
HOSPITAL that a landscape and irrigation plan be submitted and be size and species
specific for the Planning Dept.'s review and approval.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Bob Strowbridge, Hospital Administrator, noted that the addition
would be comprised of 3090 sq. ft., and the remainder would be a remodel.
He stated that all the changes would be to the rear of the hospital,
on Chestnut St., and the large lawn area would remain. On the hospital's
behalf, he agreed to comply with the conditions.
2) Dave Bassett, engineer for the project, stated he would answer any
questions regarding the proposal.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Apenes asked whether this request had to go before the Council.
Fregonese pointed out only for the funds for the construction
of the addition, and that had already taken place.
2) Greene asked whether storm drains were normally required to be
replaced by applicants on new construction projects such as this.
Jannusch noted that the reason for the requirement in this situation
was that, as the plans indicated a 12 -inch line. was going into a 6 -inch
main at the street, creating a definite problem for potential sewage
back -up at this point.
3) Morris moved to approve PA #82 -14 with applicant's findings and
suggested conditions. The motion was seconded by Billings and passed
unanimously.
APC, 3/10/82, Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED
LAND USE
ORDINANCE
REVISIONS
R -1 -3.5
Townhouse
Residential
District
WP Woodland
Preserve
District
A Miscellaneous Changes, staff memo of 3/5/82, page 3, items 1 -5
1) The memo dated 3/5/82 to the Planning Commission and CPAC from
the Planning Director was noted. This memo outlined the changes to
the proposed new code developed at a workshop on 2/17/82 which included
members of the Planning Commission and CPAC. There were 5' additional
revisions which were recommended by staff attached to those changes
proposed by CPAC and Planning Commission at their workshop. After
review of the memo, Fregonese recommended that an additional hearing
be held at the first meeting of April to further discuss changes to the
Land Use Ordinance, since it was questionable whether all agenda items
could be covered this evening.
2) Hansen asked whether public testimony would be accepted at the
meeting of 3/24/82. Fregonese replied that the Commission would receive
only written testimony and review of the maps at that hearing.
3) To further clarify the upcoming schedule, Morris asked whether the
meeting of April 14 would be a regular business meeting as well.
Fregonese replied yes, but it was important to extend discussion of
the ordinance revisions to continue working with the public on anticipated
revisions of the codes.
R -1 -3.5 Townhouse Residential District
1) Fregonese reviewed the proposed chapter and pointed out the locations
outside the City limits.
2) In response to a question by Gene Ginther, a land use consultant,
Pugh noted that the Commission would prefer to discuss the revisions
on an item -by -item basis.
WP Woodland Preserve District
1) Fregonese reviewed the allowable uses.
2) Billings asked why the emphasis was being placed on limiting the
uses of the hill lands and encouraging development of the flatlands
when it is considered more desirable to live in the hills. Fregonese
noted that these were the policies developed from the feedback from the
Planning Commission, CPAC and City Council. He noted that not many people
can really afford to build where the costs are higher to develop, such as
where the terrain is steep.
3) Greene asked whether the steeper and more densely forested areas
outside the City limits could not be annexed in the future pursuant to
the standards established by LCDC. Fregonese indicated that this was true.
4) Carroll Almond, Medford, spoke regarding some 50+ acres which he
owns above Granite St. He wondered whether or not he could log his
property according to the new Woodland Preserve requirements. Fregonese
APC, 3/10/82, Page 5
M -1 Industrial
District
C -1 Retail
Commercial
District
E -1 Employment
District
pointed out that logging would be a conditional use, approved only on
review by the Planning Commission.
5) Neil Benson, 363 Laurel, requested that the proposed ordinance be
revised under setback requirements, Section 18.14.040(E) and that
the setbacks comply with the fuel breaks criteria established in 18.62
of the proposed Physical Constraints Ordinance.
M -1 Industrial District
There was no public testimony.
C -1 Retail Commercial District
1) Fregonese noted that this would be a combination of C -1 and C -2.
2) There was no public testimony.
