Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-24 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING March 24, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of 2 -24 -82 and 3 -4 -82 III. STAFF BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of condition added by Planning Commission requiring an additional 2' alley dedication re: PA #82 -17, applicant: Robert Collins. 2. Proposed golf course, north Ashland area, CUP with County. Appli- cant: Bob Lima, et al. IV. LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Andrew Green, Pastor, Ashland Christian Fellowship requesting interpretation of &dministrative or research establishment': V. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ashland /Jackson County UGB Agreement 2. Revisions to Comprehensive Plan Map, outside the City limits, within the Urban Growth Boundary. A. Areas added to the UGB B. Areas deleted from the UGB 3. Revisions to the Zoning /Comprehensive Plan Maps with the City limits: *letters are keyed to map used at previous public hearing C. Retail Commercial to Employment D. Urban High To Multi- family E. Light Industrial to Employment F. Heavy Commercial to Single family G. Agriculture to Single family Reserve H. Rural Residential to Single family Reserve I. Agriculture to Single family J. Light Industrial to Employment K. No change, will remain Commercial L. Multi- family to Employment M. Commercial to Employment N. Heavy Commercial to Employment 0. Urban High to Multi- family P. Surburban Residential to Townhouse Residential Q. Urban Low to Townhouse Residential 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 Preserve Y. Forest to Woodland Preserve VI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING March 24, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Jeff Barnes in the Civic Center. Members present were Don Greene, Tom Owens, Christian Apenes, John Billings, Ethel Hansen, and Gene Morris. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Adminis- trative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. APPROVAL OF Relative to the Minutes of February 24, on page 2, item 2, it was under MINUTES, stood by the Planning Commission that Irma Laible, 145 Central, wished to FINDINGS retain a low density in her neighborhood. On page 4, item 13, regarding ORDERS the testimony of Edwin Chapman, 220 N. Laurel, there was some question among the Planning Commission as to whether Chapman preferred to retain the R -3 zoning in his neighborhood. On page 5, item 2, the name of the person residing at 192 Mountain is Charles Hodgins. With these correc- tions the Minutes of 2/24/82 were approved as written. STAFF BUSINESS COLLINS The Minutes of March 4, 1982, were also approved as written. 1) Staff presented an appeal by Robert Collins, applicant for a site review for a commercial building at 581 E. Main. At the meeting of 3/10/82, the Planning Commission had approved the application to convert a single family dwelling to a bookstore, with the proviso that the applicant provide 2 ft. of dedication along the alley abutting his property to the City. This condition was based upon Planning Commission policy regarding alleys, adopted in July, 1981. Because of the conditions which exist at the site, requiring this additional 2 ft. of alley dedication would eliminate over half the parking required for Collins' application. It was staff's contention that this would essentially preclude the development of the applicant's proposal. 2) Morris asked whether this would require a variance. Fregonese replied no, that the alley policy was not an ordinance. Morris wanted to know how many other buildings on adjacent properties encroached on the alley. Fregonese said he wasn't sure, since staff had only investi- gated this particular parcel. 3) Billings moved to delete this condition and Apenes seconded the motion. Morris asked Fregonese how many alleys exist like this one. Fregonese replied that there were a number of alleys such as this including those alleys between A and B Streets and along much of the remainder of E. Main. He further noted that the alley policy pertains mostly to residential areas, 4) Greene asked how much of the alley would be required to be paved. APC, 3/24/82, Page 1 Fregonese replied 14 -16 ft., similar to the alley behind the library. 5) Morris noted that the applicant should be informed that they are not allowed to park in the alley right -of -way. 6) The motion passed unanimously. STAFF BUSINESS 1) The agenda item regarding the proposed golf course in the north PROPOSED Ashland area was postponed until a later meeting at the request of the GOLF COURSE applicants. CHAMBER Fregonese informed the Commission that a 7- person committee had been COMMITTEE appointed in cooperation with the local Chamber for review of the proposed Land Use Ordinance changes. He stated that the first meeting would be held sometime between now and April 21, 1982. A public workshop would be held with CPAC, and then the public hearing would be held sometime in May. He noted that there was mainly a conflict with the wording of the ordinance that needed to be ironed out. He requested that 2 or 3 Planning Commissioners be appointed to meet with the Chamber members sometime in the early mornings between now and then. He stated that the Site Review Code is a primary concern since it is a controversial issue. The Physical Constraints Code is also an area of conflict. Greene felt it was a good idea that the Planning Commission be involved in this process. Fregonese noted that this committee should meet 2 to 3 times within the next month. Owens and Apenes volunteered to be Commission representatives to this committee. STRAWBERRY Another non agenda item was presented by staff. The Planning Commission LANE was informed that a neighborhood group in the Strawberry Lane area wanted NEIGHBORHOOD to meet with