HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-14 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone w.i hLng to 4peaia at any Hauling Commizdtion Meeting Zs encowucged to do 4o.
14 you do wLs h to 4 peak, p.2eas e Aiz e and agee& you have been necogn.Lzed by the Chalk,
give you& name and comp.2ete add.tesz. you wLU then be a to 4peah.. Ptea4e
note that public ;eztcmony may be tc.m-ited by the Chant and nonma.Jy ,L6 not allowed
a4ten the public hecuc,%ng haz been eJo4ed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 14, 1982
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, FINDINGS ORDERS: Regular meeting of March 10, 1982 and
Special Meeting of March 24, 1982.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 PLANNING ACTION #82 -15 is a request for a Minor Land Partition located on
Alnut St., off Strawberry Lane, to divide the existing lot into two separate
tax lots of approximately 42,218 and 43,961 sq. ft. Comprehensive Plan desig-
nation: Rural Residential. Zoning: RR -.5P. Assessor's map 8AD. Tax
lot: 5302.
APPLICANT: Judith Clark
2. PLANNING ACTION #82 -18 is a request for an annexation and a zone change for
approximately 3 acres located on the east side of Tolman Creek Road, north of
Hwy 66. The southern portion of the property fronts on Hwy 66 and is presently
in the City limits, zoned C -1 (Retail Commercial). The portion to be annexed
is currently designated as RR -5 by the County, and would be rezoned as C -1.
Comprehensive Plan designation: Retail Commercial. Assessor's map 11C.
Tax lot: 600.
APPLICANT: Don Rist
3 PLANNING ACTION #82 -19 is a request for an Ordinance Variance to construct a deck
addition at 709 Leonard St. The variance is necessary for a front yard setback of
11'8" in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designation:
Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:10. (Single- family Residential). Assessor's
map 15BB. Tax lot: 7500.
APPLICANT: John Wenker
4. PLANNING ACTION #82 -22 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and Ordinance Variance
at 305 Hillcrest. The proposal is to divide the tax lot into two parcels of approx-
imately 7500 sq. ft. each. The variance is necessary for creating a lot wider than
it is deep. Comprehensive Plan designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5
(Single family Residential). Assessor's map 9CA. Tax lot: 13100.
APPLICANT: Cheewa James
5 PLANNING ACTION #82 -23 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review
for expansion of the existing mini storage operation at 2315 Siskiyou Blvd. The
proposal would add two mini storage units and a parking facility for recreational
vehicles. Comprehensive Plan designation: Retail Commercial and Suburban Resi-
dential. Zoning: C -1 (Retail Commercial) and R -1:5P (Single family residential).
Assessor's map 14C. Tax lots: 1600 1703.
APPLICANT: Don Ballew
6. PLANNING ACTION #82 -24 is a request for approval of Applewood Subdivision, a Per-
formance Standards Subdivision of 21 lots on the northeast corner of Prim and Wiley
Streets. The lots would be approximately 8,000- 10,000 sq. ft. each. Comprehensive
Plan designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R- 1:7.5.(Single- family Residen-
tial). Assessor's map 5CA. Tax lot: 100.
APPLICANT: Duane Smith
7, PLANNING ACTION #82 -25 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review
to convert the existing dwelling located at 418 Ray Lane into a group -care home
for 10 mentally retarded adults and 2 staff members. Comprehensive Plan designa-
tion: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:5 (Single family Residential). Asses-
sor's map 10DC. Tax lot: 2300.
APPLICANT: Jackson Co. Board of Advocates for Severely Handicapped Adults, Inc.
8. PLANNING ACTION #82 -27 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the seasonal
use of a protable lemonade stand, to be located in the alcove of Rare Earth, 37 N.
Main St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Downtown Commercial. Zoning: C -2
(Downtown Commercial). Assessor's map 9BB. Tax lot: 8600.
APPLICANT: David VanLandingham
9. PLANNING ACTION #82 -21 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review
to convert the existing dwelling at 153 Oak Street into an owner occupied travelers
accommodations consisting of 2 -guest rooms. Comprehensive Plan designation: Retail
Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Retail Commercial). Assessor's. map 9BB. Tax lot:11600.
APPLICANT: Phyllis Knecht
VI. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS:
1. PA #82 -20, request for a Site Review to construct a new SOSC stadium and
improve the parking lot. Applicant: SOSC
VII. STAFF BUSINESS:
1. OLCC licensing regulations
2. Land Use Survey of R -3 zones (handout explanation)
3. Alley vacation between Laurel and Bush Streets (Methodist Church)
VIII. LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter from Jackson Co. Assessor's office
2. Letter from Jackson Co. Health Dept.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES AND
FINDINGS
AND ORDERS
MINUTES
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 14, 1982
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Jeff Barnes in
the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Don
Greene, Jackie Reid, Gene Morris, Ethel Hansen, and Christian Apenes.
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 Meetings of March 10,
1982, and March 24, 1982, were approved as written.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -15 is a request for a Minor Land
PA #82 -15 Partition located on Alnut St., off Strawberry Lane, to divide the existing
MINOR LAND lot into two separate tax lots of approximately 42,218 and 43,961 sq. ft.
PARTITION Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Residential. Zoning: RR -.5P
CLARK Assessor's Map 8AD. Tax Lot: 5302.
APPLICANT: Judith Clark
STAFF REPORT: Fregonese read the staff report. He noted that the
Public Works Dept. prefers that the access to at least one of the lots
of this proposal be off Scenic Dr., since the applicant owns property
there and Alnut could be negatively impacted by increased traffic. He
read a letter from Mr. Mrs. Gastorf, the people who sold the property
to the applicant, into the record. He noted that the question raised by
the Gastorfs as to whether Clark could legally split the lot was a matter
of real estate law and not for the Planning Commission to determine. The
problems of water and sewer availability were discussed, and it was noted
that the location of the fire hydrant was no problem.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Judy Clark, 326 Ridge Rd., applicant, testified on her own behalf.
She handed out copies of maps for the area and a letter from her attorney
to the Planning Commission. She stated she believed the request was a
reasonable one, considering the minimum allowable lot size in the area,
which is half -acre. Her intention is, to maintain close to an acre for
each parcel she proposed to divide. She noted that there exists water
facility on Scenic, and the easements for sewer connection to Alnut have
all been signed.