E -1 Employment District
1) Fregonese noted that this proposed zone presents a combination of
the Light Industrial district and Commercial zones, thereby providing a
wider variety of options for proposed uses in the district.
2) Bruce Smith, 1779 E. Main, an elder of the Ashland Christian
Fellowship% spoke requesting that churches be approved as a conditional
use within the E -1 zone. He spoke specifically of the Ashland Christian
Fellowship's interest in the Hanova property on Helman St. He noted
that the function of the church is much like similar uses which were
permitted under conditional uses for the proposed E -1 zone, specifically
offices, providing community services, entertainment, and administrative
uses. He noted that a portion of the Hanova building would be used on a
part -time basis for Sunday services and evening meetings. He further
stated that the Bread of Life Bookstore, located on the Plaza, was part
of their operation.
3) Owens asked Smith how the church would feel about applying for a
conditional use for their proposal. Smith stated it might be more
appropriate if they were building, but as they would only be leasing
the building, landscaping would be provided.
4) Apenes noted that churches were only permitted as a conditional
use and not as an outright use anywhere in the City.
5) Ron Kelso, Kelso Real Estate, stated he felt churches should be
a conditional use in more zones, and not just in residential zones. He
noted that it creates a hardship to compete with multi family prices
for property that exist in the R -2 and R -3 zones.
6) Morris asked whether parking requirements would need to be fulfilled.
Fregonese replied yes, they would.
APC, 3/10/82, Page 6
7) Apenes asked whether staff had any problems with provisions for
churches within the E -1 zone under the conditional use process.
Fregonese stated there should be no problem as long as they were
approved with a site review.
8) The question was raised whether it would be appropriate to permit
churches in zones where drinking establishments were allowed. It was
noted that OCLL apparently has some criteria by which they can approve
or reject an application for a liquor license if the proposed establishment
is within close proximity of a church. It was suggested that this
question be investigated further, and that the proposal to allow a church
in either an E -1 zone or in any zone under conditional use be tabled until
the meeting of April 14.
Physical Constraints
1) Fregonese gave a brief history of the Erosion Control Committee.
He stated there was general agreement among the Committee except for
density reductions. He then reviewed various classes of lands and
development standards for each, including density bonuses and lot coverage
reductions. He noted some changes from the staff memo of 3/5/82,
specifically citing item 3 to read: "All structures on Class D lands,"
not Class C lands, and item 5 to read: "spark arrestors," not directors.
2) Ginther, a land -use consultant from Portland, spoke regarding this
section. He gave a run -down of his credentials and stated he works for
developers. He questioned the necessity of a number of items in the pro-
posed ordinance, specifically Section 18.62.040(D) regarding 20 -30%
slopes, Section 18.62.050(B), Lands in the Flood Plain, Section 18.72.090(A),
Site Design, Landscaping Requirements. He also questioned loading area
requirements established in the code. Duane Smith assisted him in
demonstrating a lesson in slope analysis by showing those in attendance
what a 20 -30% slope looks like. Ginther requested than an additional
60 days be allowed to put in additional time for work on the ordinance.
3) Fregonese pointed out that 60 days would delay the process
unnecessarily, and one month would be more appropriate. He then noted
that Section 18.72.030(A) (2), which refers to the Staff Advisor permit,
applies only to the site review chapter. The intent is to take care of
any landscaping and paving nonconformity only. Under Ginther's objections
to landscaping requirements, Fregonese noted that this has been in effect
for 5 years and it has worked well. He continued by stating that most
people exceed these requirements and they are easy to meet.
4) John Chmelir, 660 Thornton Way, took issue with Performance
Standards Chapter. He stated concern with Section 18.62.070, Density and
lot coverage reductions due to natural hazards. He felt the title was
misleading. He felt it was harsh to call conditions "natural hazards."
He felt the word "slope" would be more appropriate here. He indicated
APC, 3/10/82, Page 7
lands on the maps that are over a 20 -30% slope and stated this would
be basically down zoning 25% of the City without scientific reasoning.