representatives of the Commission to discuss future planning GROUP for the area. Fregonese noted that it might be a good idea to wait until sometime in May, after the Code review is completed at the Planning Commission level. Barnes thought that was a good idea. LETTER FROM 1) A letter from Andy Green, pastor of the Ashland Christian Fellowship, GREEN was presented for the record. The letter addressed their request to include churches as a use allowable in industrial zones. This request was relative to their intent to utilize part of the Hanova building as a church facility. The church was requesting a classification for this use as an administrative or research establishment. Fregonese pointed out that the code does state that the Planning Commission has discretionary powers to interpret the uses not specifically outlined in the code. He further noted that the multi family residential land to which the code addresses churches as a conditional use is becoming more and more scarce. 2) Apenes asked whether it should not be up to the church to decide where they want to locate. 3) Billings moved to interpret the church as requested by the applicant. After a suggestion that this required more discussion before a final vote could be taken, he withdrew his motion. APC, 3/24/82, Page 2 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Ashland/ Jackson Co. UGB Agreement 4) Barnes noted that the OLCC had a policy regarding the placement of liquor establishments in close proximity to churches. He wondered whether a final decision on this item could create a potential conflict for the granting of a liquor license in areas where churches were per- mitted adjacent to liquor establishments. 5) Hansen asked whether this question would require future review by the Planning Commission. Fregonese replied that it would be a Site Review only. 6) Barnes addressed Bruce Smith, an elder for the church seated in the audience, and asked whether this would be a temporary use. Smith replied that the owner of the building had planned on maintaining.part of the building for his personal use. He further stated that the church would have no objection to a liquor establishment being placed adjacent to the church. Owens stated he doubted it would have that effect. Barnes stated he thought the Planning Commission should find out the facts regarding the conditions of the OLCC before moving any further on this question, and that the motion should be continued until the meeting of April 14. 1) Fregonese noted the testimony and the minutes of 3/4/82 and the letter from BCVSA, and also the letter from Robert Dickey. He felt the amendments proposed in the letter from Dickey were generally okay. He felt the definitions for rural lands, which are on page 3, item 5, of his letter, should go beyond the traveling public and be narrowed down more. 2) Barnes suggested that the words "essential needs" be inserted into the text relative to the traveling public. Fregonese stated that staff was in agreement with Dickey's request that any major revisions to the UGB be accepted by the City or County at any time, rather than at 5 -yr. intervals only. He noted that the 5 -yr. limitation had been set originally to discourage hearings for insignificant or minor changes requested. Since a broad burden of proof is required for proposed changes, certain criteria must be met. Barnes suggested that perhaps the text should read "That the agreement be re- evaluated at a minimum of every 5 years." 3) Fregonese reviewed item 10, page 10, the policy regarding unincor- porated urban lands. He felt it should be unnecessary to have to go through the burden of proof for annexation into the City or a zone change with the County as long as a contract of annexation is signed for the City. He felt a more specific statement is needed here. He then clarified the definition of "burden of proof" for Owens. 4) Barnes asked whether we would do the Site Review, or whether the County would. Fregonese replied we would write the conditions for the Site Review into the contract. 5) There was then a discussion regarding the letter from BCVSA. Fregonese stated that the City has done a lot to negotiate with BCVSA. APC, 3/24/82, Page 3 He felt that the only modification that the City would need to make would be on page 2, item 2, of their letter, removing the words "or threatened violation," since a threatened violation would be too difficult to identify. He felt that this would be a good compromise. Fregonese then pointed out on the map that their territory and area of responsibility follows the old section boundary to the north of town. 6) Barnes stated that he would like to see the watershed area included in the area of mutual concern. He felt this would provide a form of guarantee for services to landowners in that area. 7) Hansen felt that any court proceedings could create a lengthy delay for approval of a document. Fregonese noted that it was not necessarily so if the County and City agree on land uses. He referred to page 9, item 8, of the document regarding servicing by BCVSA or the City. 8) Owens stated he didn't feel we could issue a guarantee. It was then noted that the property owner had the option of coming to the City to request services and withdraw from BCVSA. 9) The question was raised as to how the letter from BCVSA would relate to the north Ashland interchange at Interstate 5 and the zoning there. Fregonese noted that there were health hazards scattered over large areas with some vacant lands. Some pieces would be exempt from an assessment because they are so large. It was also noted that the definition of "rural lands" on page 3, item j, of the document should be changed in order to prevent an Ashland Hills type development there. The need for this is apparent since, the way it stands now, the County could approve a zone change that would allow a tourist type development there, and this would detract significantly from the urban area of Ashland. The text of item j would read: "Rural Land. Areas generally comprised of parcels five (5) acres or larger in area, or commercial or industrial areas serving the essential needs of the traveling public in appropriate loca- tions which are limited in scale outside any urban growth boundary and which have supporting rural facilities and services." 