2) Bill Toney, 252 Strawberry Lane, spoke in favor of Clark's proposal.
3) Jere Hudson, 395 Strawberry Lane, stated he had no objection to the
proposal as an affected neighbor. He stated he would prefer access to be
APC, 4/14/82, Page 1
off Scenic and hoped that a guarantee could be placed in the deed
restricting further division of the property.
4) Mr. Mills, 34 Scenic, stated he was in favor of the request. He
also stated he would prefer access off Scenic at the south end of
Clark's property since the other side would be directly across from his
bedroom window.
5) Gastorf stated he was in opposition to the proposal. He stated it
was untrue that Clark had been given the go -ahead to divide, and the title
to the land had stipulated that it would be appropriate only to build on
one acre. He stated he had problems because of the expense incurred because
of the sewer. He stated that there had been a verbal agreement that only
one house would be placed on the parcel and that the increased traffic
generated by the additional parcel would pose a problem in the area.
6) Barnes asked Gastorf if he realized that the Planning Commission
could not decide real estate law issues. Gastorf responded that he would
seek an injunction against the proposal.
7) Clark stated that she had made an application for this project 2 -1/2
months ago, and the letter of opposition from Gastorf had only appeared
Tuesday afternoon, April 13, 1982, in the Planning office. In reference
to the contract, she noted that the wording of it does imply that division
would be okay, particularly since she does pay the taxes on it and is the
legal owner of the parcel. In response to a question raised by Barnes,
Clark stated that she would prefer to have access off the south line of
her property on Scenic.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Morris asked if the land could be divided if sold to a subsequent
owner. Fregonese noted that, with the street dedication on Alnut, each
parcel would be below an acre in size, thus restricting further
division of the property.
2) Clark was concerned about the deed restriction and how it related
to the street dedication along Alnut and the saving of the large trees
which exist along the street line.
3) Morris asked if this proposal was in a low water pressure area.
Fregonese replied that it was below the Ditch Rd. and would have no more
effect on the water pressure than a house on N. Main St. He further
noted that the water problem is a matter that the Council will need to
address. After a discussion with the City Administrator, the request
application was given the go- ahead.
4) Morris was concerned that increased building here would cause a
problem in another area later.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 2
5) Barnes asked if the deed restriction would be adequate and whether
future Planning Commissions would interpret it as the present one does.
Fregonese noted that a deed restriction might not be appropriate in
20 years, since a deed restriction implies a permanent state of affairs.
6) Hansen asked Hudson if he understood this, and Hudson replied that
he did and he felt growth should be restricted in the entire area,
including his property.
7) Hansen stated she was concerned with the water and sewer situation.
Barnes stated that we did not have all the facts on that item, but that
this was not a hazard area.
8) Apenes felt this would be a good division of the property.
9) Morris stated he was opposed to the traffic and water problems posed
by the potential division, and felt it was poor planning.
10) Barnes asked what should be done regarding the question of further
division of the property.
11) Greene noted that the right -of -way question could not be determined
by the Planning Commission since it is a requirement of the Public Works
Dept.
12) Fregonese asked the Commission if they felt a deed restriction would
be appropriate for a 20 -year period. Reid replied that she felt it would,
or as an alternative, a street dedication of sufficient width to preclude
further division of the parcel.
13) Morris asked how the Commission could get a deed restriction removed.
Fregonese stated that a release from the City would be required. Greene
felt that a limit on the deed restriction would be reasonable.
14) Apenes moved to approve PA #82 -15 with the attached conditions:
Revise condition #2 that the applicant sign in favor of future street
improvements along both Alnut and Scenic, including sidewalks; #6, that
the flag drive from Scenic be situated on the south side of the parcel;
#7, that a drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the
Dept. of Public Works. The motion was seconded by Greene and passed 5 -1
with Morris voting NO.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -18 is a request for an annexation and a
PA #82 -18 zone change for approximately 3 acres located on the east side of Tolman
ANNEXATION Creek Rd., north of Hwy 66. The southern portion of the property fronts
ZONE CHANGE on Hwy 66 and is presently in the City limits, zoned C -1 (Retail Commer-
RIST cial). The portion to be annexed is currently designated as RR -5 by the
County, and would be rezoned as C -1. Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Retail Commercial. Assessor's Map 11C. Tax Lot: 600.
APPLICANT: Don Rist
APC, 4/14/82, Page 3
STAFF REPORT: Fregonese read the staff report. He noted that the
contract annexation, which was recommended by staff and CPAC for this
proposal, had been written into the ordinance but had not been attempted
on any previous annexations proposed. In noting the benefits of a contract
annexation, Fregonese pointed out that the benefit to the property owner
would be that the applicant would not have to pay annexation fees until
the property was developed. In terms of benefits to the City, the process
would allow for the property to be included into the City's tax base
prior to actual annexation. Apenes asked whether this property, even
though presently in the County, would be developed to City standards.
Fregonese replied yes, it would. As part of the contract with the
County, the City would provide any inspections necessary for the develop-
ment of the property. Greene asked whether there were any existing City
services at the site, and Fregonese replied that there presently existed
two residential water services.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Don Rist, 310 Bridge, applicant, noted that at the time the YMCA
property had been annexed, the applicant for this proposal had not
received notification of the annexation in time to include his parcel
along with the Y property to be annexed. He noted that Mr. Peterson,
who owns the property, would prefer to come under the standard annexation
process. He felt that since this process had not been attempted before,
he should not have to be the guinea pig for the new plan. He questioned
whether or not a development on the front part of the property, which is
within the City limits with an overlap onto the County property, would
trigger the annexation. Fregonese replied that it would. Rist noted
that the intent on the rear portion of the property would be for theatres
and a restaurant. He also noted that at the time the conceptual drawing
was developed, the applicant was not aware that there was a proposed ban
on drive -up windows pending at the City level. The conceptual drawing
shows a restaurant with such a window incorporated.
2) Leo Zupan, 1680 Homes, gave some history on the parcel under dis-
cussion. He noted that when the City limits lines were drawn 200 ft. to
the north of Hwy 66, the line was arbitrarily established, thereby
splitting the applicant's property such that roughly one -third of it was
in the City limits and the remaining two- thirds were in the County. He
noted no reason why the property should not be all commercial when the
City limits lines were adjusted. He did object, however, to the 2 -year
time limit period imposed on the proposal for subsequent annexation.