He disagreed with the reductions in Class D lands for
Section 080(B). He felt the word "basement" should be eliminated from
this section. Referring to subsection (C) of the same chapter, he
stated development should be allowed to the flood level and not 3 ft.
above it. Referring to Section 18.62.090, Development standards for
Class C lands, he felt that revegetation should occur within one year
of issuance of a C of 0. Referring to Section 18.62.100, Development
standards for Class D lands, he disagreed with the statement "and
supervised by an engineer." In subsection (2) and subsection (3),
because he felt these statements would create a liability for the
engineer, rather than for the contractor. He then asked what a shaded
fuel break was. Fregonese read the definition under Class E lands.
Chmelir concluded that under Class F lands, the study of Class F
lands should include the signature and registration number of the
engineer or engineering geologist, not and the engineering geologist.
5) Ross Coldwell, 484 Helman St., owner of property adjacent to Ashland
Creek, was concerned about what was taking place on the flood plain at
present. He was referring to the Tolliver property. He stated that the
additional landfills created a possibility of flooding the existing
developments in the area. He stated he had called the State Water
Master who stated liability was upon the person doing the land filling.
Coldwell wondered whether the City was also liable. It was his belief
that sewage disposal was taking place into Ashland Creek.
6) Dick Kromminga, 565 Wrights Creek Drive, stated the 25% down -zone
would affect the tax base in that the individual taxpayers would be paying
a larger percentage of it.
7) Barry Warr, 911 Beach, manager of Town Country Chevrolet,
was concerned about parking and landscaping parking lots.
8) Dick Cottle was a little disappointed in the rush to approve the
ordinances. He thought now was the time to slow down and do it right.
9) Fregonese asked the Commission whether we were opening up all the
standards of the book or just the changes. Pugh stated it was just the
changes we were considering. Fregonese reiterated he thought it was
the Planning Commission's intent to discuss only the changes being
suggested for the ordinance and not the whole document.
10) Duane Smith, 639 Prim, stated he thought that if he lost a renter
out of his building and someone opened a new business there, he would
be forced to bring the whole building up to code. He felt this wasn't
right. Smith stated he felt it was necessary to preserve some of the
flat areas of the valley that we have left. He felt we should put
housing up on the hills where it won't hurt anything. He stated there
were more permits and inspections now than in years past necessitating
APC, 3/10/81, Page 8
Solar Access
Site Design
Use Standards
staffing and budgeting problems for the municipality.
11) Gary Prickett, 1012 Pinecrest Terrace asked whether the Physical
Constraints document was developed by staff or the Planning Commission.
Fregonese indicated it was developed by a committee comprised of himself,
Mr. Hicks and Mr. Maurer, among others. Prickett felt procedures should
be aisclosed to the general public since they are affected by it, rather
than by private discussion.
12) Don Rist, 310 Bridge, member of the Revenue Committee, stated that
31% of the City is tax exempt. Down zoning may have to raise taxes on
what is left.
13) Ron Kelso stated the density question was a separate issue from the
slope question. He felt density should only be controlled by density
standards.
14) Bill Hicks, 190 Vista, an engineering geologist, stated the
Physical Constraints code is an excellent document. He stated he had
a firm conviction that an engineering geologist should be the one to do
the work. Noting that there were not many engineering geologists here
presently, he felt there would be when there was work to do. He pointed
out that the document only needs minor revisions.
Solar Access
1) Fregonese gave an update of the definitions and added some
clarifications that had been previously requested, including the terms
"steep slope," "staff waiver," "waiver by release," and "recordation."
He noted staff reviewed the applications on building permits and there
were only two variances that had been required in about 135 permits
since its original inception. He noted it was not possible to record
a 15% negative slope.
Site Design and use Standards
1) Fregonese stated this was an update and a clarification of the
language and intent of the original document. He noted it had taken
months of review and workshops with CPAC and the Planning Commission
to develop this revised document. He reviewed the changes on the staff
memo of 3/5/82 and throughout the chapter. He noted that if scientific
methods of determining data as prescribed in this chapter of the ordinance
were not available, the Planning Commission could determine the method of
measurement to determine the appropriate data.
