Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-18 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone w.tALng to 4peak at any Harming ng Comm ss-.on Meeting .ut encowucged to do Ao. IA you do wL h to zpeafz, to e.a4e. nvse and Welt you have been necogwLzed by the ChaiA., gave yooun name and comp.Pe.te addh.e,o. You wilt then be aLPowed to 4pea!a. P.eea6e note that pub.P,L_e .e4Vmony may be tim ted by the Cha,vt and no/matey Ls not attowed aAte.'t. the public hecut i,ng hays been elo4ed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING May 18, 1982 (TUESDAY) I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Downtown Council Chambers II. Renewal of Travelers Accommodations at: 120 Gresham, 634 Iowa, 467 Scenic, 142 N. Main, 70 Coolidge, 150 N. Main St., 111 "B" St., 2.95 Idaho, 725 Terra and 32.1, 325, 335, 343 Garfield Streets. Also renewal of professional offices at 333 N. Main. III. Final approval of Ashland /Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding. IV. STAFF BUSINESS:. Special Meeting of 5 -26 -82 V. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER STAFF REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: M 1 N U T E S ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING May 18, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM in the Downtown Council Chambers by Chairman Jeff Barnes. Members present were Jackie Reid, Don Greene, Tom Owens, Christian Apenes, and Ethel Hansen. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Admiistrative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. RENEWAL Q TRAVELERS' ACCOMMODATIONS DESCRIPTION: Renewal of Travelers' Accommodations at: 120 Gresham, 634 Iowa, 467 Scenic, 142 N. Main, 70 Coolidge, 150 N. Main, 111 "B 295 Idaho, 725 Terra, and 321, 325, 335, 343 Garfield. Also renewal of professional offices at 333 N. Main. 1) Fregonese noted that the Planning Dept. had no problems with any of the travelers' accommodations except for the Ashland Youth Hostel. He then recommended approval of all the applicants, except for the Hostel, suggesting that it would be appropriate to call up this particular travelers' accommodation for a public hearing before the Planning Commission at its June meeting. 1) Jim Beaver, 120 Gresham, requested a point of order, and asked when it would be appropriate to speak on the owners' request to revise the renewal process that had been established by the Planning Commission. Barnes stated that the appropriate time for this discussion would be after the Commission had voted on the approval of the renewal of the licenses for the bed and breakfasts. 1) Owens moved to approve the renewal request for all the subject travelers' accommodations, except for the Ashland Youth Hostel, which should have a public hearing at the Planning Commission's June meeting. The motion was seconded by Hansen and passed unanimously. APC, 5/18/82, Page 1 POLICIES REGARDING THE LICENSING OF TRAVELERS' ACCOMMODATIONS 1) Fregonese noted to the Commission that the very nature of travelers' accommodations within a residential district can more often cause problems than any other Conditional Use Permit. He felt that the annual review of travelers' accommodations under such a zoning jurisdiction is a valid requirement to be maintained. Barnes asked whether a change of ownership would invalidate the CUP. Fregonese replied that it would depend on the initial approval of that particular travelers' accommodations. 2) Jim Beaver, owner of Chanticleer Bed Breakfast at 120 Gresham, spoke on behalf of those assembled. He stated that if the investment for improvements at travelers' accommodations sites was small, those affected would not have such vigorous objections to the annual review. However, those improvements required by all pertinent government agencies, such as the County Health Dept., Building Codes Div., Fire Codes Div., and the Planning Dept., necessitate considerable cash out- lay. An annual review creates the possibility that such a travelers' accommodation could be closed down after a few years of operation. Such closure could be forced by a change in the Planning Commission or in those neighbors affected in the surrounding area. He further stated it was unfair to single out travelers' accom- modations for this annual review, while similar and potentially more intense uses, such as apartment buildings in R -2 and R -3 zones, do not require annual review. He noted that other towns, such as Palo Alto, Calif., and Eugene, Ore., do not require annual review for their travelers' accommodations in multiple family zones. He did not understand how travelers' accommodations could run down. He stated there were no liquor licenses involved, and they were not becoming discos. He felt the marketplace should determine the success or failure of travelers' accommodations, and not the governing agency. He concluded by stating that in the years he had been subject to the annual review, to his knowledge there had been no complaints regarding these facilities. 3) Jack Evans, 70 Coolidge, stated he was in support of Beaver's remarks. 4) Roanne Lyall, 142 N. Main, spoke of her perception of the Council's intent by noting that Dick Cottle had stated that the yearly review would show any need for modification of the ordinance. She noted that this was her sixth year for this annual review, and, to her knowledge, there had been no problems posed. She felt that travelers' accommodations deserved the same consideration as hotels or motels. 