He reasoned that since the economy was in such an uncertain state, a
4 -5 year limitation would be more appropriate for the proposed annexation.
3) Vicki Neuenschwander, 455 Tolman Creek Rd., was in favor of the
proposal and spoke of her property which would be directly affected by
the annexation. She felt the Commission could not deny the application
based on the past approval of the Y property. She did note, however, that
by permitting this annexation, roughly 2 -1/2 parcels would still be under
County jurisdiction but would be surrounded by City property, literally
APC, 4/14/82, Page 4
creating an island of County in the City. She asked for an explanation
of this to help the affected property owners understand what kind of
impact would be created upon these islands.
4) Barnes asked Neuenschwander what she would prefer in terms of this
proposal. Neuenschwander replied she wasn't sure what she wanted, but
she knew she didn't want to be required to pay the fees of annexation
if she were forced into annexation by the approval of this proposal.
5) Fregonese noted that it was not illegal to create islands such as
this, and if they were created, they could be annexed without the
property owners' permission. Noting that the new City limits line would
go down the center of Tolman Creek, which is a County- owned r- i- ght -of -way,
he repeated that the property would be brought into the City only after
it had been developed to City standards.
6) Bob Green, 350 Tolman Creek, requested a ruling on what kind of a
buffer zone would be provided for any commercial development proposed.
Fregonese noted that only those buffers required by Site Review provisions
of the code for screening of residential property from commercial proper-
ties and the Solar Access requirements would be imposed.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Hansen asked if, under a contract annexation, a 4 -year development
deadline would be appropriate. Fregonese replied yes.
2) Barnes noted that increased setbacks should be required in a
commercial development when that property abutted a residential area.
Fregonese noted that this should be included in the ordinance.
3) Reid asked for a clarification as to whether this proposal would
require a Site Review and at what point other appropriate City ordinances
would apply. Fregonese repeated that this would occur at the time of
development of the project at the site.
4) Morris asked whether Tolman Creek Rd. could be improved while the
opposite side was still included in the County. Fregonese replied that
the property could be improved to City standards, but the property owners
across the road could not be assessed for the improvements.
5) Hansen moved that the request be tabled for a month to allow for
discussion with the County to determine whether the 4 -year contract
annexation time limitation would be amenable to them. Morris seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -19 is a request for an Ordinance
PA #82 -19 Variance to construct a deck addition at 709 Leonard St. The variance
VARIANCE is necessary for a front yard setback of 11'8" in lieu of 20' as required
WENKER by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential.
Zoning: R -1 -10 (Single Family Residential). Assessor's Map 15BB.
Tax Lot: 7500.
APPLICANT: John Wenker
STAFF REPORT: Jannusch read the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) John Wenker, 709 Leonard, applicant, spoke on behalf of his
application. He noted he was there primarily to answer any questions
the Planning Commission had regarding his request. He stated his house
was built in 1939 when Leonard was still a dirt path. That is why the
existing setback was only 11'8 He felt his request was justifiable
since his proposed deck would look like an extension of the house along
the front elevation line and would provide more privacy for him and his
family in using the pool he proposes to build there.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Reid wanted to know if the pool would be above ground or in- ground.
Wenker replied that it would be sunken into the deck and partially
excavated into the ground. He noted that the walls of the pool could
not be seen from the street because of the deck structure surrounding it.
2) Hansen felt it would be a nice addition to the house.
3) Reid moved to approve PA #82 -19; Greene seconded the motion; and
the vote was unanimously in favor of the proposal.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -22 is a request for a Minor Land
PA #82 -22 Partition and Ordinance Variance at 305 Hillcrest. The proposal is to
MINOR LAND divide the tax lot into two parcels of approximately 7500 sq. ft. each.
PARTITION The variance is necessary for creating a lot wider than it is deep.
VARIANCE Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R- 1 -7.5.
JAMES Assessor's Map 9CA. Tax Lot: 13100.
APPLICANT: Cheewa James
STAFF REPORT: Jannusch read the staff report. Barnes asked why the
applicant would be required to sign in favor of street improvements along
Hillcrest and not Terrace. Fregonese replied that Terrace was an
improved street.
Fregonese further noted that Hillcrest had originally been an alley, but
there had been various types of paving applied to the road surface.
Morris asked if any drainage problems were evident, and Fregonese replied
that staff was not aware of any.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Bob Cuffel, 291 Terrace, stated he was in favor of the proposal.
He stated he had no objection as long as any building proposed for the
site abutting Terrace would be limited to one story in height, thus
protecting his view.
2) Bob Hubbard, 307 Hillcrest, had no objections to this proposal,
whereas he had with the previous proposal submitted by Fred Schulze
a number of years ago.
3) Cheewa James, 305 Hillcrest, applicant, spoke
for her proposal. She noted that at present the back lot was unusable,
as it is extremely steep, making it difficult for her to provide upkeep
for it. She felt that because of the topography of the property, her
proposal would be appropriate in providing an additional building lot
along Terrace St. Barnes asked James if she had investigated any
particular house plans which might be appropriate for the proposed site.
James replied that she had investigated some house plans, but nothing had
been specifically determined yet.
4) Lorraine Cuffel, 291 Terrace, was in favor of the project. She
stated she and her husband had lived on a similar lot in Bellvue, Wash.,
and it had provided a beautiful site for their home.
5) Mrs. Zediker, a neighbor of the applicant, spoke in favor of the
request and stated she hoped it would pass. She also spoke on behalf of
Ruth Throne, also an adjacent property owner, who was in favor of the
proposal. Apenes noted he had received a call from Zediker stating her
approval.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Barnes was concerned with the small lot abutting Terrace, recognizing
that, although it was legal, it was an odd configuration.
2) Greene concurred with Barnes' concern, and noted there could be a
problem with a future request for a setback variance. Fregonese noted
that setback variances would not be required, provided an appropriate
design was maintained for the parcel.
3) Morris asked whether the Commission could add a condition to the
approval stating that no setback variance would be allowed for subsequent
development on the parcel. Fregonese replied yes.