10) Relative to page 10, item 10, under Policies Regarding Unincorporated Urban Lands, item C, the last sentence should read: "For infill develop- ment within an urban area, there is a burden of proof required only for services' adequacy for annexation or contract annexation." This would be the same burden of proof that would need to be borne within the City. 11) On page 12 of the document, first paragraph, the last phrase should read: "...a major revision may be considered at intervals of less than and at a minimum of five years." These amendments will be made and a copy of the revised document will be sent to the County. 12) Greene moved to approve the document with the changes, and Morris seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 6 to 1, with Billings voting NO. 13) Owens asked for a clarification of and the purposes for the area of future urbanization. Fregonese explained that this area does not exist APC, 3/24/82, Page 4 now, but it is projected as the area into which Ashland might expand. There was no time frame placed on this area of expansion. The reasons for identifying the area of future urbanization are so that the County will keep it as rural property. Barnes noted that he has always felt the City should expand across the freeway and extend towards Highway 66 more. Morris suggested that we concentrate on the UGB first, and then cover the area of future urbanization at a later date. 1) Barnes asked whether or not the Nauvoo trailer park property had been included in the request for inclusion into the UGB. Fregonese replied that it hadn't been, but staff had no problems with including the entire property into the projected boundary. 2) The property owners of the Nauvoo trailer park stated they felt the creek was close to their boundary rather than those boundaries exhibited on the map. Greene suggested that the creek would make a better boundary line. 3) Continuing on with the staff report, Fregonese noted prior testimony on pages 3 and 4 of the 3/4/82 minutes regarding John Chmelir and the Shirley Studebaker property. 4) Greene asked for a clarification regarding Dr. vanDijk's property along Highway 99, just north of the City limits. Fregonese verified that it was staff's intent to maintain the property directly abutting Highway 99 as commercial, while the 18 acres to the rear of the property should be zoned multi family. Greene suggested that zoning this area Employment would give a broader range of uses for the area. Barnes noted that the property on the hillside had considerable problems with drainage. 5) Greene moved to approve the proposal to include this area in the UGB, as exhibited on the map. Hansen seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 6) Regarding the Studebaker property, it was questioned whether or not to include it or delete it from the UGB. Fregonese noted that the City stood to gain by including it, since Studebaker's property did include potential greenway areas, and the Studebakers had agreed to dedicate the greenway section to the City contingent on their inclusion into the UGB. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded to include this area into the UGB, and the vote was unanimous. 7) A question was raised about Lucy Harrell's property at the top of Park St. Her property is presently surrounded on three sides by the proposed UGB, and she requested that her property be included as well. Fregonese pointed out that staff had not researched this item sufficiently enough to rule on it at this time. However, he did feel that there should not be a problem to grant this request. Morris moved to include Harrell's property within the UGB. Greene seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. APC, 3/24/82, Page 5 Areas Deleted From the UGB Revisions to Zoning /Comp Plan Maps Within City Limits Area C Retail Commer- cial to Employment Areas D,O,W Urban High to Multi- Family 8) A motion was made to include the Nauvoo trailer park property within the UGB, whether the property line followed Bear Creek or not. The motion drew a second, and the vote was unanimous. 1) Apenes suggested that the UGB should be a definite line rather than a zig- zagging line that had been indicated. Greene stated he did not feel good about taking any of the property out of the UGB as long as its inclusion or retention could be justified in any way. Fregonese explained the reasons for the proposed deletions. He felt that some sort of justi- fication could be worked out. 2) Barnes questioned whether there had been any sound testimony from property owners who were acutely against exclusion of this area from the UGB. 3) Greene felt the area should be retained as Residential reserve for future access and services. 4) It was noted that it would be proper to change the Rural Residential designation to Single Family Reserve. 5) Morris moved that the areas along Crowson Rd. and Mountain Ave. remain in the UGB. Apenes seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. The proposal was found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission. 1) Greene noted that there were probably some R -3 properties in certain areas where there is a predominantly single family residential pattern, and therein lies the opposition. He felt that some large R -3 parcels needed to remain, in all fairness, for future expansion. 2) Morris felt there was no justification for proposing the changes in the first place. 