Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-28 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 28, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St. II. R -3 R -2 ZONING ISSUE: III. ORDINANCE REVISIONS: (Bring original packet) A. Report of Chamber of Commerce Committee workshops B. General Discussion IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: V. SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS: VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER R -3 R -2 ZONING ISSUE MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 28, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Chairman Jeff Barnes in the Civic Center. Members present were Jackie Reid, Don Greene, Tom Owens, and Gene Morris. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. 1. Fregonese explained the maps in the packets noting little vacant lands left. Barnes questioned whether there were any calculations available for typical lot sizes in the proposed change location. Fregonese stated that there were none available. 2. Barnes asked whether there was any new input which the staff proposed to interject to the precedings. Fregonese noted that there were no new thoughts that had been developed since the previous hearing had taken place, noting that the Planning Department felt its original proposal was still sound. He did state, however, that certain amendments may be appropriate to satisfy the Questions and concerns raised by property owners. He felt that it would be appropriate to maintain the existing zoning along south Siskiyou but that there still existed controversy over the multiple -story allowances given in the R -3 zone. Continuing with the general overview of the proposal, he noted that Quincy Street, North to East Main, and over to Lincoln contains mostly apartments presently. The Avery, Bridge, and Lee Streets area has generally small lots with single family residences:located there. He stated that it may be appropriate to leave the properties north of Hersey Street in an R -3 designation. 3. Barnes asked what the traffic count is on Maple Street. Fregonese replied that the comprehensive plan projected the count of 4,000 vehicles per day to the year 2000 on Maple Street, noting that the capacity of the street is closer to double that. Barnes suggested that this could be a potential strip of R -3 property. Freqonese stated that this is currently R -2 and thus should not presently be under discussion. 4. Barnes suggested that, in efforts to alleviate the problem faced by the commission and to make the multiple- family requirements R -3 more realistic, it may be more appropriate to leave the current K -J zones as they presently exist but to revise the density standards to something more workable and realistic relative to the onsight im- provements required by the remainder of the ordinance, APC, 4/28/82, Page 1 5. Morris suggested that the joint Commission /CPAC committee should look at individual areas one at a time. 6. Barnes suggested that the discussion first center around the south end of Siskiyou Blvd.. Greene noted that he had concerns over the 50 -ft. height regulations allowed in R -3 zone. Barnes stated that he had no problem with that as long as the design for such a structure was done properly, further noting that the Green Springs dormitory is five to six stories tall, probably 65 feet in height, and that it, in fact, is not that offensive. 7. Fregonese interjected some calculations which he had penciled out during the discussion. He was comparing the R -3 to R -2 densities question, suggesting a 20,000 square foot lot and a typical 800 square foot gross area per unit. Under the R -3 designation with the 5,000 sq. ft. plus the 1200 sq. ft. per unit, a developer could figure on 13 units to be placed on the 20,000 ft. parcel. However, with the parking requirements, landscaping, and open area impositions, a developer would need 25,000 sq. feet to place these 13 units. Figuring 1500 sq. ft. for each additional unit, were the ordinance revised under the R -3 designation, the permissible number of units would be more realistic, allowing 11 units to be placed at the site. Under R -2 requirements, which permits units based on 5,000 sq. feet for the first unit and 2,000 sq. feet for each additional unit, a developer could anticipate 8 units to be placed at the site. 8. Barnes noted that it was apparent that the concensus of the group was to retain all the property along south Siskiyou as R -3. Going to the next area of question, along Siskiyou from Bridge Street to Dewey and beyond E. Main to "B" Street, he felt that it would be agreeable that Quincy to E. Main Street be maintained as R -3. Greene noted that Iowa forms a natural break and that the line should:be drawn there. Barnes then questioned whether there had been any adverse testimony regarding the change below E. Main St. It was noted that only one individual had testified in favor of re- taining it as R -3 in'this area. Barnes noted that he was unsure about the proposal in the Iowa Street area. Greene noted that he felt that this area would not remain in single- family residences. Barnes noted that maintaining the R -3 designation to Iowa Street will. intensify the traffic in an area which is already relatively dense because of the large amount of student housing in the area. Robert Cutberth, the Planning Commission ex- officio member from SOSC, noted that the college is projecting a 10 percent enrollment decrease for the following year and that it is already anticipating the closure of two dorms, stating that because of this, more students will be moving off campus. 