4) Apenes moved to approve PA #82 -22 with the amended conditions. Reid
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -23 is a request for a Conditional Use
PA #82 -23 Permit and Site Review for expansion of the existing mini storage operation
CONDITIONAL at 2315 Siskiyou Blvd. The proposal would add two min storage units and
USE PERMIT a parking facility for recreational vehicles. Comprehensive Plan
SITE REVIEW Designation: Retail Commercial and Suburban Residential. Zoning: C -1
BALLEW (Retail Commercial) and R -1 -5P (Single Family Residential). Assessor's
Map 14C. tax Lots: 1600, 1703.
APPLICANT: Don Ballew
STAFF REPORT: Jannusch read the staff report. Fregonese stated that
chip seal was an experimental option to paving which the Planning Dept.
was presently imposing on light -duty parking areas. He noted that staff
had been provided with application requirements by the County, which uses
chip seal or an oil matte macadam for the surfacing of their roads.
Jannusch then read a letter submitted by Cindy Dion who owns property
directly adjacent to the proposed building site. Fregonese noted that
staff supported Dion's request to provide an additional setback from the
commercial property where it abuts her residential property. He then
noted an inconsistency in the ordinance which requires that the maximum
lot coverage in an R -1 zone be 50 yet it also permits a parking lot within
this zone, thereby creating a Catch -22 in developmental standards. He
further noted that it was not unusual to have an RV parking lot in a
single family residential zone. Depending on the situation, whichever
provision was more binding would be appropriate. Reid asked which
properties abutted the proposal on the north and west sides. Fregonese
replied that 2 -3 single family lots abut the property on the north,
while two lots within the single family zone abut on the west. These
lots are accessed via Jaquelyn St.
Greene asked whether the drainage plan required would include storm
drainage provisions. Fregonese replied that it would be a total storm
drain that would be required for the proposal. He further noted that
the parking lot could only cover 50% if the Commission felt it was the
more binding provision within the ordinance in this case.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Michael Lanier, 140 Oxford Place, Medford, planning consultant for
the applicant, stated that a survey had been taken of the affected
property owners in the area, and there were 27 individuals presently in
favor of the project. He then gave an overview of the application, noting
that boats and other vehicles would be stored on the parcel as well as
RV's. He noted that the access road from Siskiyou would be paved to a
24 -ft. width to just past the entrance to Ballew's property, then reduced
to a 12 -15 ft. width. The traffic to and from the proposal would be a
maximum of 4 -5 per week. In reference to requiring chip seal on the
proposed parking lot, he stated it was his understanding that the Comp
Plan required impervious surfaces for natural drainage in a proposal such
as this. He stated, however, that his client would comply with the lot
coverage requirement as long as this compliance would not preclude sub-
sequent use in the future as a parking lot, though he would prefer an
APC, 4/14/82, Page 8
application of crushed rock in lieu of the chip seal. In reference to
the Dion letter, he stated that screening would be provided along abutting
residential properties by a redwood or cedar fence done in phases, first
on the north and east property lines, then on the west property line
which he owns. He further stated that the buildings would be light tan
with a white or tan trim. He added that his client would agree to a
4 -ft. setback and also the solar access provision of the ordinance.
2) Fregonese noted that, as a part of the CUP process for off street
parking, paving is required, which again conflicts with the 50% maximum
lot coverage allowable in a single family zone. Lanier noted it was
his understanding that lot coverage generally pertained to building
coverage. Fregonese replied that it was expressed in the code that lot
coverage requirements pertained to all impervious surfaces.
3) Cynthia Dion, 1000 Henry, stated she was opposed to the request.
Her main objection was that she felt this was not a parking lot as defined
in the code, that it is an RV storage lot, which is permitted in the C -3
zone only. She felt the application did not deal with open space per se,
due to the nature of the proposed use which is for RV storage. She felt
the nature of the use, as well as the height of the vehicles that would
probably be stored there, would be a strong intrusion into the surrounding
residential areas. She also noted she had spoken with one of the neighbors
who would be directly affected by the proposal who had signed a petition
in favor of the project. However, after discussing the proposal with
the neighbor, Dion felt he had not received all the facts prior to signing
the petition.
4) Barbara Allen, 355 Grant, stated she was opposed to the proposal.
She presented photos of Dion's property, which is adjacent to the proposal,
noting that there was a rural feeling to her property, and that the approval
of the request would affect the marketability of Dion's property. She felt
it would be difficult to camouflage vehicles stored at the site.
5) Ron Kelso, realtor, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated
he was sure that the RV storage question was totally invalid as it per-
tains to a conditional use in an R -1 zone.
6) Lanier stated that Ballew had told him he had shown each neighbor a
copy of the site plan. Barnes noted that the petition does not state that
there would be an RV parking lot on the site. Lanier pointed out that the
proposal is described on the map, and that the determination of the area
as a parking lot was staff's interpretation of the code, not the applicant's.
He stated the applicant would be willing to buffer the area where the
vehicles would be parked. Fregonese noted he had interpreted the applica-
tion as a valid request, relative to a conditional use in an R -1 zone.
7) Don Ballew, applicant, stated he and his manager had canvassed the
neighborhood and explained the plans fully to the adjacent property
owners. He noted the manager had gone to the d'Entremonts' that week, and
Mrs. d'Entremont had signed the petition. He stated he would prefer to
APC, 4/14/82, Page 9
adjust the building height rather than impose a 10 -ft. setback on the
buildings, noting that the previous building approval was for a 14 -ft.
height. He then noted that funding problems had created the one -year
delay for the development of the site.
8) Reid asked Ballew whether there would be storage of inoperable
vehicles at the site. Ballew replied that there was presently an inoperable
vehicle being stored there now. Reid noted there was a City ordinance
against the storage of inoperable vehicles in residential areas. Ballew
stated that the situation would be remedied. He further stated that, in
his conversations with affected neighbors, they stated they would prefer
not to have the area in solid parking.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Upon recognition that there was no definition in the code for parking
lots, Barnes stated he was shocked at this interpretation and felt it was
simply not acceptable. He noted the map presented does not meet site
review standards, since it did not include elevations of the project or
a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan. Fregonese noted that the
landscaping plan was a stipulation of the conditions of approval. Barnes
again asked whether the parking lot was going to be interpreted as it had
been in the staff report. Fregonese replied that it was a definite
problem area and it needed to be determined at the Planning Commission level,
noting that there was no real guidance in the code. Barnes further
stated he did not feel it was the intent of the code that long -term storage
be encouraged in a residential zone, since this proposal was a commercial
enterprise.