3) Billings felt the zoning should be left as is. 4) Barnes agreed with Greene. In further discussing the question, however, he pointed out that the R -3 zone, at face value, creates false expectations for property owners. The other requirements of the code provide criteria which make the maximum R -3 density standards unrealistic to meet. He further noted that two -story units, which predominate in R -3 zones, simply don't sell as well. APC, 3/24/82, Page 6 Area E Light Ind. to Employment Area F Heavy Comm. to Single Family 5) Fregonese pointed out that it would be impossible to defend a denial of a 4 -story project in court based on the present structure of the ordinance. 6) Greene questioned the maximum allowable units per acre the R -3 zone provides, and Fregonese replied 34 units per acre. 7) A general discussion on the pros and cons of R -3 versus R -2 followed. 8) Hansen stated that a blanket change was simply not good. Fregonese suggested that certain areas could be deleted, and some areas could be retained as R -3. Some of his suggestions were possibly along High St., Maple, Central, Van Ness, Avery, Garfield, and Siskiyou Blvd. to remain as R -3. He noted further that staff would prepare a special land use map showing these suggestions. 9) Barnes felt that the R -3 corridor along Siskiyou Blvd. would be acceptable as is, with the limit for R -2 going to Iowa St. 10) Fregonese pointed out that, with the existing structure of the R -3 ordinance, a high -rise structure could be erected to a height of 50 ft. Barnes stated he felt okay with this, and if the applicant met the buffering and shading requirements, realistically the building would only be a total of 4 stories. Even with stricter setback requirements imposed, it would be doubtful that 5 stories would fit into a 50 -ft. high building. 11) Fregonese suggested that it may be more appropriate to deal with this question at a later date, perhaps at the meeting of 4/14/82, after more data could be compiled, or perhaps at a workshop to be held on 4/21/82. Barnes concurred and said it would provide a good opportunity to continue the discussion on density proposals as well. There was no public testimony on this item. 1) A letter from Harry Skerry, attorney for a property owner affected by this proposed change, was entered into•the record. 2) Greene suggested that the R -2 designation, would be logical at this location. Barnes felt that perhaps C -1 would be a better designation. 3) After further discussion, Morris moved that the area be designated as R -2. Greene seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 4) Billings asked what Dick Bernard wanted. Fregonese replied that he wanted a clarification of some specifics in the code. Further discussion continued of the Oak St. area from the Brass Rubbing Centre down to the Armory. It was noted that the proposal was to designate this as Commercial. APC, 3/24/82, Page 7 Area G Agriculture to Single Family Reserve Area H Rural Res. to Single Family Reserve Area I Agriculture to Single- Family Area J Light Ind. to Employment Area K No change Area L Multi- Family to Employment Area M Commercial to Employment Area N Heavy Comm. to Employment Area P Suburban Res. to Townhouse Residential Area Q Urban Low to Townhouse Res. Area R Commercial to Employment The Planning Commission was agreeable to the changes proposed in areas G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N. 1) Fregonese noted that this area will eventually be used for urban development. The urban services are available and are within the UGB. 2) Morris pointed out that the main problem of including the lower Clay St. area in this jurisdiction is that the residents do not want townhouses and mobile homes built in their neighborhood. 3) A discussion of the title Townhouse Residential ensued. The term Suburban Residential seemed to be more agreeable to the Commission. 4) Barnes noted there were problems with drainage in the Clay St. area. Staff was instructed to change the title of the zone from Townhouse Residential to Suburban Residential. The Planning commission had no comments on these proposed changes. APC, 3/24/82, Page 8 Area S Light Ind. to Employment Area T Rural Res. to Employment Area U Light Ind. to Ind. Reserve (Employment) Area V Retail Comm. to Employment Areas S -V should all be E -1 (Employment). This would change the original proposal of Area U, which was Light Industrial to Industrial Reserve, to Light Industrial to Employment. Fregonese expressed surprise at the lack of public comment on Area T. In response to a letter from Ron Grimes, Medford architect, representing some property owners along Highway 66, it was determined by the Planning that their property, which had initially been split between Commercial and Industrial, should be zoned Commercial. Area X 1) Barnes suggested that the whole Woodland Preserve question be Rural Res. to tabled until topographic maps for the area could be completed. Woodland Preserve 2) Fregonese noted that the Planning Commission can still establish the Area Y criteria for the areas, at least until the maps are ready. He noted that Forest to staff will try to expedite the completion of the map project. Woodland 3) Gary Prickett requested an explanation of the justification for Preserve placing parcels adjacent to the Woodland Preserve area in half -acre minimums. Prim St. 1) A proposal for the Prim St. area was now discussed. Fregonese noted Proposal that the project, which comprises over 2 acres, would still be subject to the Performance Standards code. He reminded the Commission about the subcommittee meeting coming up in the near future to discuss Performance Standards questions. 2) Greene suggested that the Woodland Preserve designation perhaps be changed to Woodland Residential. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 3/24/82, Page 9