2) Neil Benson spoke regarding the proposed ban of drive -up windows.
He stated that CPAC had voted 8 to 2 in favor of the ban. He then cited
a California study whereby it was determined that drive -up customers use
4 times more fuel sitting and idling than do customers who walk into
the establishment. He noted that the break -even point for fuel efficiency
was 30 seconds. In addition, he stated that less than 1% of those
APC, 3/10/81, Page 9
Street and
Greenway
Dedications
Manufactured
Housing
Developments
Conditional
Use Permits
individuals in drive -up lines stop and start their engines. He noted
the problem of suspended particulates as well as hydrocarbons. Apenes
asked Benson whether the studies had cited total numbers of those
vehicles which had parked versus the drive -up window users. Benson
replied no, that the studies hadn't. He did know, however, that the
statistics for the McDonald's store showed that 60% of their customers
use a drive -up window.
3) Rose Otti, 439 Herbert, representing the League of Women Voters,
read a letter in support of the drive -up window ban.
4) Further discussion of this item was continued to the next meeting.
Street and Greenway Dedications
1) Ross Coldwall spoke on behalf of landowners on Helman St. He stated
that these people were concerned about the location of the greenway and
were disturbed that it had taken this long to get into ordinance form,
only having been a policy previously. Fregonese cited Section 18.76.090.
2) Don Rist wanted to know what the limitations were for the use of
the dedicated greenway property. Fregonese indicated that density credit
could be allowed on a development abutting the greenway.
3) Al Willstatter, 128 Central, questioned whether Central would be
pushed through. Fregonese that there were no specific plans at
this time for this to take place.
Manufactured Housing Developments
1) Billings noted that where streets slope to the center there would
be no need for curbs. Fregonese pointed out that this was the same
standard used in Performance Standards. Less than 12 units per street
is the standard used to permit a street with an inverse crown.
2) Dick Cottle requested a definition of manufactured housing.
Off- Street Off- Street Parking
Parking
1) Fregonese reviewed the changes.
2) Barry Warr requested a definition of what part of an auto
dealership constitutes parking. He stated that Section (B)(1) of this
chapter was not clear enough. Is storage considered parking area?
Conditional Use Permits
1) Fregonese clarified the differences between the existing ordinance
and the proposed one.
2) Dick Cottle asked whether the conditional use process is more
APC, 3/10/82, Page 10
limiting to the applicant or whether it gives the applicant more
flexibility. In response to this question, Section 18.104.010 was
cited, which is the purpose for conditional use permits.
3) Duane Taylor, 450 Ashland St., polled Planning Commission members
as to their understanding of the proposed ordinance changes. He then
asked how they could vote on it if they didn't understand it.
4) Morris stated he would prefer a special meeting to further discuss
these changes.
5) Cottle pointed out that he felt it would be appropriate that
subsequent study sessions be directed to special limited areas.
6) Fregonese suggested a study session in April and stated he would
talk with Barnes and Pugh to develop a strategy and agenda for this
study session.
7) Hansen moved to continue the discussion to the meeting of 3/24/82.
Morris seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
TYPE I 1) Planning Action #82 -10, a request for a side -yard setback variance
APPROVALS to allow for the construction of an addition at 425 Liberty St.; applicant:
Robert H. Steele. Owens requested a clarification of the proposal and
the plans were presented for his review. Apenes asked if there were any
problems with the parking and Fregonese replied no. The proposal was
approved.
2) Planning Action #82 -12, a request for a Minor Land Partition at 720
Liberty St.; applicant: Ed Bemis. Morris asked whether physical con-
straints could be imposed on this project since this chapter had not yet
been adopted by the Council. Fregonese noted that the condition could be
amended to read: "That the applicant complies to the restrictions of the
Physical Constraints Ordinance if adopted by the Council." Greene asked
whether the property was steep, and Fregonese replied that slopes ranged
from 25 -50% with a creek in back. The project was then approved subject
to the amended conditions.