2) Reid stated she agreed with Barnes. She also felt that commercial
parking should be interpreted and maintained for commercial use in a
commercial zone. Fregonese noted that the only prohibition relative to
parking would be for required parking for a specific use. Reid maintained
that the question would be whether this was considered a storage facility
or a parking area. At this time it was recognized that it would be con-
sidered a storage facility.
3) Reid pointed out that the definition of a Conditional Use Permit
was to determine the compatibility of a proposed project with the surrounding
area. She said she had difficulty recognizing that a storage facility was
compatible in a residential zone.
4) Greene noted that the Planning Commission had been reviewing less
sophisticated plans to an increasing degree, and he was dismayed by this.
5) Morris noted he could not vote for the project because of the wording
of the single family residential interpretation of the parking area, and
because the site review plan was incomplete.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 10
6) Apenes suggested that perhaps the applicant could rearrange the
site plan, thereby satisfying the requirements which the Planning
Commission was questioning.
7) Hansen concurred that she could not approve the parking area because
of the discrepancies in the ordinance.
8) Barnes stated it would be appopriate to change the clarification
of the approval as it related to the CUP process, the site review, and
boundary line adjustment proposed. He asked the applicant whether a
partial approval of the project would help his development plans. Ballew
stated that it would help. He noted that landscaping had previously been
done in phases as buildings had been added to the site. He noted the
areas of landscaping on the site plan for the Commission.
9) Reid asked what the height would be of the north building. Ballew
replied it would be 10 ft. high, with a 4 -ft. setback. Fregonese noted
that a 10 -ft. high building would not meet the solar setback.
10) Greene moved to approve the site review only for the commercial
portion of the property, with the amended conditions. Apenes seconded
the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor.
11) Greene moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit application for the
parking area and boundary line adjustment in the single family residential
zone. He stated he did not feel this was the intent of the code. Morris
seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor of the denial.
REQUEST FOR Rosemary Dalton, representing the Board of Advocates for PA #82 -25,
AGENDA requested an adjustment of the schedule so that her application could be
ADJUSTMENT heard before it got too late for the proponents of her project. The
BOARD OF Planning Commission asked Duane Smith, whose application was next on the
ADVOCATES agenda, whether this would pose a problem for him. He replied that it
would not.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -25 is a request for a Conditional Use
PA #8225 Permit and Site Review to convert the existing dwelling located at 418 Ray
CONDITIONAL Lane into a group -care home for 10 mentally retarded adults and 2 staff
USE PERMIT members. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning:
SITE REVIEW R -1 -5 (Single Family Residential). Assessor's Map 10DC. tax Lot: 2300.
BOARD OF APPLICANT: Jackson County Board of Advocates for Severely Handicapped
ADVOCATES Adults, Inc.
STAFF REPORT:
1) Fregonese read the staff report.
2) Barnes asked what criteria limits the number of rooms in a convalescent
or nursing home. Fregonese replied there were no known density require-
ments for such a proposal.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 11
3) Reid asked whether public health agencies had any requirements
relative to this request. Fregonese replied that it would require a
Fire Life Safety inspection by the State Building Codes Division.
4) Three letters of opposition were then read into the record.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Rosemary Dalton, Clover Lane, president of the Board of Advocates,
stated the nature of her application and presentation would be to avoid
any emotional impact and any innuendos implied by opponents of the
project. She stated she wished only to address their proposed location,
its use, and its zoning. She stated the clientele served by the group
home was not mentally deranged, only intellectually slow. She added she
was the parent of an 18- year -old girl who is still in diapers, has
difficulty feeding herself, and is still learning to climb stairs.
She noted that this project would be catering to 10 such individuals
who could not be left alone or their learning processes would be stopped.
She noted there were advantages to having more people in each room for
the impact on the clientele. She further stated that the clientele does
not run across lawns and that they do like little children. She stated
that these people are not dangerous, and the individuals being served are
the ones who need to be protected. Dalton took exception to the proposal
that a new building be erected as a facility in the country, because
isolation in the country is not good for these individuals who are attempting
to be mainstreamed into society. She noted that some of the petitioners
who had signed against the request wished to have their names withdrawn
from the petition which had been circulated by the opponents of the
proposal. She stated the applicants would landscape and maintain the
property. There were also many requirements which had been imposed by
the State that they also had to meet. The Board of Advocates had chosen
the house for its stability, with 5 bedrooms and 10 people in the house
at night. She further stated that access to the park and to bus lines
was good at this location. The Board of Advocates had been looking for
such a house since January, and this house filled the bill because it had
good insulation, which was needed for warmth, due to the lesser mobility
of the clients served. She stated that a house with stairs would not be
suitable due to the clients' immobility. She further noted it would be
inappropriate to use the same standards as applied to students, as,
generally speaking, the clients of the project are not large people.
She objected to the petition which had been circulated by opponents of
the project, in that the wording of the petition had stated that there
would be a zone change on the property. They were applying for a CUP,
not a zone change.
2) Addressing the density impact, Barnes asked whether it was important
that all 10 individuals live at the site. Dalton replied that the Board
of Advocates has been mandated by the State to serve 10 persons, however,
they could receive a waiver for 9. There would be two additional staff
people at the site during the days and one at night. She noted that
funding for the project would be through the State Mental Health Dept.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 12
Dalton further stated that there would be no one home during the daytime,
since the individuals would be going to work at this time. She noted
that the group home concept is a valid one, because the alternative is
sending the individuals to Fairview Hospital in Salem for basically a
vegetative existence.
3) Pam Swap, 965 Siskiyou, director of the project, stated she
had been in contact with the neighbor who lives next door to the
project who is in favor of the project. The State requires that 60 sq. ft.
be provided for residents in a bedroom, and the bedrooms in this house fit
that bill. She stated there would be a staff person on duty 24 hours a
day, but staff would not live or sleep there. Staff would be trained in
first aid and CPR, and they are in fact good neighbors to have. She
added that the programs for the clients are intense and everything is
monitored and constantly being evaluated. She felt this was a perfect
house for the proposal.