9. Morris suggested that zoning remain as is but that the densities be changed to more realistic requirements. 10. Barnes suggested that it was more appropriate to leave the Morse, Blaine, and Dewey area out of the R -3 juridiction. Greene noted that•his only objection to the proposed changes were in the High St. area as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. APC, 4/28/82, Page 2 11. Barnes next suggested that the Commission leave a strip of R -3 along E. Main St. and extend the R -2 zoning area over to Palm from Avery. This seemed reasonable since there are a number of single- family dwellings located between Palm and Avery on small lots. 12. Barnes then stated that he was surprised at the public testimony in favor of the R -3 jurisdiction along the VanNess area. Morris concurred. Greene suggested that it may be appropriate to leave all the area below the Boulevard in R -3. This would encompass all the area from Central to the northeast of Siskiyou Blvd. running from Helman St. on both sides of Central and both sides of Van Ness all the way to Glenn St. including the north side of Glenn St. He further noted that it would be appropriate to leave the area by the hospital zoned R -2, which it is currently zoned, but to change the Comprehensive Plan which is currently desig- nated as high density multiple family. 13. Referring to the map, including the Ashland High School property, Barnes stated that he felt it appropriate to keep the Lee St. area zoned R -3. Morris felt this appropriate and that to extend the R -2 boundary abutting the Avery St. properties all the way over to the middle of Palm St. with the north boundary line of the R -2 jurisdic- tion to be the middle of Iowa. A discussion of the Morse St. area then ensued along with the potential future expansion of the high school property. Barnes questioned whether there was any sense in maintaining an R -3 strip on E. Main St. Fregonese replied that since there were small lots predominating along E. Main he felt that perhaps R -2 would be more appropriate there. Morris suggested that the Alida St. area remain as is. Owens felt that the Blaine and Alida St., area should be R -2. 14. Barnes again questioned whether the R -3 density requirements should remain as is or be changed. Greene stated that he felt that much of the R -3 properties were located in the wrong areas. Morris again stated that he felt that the density allowable in the R -3 zone was too much and should be changed. 15. Barnesnoted the solar ordinance stating that the solar access code limits the heights of proposed structures and that particularly onsmaller lots this would be especially felt. Fregonese pointed out that it may be more appropriate in the R -3 zone to limit the height of permitted buildings to the 35 -ft. elevation or 22 stories, and provide for Conditional Use Permits for structures up to 50 feet in height. Barnes stated that he would go along with that. Greene also felt that this would be appropriate and he noted that it would be necessary to change both the commercial zones and the proposed E -1 zones where they relate to conditional uses for residential purposes. 16. The Commission then expressed a recap of all those properties affected by R -3 to R -2 proposed changes. Morris stated that the Dewey, Blaine, Alida. Streets area to the middle of Morse St. and including those properties abutting the alley on the southeast corner of E. Main should be R -2. Next, that that area north of E. Main Street including N. Mountain, Emerick, Eureka, and parts APC, 4/28/82, Page 3 TYPE 1 of "C" and "B" Streets should be R -3. Next that the R -2 which pre- sently encompasses Bridge and Avery Streets should extend over to Palm Street with Iowa being the north border line for the zone. Lee St. should be maintained as R -3. 17. Referring to the properties at the north end of town,' all the property from Central to Glenn St. would be maintained as R -3, but those properties west of High St. between Laurel and Granite St. shall be changed from R -3 to R -2, and the area by the hospital be main- tained as R -2 and that the Comprehensive Plan be changed accordingly. Morris also moved that the area on south Siskiyou be maintained as R -3. Included in the motion was a provision for the height restriction in the R -3 zone to 50 feet be required as a Conditional Use Permit. Greene seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous, 5 -0. 18. Fregonese recommended that all new maps be prepared with the appropriate changes for one last hearing to be held the last Wednesday in May so that the proposalscould be presented to the City Council in June. The Commission agreed. 1. Planning Action #82 -28, Vince Oredson, applicant. Fregonese showed the plans. He indicated to the Commission that the applicant desired that the property be zoned E -1. He further noted that the property has good solar orientation. He noted that the applicant's intent was to set up a complex as a combination office and light in- dustrial use. Morris noted that it was important to require the applicant to screen the area so that the car lights would not shine on the ajacent single family residences. Fregonese noted that the plans show a screening application such as that desired by Morris. The application was approved with the attached conditions. 2. Planning Action #82 -35, Don Ballew, applicant. Fregonese showed the plans to the Commission, including the original plans indicating the earlier phases of the development. The Commission concurred with the staff approval. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM, John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 4/28/82, Page 4