3) Planning Action #82 -15, a request for a Minor Land Partition on Alnut
St., off Strawberry Lane; applicant: Judith Clark. Greene asked for a
clarification of the driveway slope. He then stated he was concerned
about the drainage from the driveway and roof and noted that this should
be added as a condition of approval.
Hansen questioned whether this area was the same area that had been
under close scrutiny by the Planning Commission to disallow further
development in the area. She stated she felt the Planning Commission
had said no to subdivisions, but, by approving this project, they would
be setting a precedent of okaying developments in twos. She considered
it a hodge -podge development.
APC, 3/10/82, Page 11
Owens asked if this project was called up, what type of criteria would
be applied to it. Greene noted he would like to call the project up,
but he couldn't think of a good enough reason. However, he ultimately
moved to have it called up, with Morris seconding the motion, which passed
7 to 1, with Reid voting NO.
Reid stated she felt it was unfair to call up this project since the
applicant had acted in good faith and had complied with all the require-
ments of the present ordinance. Greene pointed out that calling up this
project would give the Planning Commission the opportunity to discuss it
further.
4) Planning Action #82 -16, a request for a Minor Land Partition at 145
Manzanita St.; applicants: Jay and Carol Lunt. After some discussion,
the project was approved.
5) Planning Action #82 -17, a reqeust for a Site Review for conversion
of a residence at 581 E. Main St. to a bookstore; applicant: Robert
Collins. Morris asked whether the alley was going to be paved to his
property from the street and Fregonese replied that it would. Greene
asked whether this project should have the alley policy of July 1981
applied to it, and Fregonese replied that it could. This policy would
require an additional 2 ft. of dedication to the alley to be provided by
the applicant. Morris moved to work out the 2 -ft. alley dedication with
staff, or the project would become a Type II and be subject to a public
hearing. Greene seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
It was suggested that the alley policy be added to the Site Review Chapter.
LETTER FROM A letter from the Jackson County Department of Assessment Taxation
JACKSON CO. regarding minor land partitions was presented.
Greene stated he did not like the idea and the red tape would be creating
a can of worms. Applications would take forever to get processed.
Everett Swain spoke and questioned whether the ORS is mandatory.
After some discussion about the letter, it was determined that our staff
would respond to the County in letter form.
HOUSE AT Greene expressed concern about the house being constructed at the airport.
AIRPORT
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at !2:10 AM.
John Fregonese, Executive Secretary
APC, 3/10/82, Page 12
6G
YES NO
B i �d- s
'Hansen
Morris
Pugh
Reid
Greene
Owens
TOT
PH
Apenes
Billings
Hansen
Barnes
Morri s
Pugh
Reid
Greene
Owens
TOT
Apenes
Billings
Hansen
Barnes
Morris
Pugh
Reid
Greene
Owens
TOT
YES NO PH
Owens
PH YES NO PH
PH h.3
Owens
Greene
Reid
Pugh
Morris
Hansen
Billings
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD
YES NO PH 0 2. -/4 YES
1✓
I/
I/
Greene
Reid
Pugh
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
Apenes
TOT
Owens
Greene
Reid
Pugh
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
Apenes
TOT
Pugh
Reid
Greene
Owens
Billings
Hansen
des
Morris
TOT
YES NO PH
Pugh
Reid
Greene
Owens
Apenes
Billings
Hansen
Barnes
Morris
YES NO PH
Pugh
Reid
Greene
Owens
Anenes
Billings
Hansen
Barnes
Morris
TOT
//0/49
NO PH 8' Z. l S YES NO
Morris
Hansen
Billings
Owens
Owe
Greene
Reid
Pugh I✓
TOT
YES NO PH
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
Apenes
Owens
Greene
Reid
Pugh
TOT TOT
YES NO PH
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
Apenes
Owens
Greene
Reid
Pugh
TOT
YES NO
YES NO