4) Reid asked what the real effect would be on the neighborhood. Would
the individuals be taking walks in the neighborhood? Or would they be
transported primarily by van or car? Swap noted that there would
be monitored backyard activities. The clients
could learn to recognize the neighbors, but none are independent and
would not be walking up and down the street alone.
5) William Nicklaus, 1196 Ashland Mine Rd., was in favor of the project.
He stated he has a foster home he runs privately at his own home. Out of
the 6 children that live there, 3 are mentally retarded and 1 is nonverbal.
He was concerned especially about the nonverbal boy, while the two others
are more mildly handicapped. He further stated he had these children a
long time and he couldn't recall when the neighbors had complained about
the situation. He emphasized the need to have these individuals main-
streamed into the community.
6) Glenn Hannon spoke in favor of the project. He stated he was unclear
about the CUP process and wondered if the group home left, would the permit
lapse. Fregonese replied that this was not normally the situation, but
it could be imposed as a condition of approval. Hannon suggested that
perhaps an individual who had stated opposition to the proposal, feeling
that this would be setting a precedent for the area, would not object if
s /he knew that the use would not continue after the house had been vacated
by the Board of Advocates.
7) Phil Miller, 129 S. Laurel, is a teacher at Ashland High for severely
mentally retarded adult students. He addressed the misconceptions which
many normal adults have regarding retarded adults. He noted that the issue
of the space is critical. There would be no parking problems with this
group since they do not own cars. He noted further problems faced by
retarded adults. He posed the question of where these people would go when
they grow up. Typically they stayed with their parents until the parents
die, and then with borthers and sisters. He noted that there is a trend
toward less institutionalization of individuals such as these. He stated
APC, 4/14/82, Page 13
this would be the second group home existing in Jackson County. In
citing the minimum number of 10 set by the State, Miller noted that more
frequently a typical institution would be more like a dormitory setting,
whereas a group home is essentially a family. Attempts are made within a
group home to simulate the family. He stated that the fear of rezoning
became apparent, and the petition signers did not have accurate information
before signing.
8) Ron Williams, 710 Pennsylvania, Medford, stated he was in favor of
the proposal. He noted that typically Jackson County does not provide
an opportunity for these individuals to move into the adult world and
leave home. These people are frequently sent away to institutions
depite their great potential. He noted that several of these people already
ride buses and use other regular community resources. They do not scare
or hurt people, not even themselves. He urged approval of the project.
9) Lois Newman, 500 Ray Lane, stated she supported the proposal. She
felt it was a matter of pride for Ashland. She stated she had formerly
been instrumental in organizing a group home for teenage girls, and this
was a more valid proposal than the one she had been involved in.
10) Peter Estaveras, son of Newman, had been approached with the petition
and was told it would be a zone change. Realizing there was an error in
the petition, Estaveras was sorry he had signed it.
11) Betty Kester, 490 Ray Lane, stated she had been a physical therapist
for 30 years and had often worked with this type of person. She felt
ashamed of her neighbors, since this was not the type of person to run
out and bother neighbors as some people may have feared.
12) Norma Nichlaus, 1196 Ashland Mine Rd., reiterated her husband's
sentiment. She stated she cannot always tell which of her children are
the handicapped ones. She did not want to raise the handicapped children
to be institutionalized.
13) Ron Kelso, 220 Patrick Lane, realtor for the Board of Advocates,
stated he ordinarily testifies at public hearings motivated by business.
In this case, he was motivated by compassion. He noted that the Planning
Commission had just been debating a project where it was okay to call an
RV storage lot a "parking lot" as a conditional use. Why not call these
people "related He further stated that one of the reasons they had
chosen this house within a single- family residential zone was that it is
difficult to compete price -wise in an R -2 and R -3 zone.
14) Sue Kurtz, 725 Terra, stated she was in favor of the proposal.
15) Lynn Miller, Talent, stated she was hired by the group home to be
a supervisor, and she has worked with them in the past. She stated she
was comfortable with the number proposed for the home. She noted that
these individuals do look different, don't dress as nicely, or stand as
tall, but they do want a home and need and want to learn basic home life
skills.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 14
16) Larry Hyland 155 Alida, stated he was a board member for
Citizens for Independent Living. He was concerned about a letter that
had been received in opposition to the project, noting that their
children's safety would be impaired. He felt it was a simple case of
discrimination similar to what he had endured, since he is handicapped
and confined to a wheelchair. He stated his group was in support of this
request.
17) Delores Galloway, 555 Fairview, stated she has two children who are
retarded presently living at Fairview Hospital in Salem. She stated that
if the group home was approved at this location, her children would be
living there. She added that these individuals do not harm neighbors,
and it is important to give them the chance to be mainstreamed.
18) Roger Hauser, 105 Royal Ave. North, Eagle Point, was in favor of
the proposal. He stated he works for the County Mental Health Dept.
and he would be in charge of monitoring the group home. He said he
would answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.
19 Mrs. Miller 129 S. Laurel, stated it was important to be
aware of our biases. She asked why, in the application, the term
"mentally retarded" had been used. She felt that it was because of this
term in the application that there was such opposition to'the proposal.
She said it reminded her of the prejudice of the 50s.
20) David Greer, 457 Ray Lane, stated he was the spokesman for the
neighborhood in opposition to the proposal. He stated he and his
neighbors liked the area as single- family, and quoted the purpose of this
zone was to "encourage family life." The neighbors had held a meeting
and the emphasis was to try to get away from the initial emotional reaction.
He stated that the neighbors' primary concern was with the number of people
proposed to be living at the house, since it was a small house and the lot
was only 6000 sq. ft. He noted the summer traffic which is congested
because of the adjacent ballpark at Hunter Park. He stated his disagreement
was not with the need, but he and the neighbors felt there were other areas
which might be more appropriate for the location of this use.
21) Bob Noble, 418 Lit Way, stated he agreed in principle with the
Board of Advocates, but seconded Greer's feelings. He noted that only
two of the individuals who had spoken in favor of the project verbally
at the hearing lived in the neighborhood. He asked Fregonese as to
whether the conditional use would be perpetual, even if after the Board
of Advocates move, in effect changing the zoning. Fregonese replied that
it would stay a group home unless a condition were imposed to the
contrary, and Noble was wrong to use the term "zone change." Noble wanted
to know if granting the request would open the area up to a zone change.
Fregonese replied no. Noble then asked how the individuals could ride
buses if they cannot be left alone. The Advocates replied that they are
accompanied by volunteers who do not live at the house.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 15
22) Barnes addressed Noble. He noted that the opponents of the proposal
refer to the area as improper zoning for such a proposal. He asked Noble
where he thought these individuals should be. Noble replied they should
be in a multiple family zone. Fregonese noted that boarding houses are
an outright permitted use in multi family zones.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Greene asked Hauser if he had inspected the house as a representative
from the County Mental Health Dept. Hauser stated that he had and felt
that the house was adequate and typical in size and access.
2) Morris asked Fregonese to read the Conditional Use Permit criteria.
3) Barnes asked Dalton whether she had talked to the neighbors before
the notice had been sent. She stated that they had only talked to those
individuals whom they knew.
4) Barnes stated he had just recently been discussing this issue with
a friend who lives in Eugene, who, coincidentally, lives adjacent to a
group home. This particular facility had 10 individuals in two houses.
Barnes' friend told him that there had been no problems which had arisen
in the neighborhood by having such a facility there. He further stated
that he had personal experience teaching retarded individuals swimming
in college. Although it was a tough job, it was extremely gratifying.
He stated he would have no qualms about having such a facility in his own
neighborhood. He stated that, regardless of the zoning, this was a
difficult social issue and prejudices often prevail in making decisions
such as these. It was his opinion that these individuals can be good
contributing neighbors. He wondered where would be an appropriate alterna-
tive location for these people if not in a single- family zone, since multi-
family properties are often priced out of range or too old to be adequate.
Barnes noted that this was probably a weakness in the zoning ordinance as
well.
5) Greene stated he'd had real concerns coming into this meeting
about the proposal, but through the presentation by the Advocates, most
of his concerns had been alleviated. He noted further that this was also
his neighborhood.
6) Hansen stated she had worked with this type of individual in the past
prior to coming to Ashland. She noted that they have much love to give
and they can, in fact, change your life in a positive manner. Her fears
concerning this specific site had also been allayed by the presentation.
She added that they are truly harmless individuals and can be an asset to
the community.
7) Morris stated he felt the Planning Commission's emotions were carrying
them away from the real issue being addressed here. He stated he felt
APC, 4/14/82, Page 16
empathy for these people, but the charge of the Commission is to deter-
mine whether the proposal complies with the criteria for the zone.
8) Reid notedthat_it is perhaps easy for the Commission to decide
what other individuals should have in their neighborhoods, and in this
particular case, this could be unfair. She stated she would have no
problems having such a facility in her neighborhood. She recognized that
this might be a better location than in an R -2 or R -3 zone, since it did
have access to a park, it was a single -story structure, and it was not on
a hill. Fregonese noted there were other open spaces available in
multiple family zones such as school yards and park facilities. Reid
further stated she felt this was a good location because of the services
available and that this could become a permanent use for the area.
9) Apenes explained that his only exposure to a mentally retarded
individual had been a 28- year -old woman who had the mental capacity of
a 12- year -old. He noted that it had been constant work for her parents,
but she is now 35 and works on a regular basis. Because of the concerted
effort by her parents and other concerned individuals. she had developed.
He further stated that, while there are objections to such a facility
in this area, the need for this facility justifies its approval.
10) Hansen also stated she has had experience living adjacent to a
girls' home, and she is hardly aware that they are there.
11) Morris reiterated that it was the adjacent property owners whose
rights are being questioned here. They have chosen to live in a single
family zone, and he felt this might be a potential infringement on
their rights to live in such a zone. He further noted that from the
apparent feelings expressed in the signed petition, most of the affected
property owners were against such a proposal.
12) Barnes noted that the Land Use Ordinance doesn't specifically
address such a conditional use in any zone. He further felt that, with
the exception of the fears expressed, there would be minimal impact on
the neighborhood.
13) Greene pointed out that those who had signed the petition against
the proposal may have been misled because of the erroneous wording of
the petition which implied a change of zone for the area. He further
pointed out that his main objection to the proposal would be that the
housing would be inadequate for them at this site.--He felt it might be
appropriate to approve the request with the condition that it be subject
to a review within a year of this approval, and that the approval be
limited to this use only.
14) Fregonese noted that there were State Fire Life Safety permits
required before the building could be used. He stated that parking
requirements dictated that no more than two vehicles be parked at the
site at any time. He felt an additional condition should be applied
relative to any future construction or additions to the site, and that
they come under the auspices of a Conditional Use Permit.
APC, 4/14/82, Page 17
PUBLIC HEARING
PA #82 -24
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
SUBDIVISION
SMITH
15) Greene stated he felt it would be appropriate to use public
testimony as part of the findings for the approval of the project.
16) Morris moved to deny PA #82 -25, based on the opposition to the
facility. The motion failed, due to lack of a second.
17) Greene moved to approve PA #82 -25, with the following conditions:
1) Approval be granted for this use only; 2) The facility shall be reviewed
within one year of the approval to address any problems that may have
arisen in that period; 3) That all appropriate permits be procured from
the State Fire Life Safety Board; 4) That no more than 2 cars be allowed
at any given time in the parking lot; and 5) That any additional structures
proposed to the living area require a Conditional Use Permit prior to
building permit issuance. The motion was seconded by Hansen which passed
5 to 1, with Morris voting NO.
DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -24 is a request for approval of Applewood
Subdivision, a Performance Standards Subdivision of 21 lots on the north-
east corner of Prim and Wiley Streets. The lots would be approximately
8000 10,000 sq. ft. each. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban
Residential. Zoning: R -1 -7.5 (Single- Family Residential). Assessor's
Map 5CA. Tax Lot: 100.
APPLICANT: Duane Smith
STAFF REPORT:
1) Fregonese read the staff report and also reviewed the site plan for
the Planning Commission.
2) Barnes noted the siting of structures on the north property line,
while on 3 or 4 of the sites, the garages are located on the south side
of the properties, thereby limiting solar access to the residences.
3) Fregonese reviewed the conditions proposed by staff. He noted that
it should be added to the record that the applicant needs only 17% for
density bonuses, and that open space and energy efficiency had been the
only two criteria adequately addressed by the applicant in applying for
the density bonuses. A number of items need to be addressed in the
deed restrictions imposed on the proposal. These include: a solar veg-
etation covenant; a sinking fund for road maintenance of the private
lane which 9 lots front on to ensure a road that will meet Public Works
standards for a 15 -year overlay; a maintenance agreement for the storm
drain proposed for the project. It was also determined that the road
would be considered a place due to the limited number of properties
abutting it. It was staff's opinion that sidewalks would not be re-
quired along the private place because of the pedestrian paths that were
proposed elsewhere in the development. In addition, street trees would
be required along Prim and Wiley on 30 -ft. centers.
4) Morris noted that previously it had been a requirement set down
by the Planning Commission that sidewalks be included at least along one
APC, 4/14/82, Page 18
side of the street in subdivisions.
5) Discussion took place relative to street placement, because of the
steepness of the terrain and efforts to maintain level streets, based
on the topography of the property.
6) Barnes asked whether there were presently provisions for sidewalks
on Wiley and Fregonese replied no. Fregonese further noted that traffic
generated by the 9 units on this private place would be minimal, and
standards for a lane designation were for more than 10.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Duane Smith, applicant, 639 Prim, noted that the private road
access is relatively level and that the hammerhead configuration at the
end of the cul -de -sac was incorporated to reduce cuts and fills on the
property. He discussed the landscaping proposed for the project and
noted that open spaces would be natural grasses, trees, and wildflowers
and would not include sidewalks per se, nor would they be intensely
landscaped. A sprinkler system would be incorporated around the basket-
ball court area.
2) Smith stated that the design of the parcels and the siting of the
buildings would utilize the open spaces on relatively level terrain, and
only the side yards would be relatively steep. He further stated that
the development is trying to tailor the subdivision for today's market
in that the sales program would address problems inherent in these
economic times. He noted that John Chmelir would site the houses on the
lots.
3) In addressing the problem of water availability, Smith stated that
the City Council has determined that there is no problem with the
increased water flow of up to 50 lots. He felt the homeowners' associa-
tion should address the problem of road maintenance and the sinking fund
proposed by staff. Relative to sidewalk placement, he stated he had no
problem with this requirement. Smith then distributed a slope chart
developed by himself and Chmelir showing specifically what a 50% slope
actually is. He noted that there would be no problem building on a
40% slope, which in general is the existing terrain, with adequate
engineering.
4) Barnes asked Smith if he would be the one building the homes.
Smith replied that the package proposed did not dictate that he actually
build the homes himself. He stated he was only providing possible
designs to be used for their construction.
5) Barnes asked Smith how many solar options were available in the
homes. Smith replied that there was roughly a 50 -50 split between solar
and non -solar potential in his homes.
6) Barnes was concerned about the density bonuses allowed and how the
BTU requirements could be regulated to ensure the granting of the density
APC, 4/14/82, Page 19
bonuses. It was determined that the City could enforce this, but that
the deed restrictions relative to this requirement need to be worked out
prior to construction.
7) Fregonese noted that the homeowners' associations typically don't
know anything about roads and their maintenance. Smith replied that he
couldn't argue with that, but he felt requiring a sinking fund
for the maintenance of the road would be making the issue too complex.
8) Reid pointed out that whether the road was private or public, there
would still be a responsibility to the City for emergency vehicle use
of the road.
9) Greene asked Smith about when the paving would occur for common
areas as well as the flag drive on lot 21. Smith replied that if a few
lots were sold this summer, the whole project would be paved. If the
paving required phasing, then the applicant would agree to post a bond
to ensure that the whole area would ultimately be paved.
10) Leon Tuttle, 487 Walnut, stated he was in opposition to the proposal.
He cited the problem of water availability to the site. He noted there
was a leaky 8" water line which currently serves the surrounding
properties, and last summer there was not even enough pressure at some
points to run his sprinkler system. He felt this project would negatively
impact the total area, especially in light of the fact that there are
still various vacant duplex lots on Walnut as well as other locations
in the area.
11) Walter Carey, 527 Walnut, agreed with Tuttle, citing the water
problem as one of his primary concerns. He also raised questions about
the density bonuses allowed the builder for the non -solar plans submitted.
He stated he had bought an additional piece of land behind his property,
creating a larger parcel for himself,' hoping to discourage further
development in his neighborhood. Relative to the requirement that the
developer sign in favor of future street improvements to Walnut, Carey
noted that he and his adjacent property owners did not want a wide street
cutting through their front yards.
12) Ron Kelso, realtor, noted that there are similar conditions that
exist throughout the City relative to the water problem.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Greene suggested that the meeting be continued to the next week,
since the hour was getting so late.
2) Morris expressed his deep concern regarding the water problem. He
suggested that the Planning Commission direct this question to the City
Council and suggest that a moratorium be placed on developments all over
town. Greene stated this would create quite an impact on development
APC, 4/14/82, Page 20
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 AM.
in the City, and they should take careful consideration prior to
imposing such a drastic measure city -wide.
John Fregonese, Executive Secretary
APC, 4/14/82, Page 21
c
gz r.'- YES
enes
s
rsen
I rnes
rris
TOT
p enes
cgs
arisen
larnes
orris
OWL
eid
reene
TOT
%penes
,g s
!arisen
3arnes
brr i s
reene
)mss
TOT
YES NO
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD
NO PH /9 YES NO
NO PH av YES
itmomos
Greene
Reid
igogh
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
B F•ewg s
Apenes
TOT
NO PH
.ERs
Greene
Reid
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
S
Apenes
TOT
PH
almem
Greene
Reid
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
IPPRIEbgs
Apenes
TOT
6-
YES NO
Reid
AveRs
Apenes
-mss
Hansen
Barnes
Morris
TOT
Greene
Apenes
1.
T
Hansen
sen C
H
Barnes
Morris
TOT
YES NO PH
Reid
Greene
Anenes
Hansen
Barnes
Morris
TOT
4514e1 aolga.„
PH 7i ZS YES NO
Reid
PH
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
Apenes
-trams
Greene
Reid
TOT
4 4-k92_
PH •2 Z YES NO
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
its
Apenes
fawn
Greene
Reid
TOT
YES NO PH
Morris
Barnes
Hansen
Apenes
Greene
Reid
TOT
t/
YES NO
YES NO