5) Jerry Robertson, of the "B" Street house, agreed with Lyall's comments. He stated that there were ample controls being imposed by the Fire Dept. and Health Dept. at present. 6) Barnes questioned whether the cancellation of the yearly review requirements, with the stipulation that after 3 years a call -up could be made by the Planning Commission would be a workable plan. Fregonese noted that if there were a violation of the Conditional Use Permit conditions, this may work. He noted, however, that the burden of proof would be on the Planning Commission and not on the applicant at this point. 7) Owens suggested that an alternative may be to require this annual review by the Planning Dept. staff. Fregonese noted that it would be a Type I review at the APC, 5/18/82, Page 2 administrative level, giving the affected neighbors notice of the annual review. He stated the difference in the present process by noting that currently the permit actually expires annually. He stated his concerns about giving approval on a Type I level, particularly in light of the present ability to transfer ownership to new owners. 8) Beaver then voiced his displeasure with giving government control on an annual basis for the right to continue their private businesses. Citing the Hostel as an example, he stated that, under a 3 -year review, there would still be two more years to alleviate the problems existing there. He further stated that bed and break- fasts have become an entity in themselves and do not necessarily provide only an overflow for the motels and hotels in the area. He was concerned about the poten- tial for future Commissions or Councils to be subjected to hotel /motel lobbyists' efforts to close down travelers' accommodations. He noted that those applicants presently affected by the annual review by the Planning Commission had invested a million dollars in the improvements for their travelers' accommodations. 9) Owens pointed out that hotels and motels are subject to issuance of licenses by government bodies as well. 10) Barnes stated he understood the problems being faced by the applicants, since governing bodies can sometimes be fickle when renewing such licenses. He suggested that, possibly after the end of the three -year renewal period, a temporary permit could be issued for up to five to ten years. He sympathized with the applicants, but wanted them to be aware of the problems being faced by the Planning Commission in reviewing these facilities. 11) Owens felt it was a good idea that the permits should be to the individual operator, and not established for the facility or the property. 12) Fregonese pointed out that the particular uniqueness of this review was the fact that travelrs' accommodations were businesses, but not located in commercial zones. Hence, they differed from all other uses permitted in residential zones. He further noted that the application should be granted to the specific person, with specific criteria established for that application. He noted that the ordinance did need some modification. He reiterated that travelers' accommodations were much different from motels. 13) Lyall pointed out that, under travelers' accommodations, their operations were not designed for just having people into their homes. She stated that the owner operator has quarters that are completely separate from guest quarters. 14) Beaver stated he thought the Planning Commmission had already passed guidelines for these operations. He observed that Fregonese was implying that businesses have a negative impact, rather than a positive one, on the community. He further stated that many guests come directly from recommendations from adjacent property owners in the neighborhood. 15) Apenes noted that initially there were fears that these facilities would create problems in the neighborhoods. APC, 5/18/82, Page 3 16) Fregonese read the Travelers' Accommodations section from the ordinance, suggesting a rewrite utilizing a 3 -year approval under the intitial application, under an annual Type I review, with a final review after the 3 -year period under a Type II approval. This review would exempt those existing travelers' accommoda- tions that had no previous problems. 17) Reid asked whether, under this proposal, a travelers' accommodation could reapply if it were denied renewal. Fregonese noted that it might be possible to grant an extension to the applicant to alleviate the problem. 18) Reid stated she was sensitive to the operators' concerns about neighborhood controls over their operations. 19) Owens stated he felt complaints from neighbors would be totally irrelevant and would be of no consequence regarding potential renewal of licenses. 20) Barnes stated he lives directly behind a motel, and he had never realized that guests could be as obnoxious as those who sometimes stay in motels. He noted that, in the case of motels and hotels, the marketplace does not guarantee the rights of the affected neighbors. 21) Evans responded by stating that the bed and breakfast clientele is entirely different from those who stay in motels. The people staying in travelers' accommo- dations were "a cut above those served by motels as a rule." The annual review was creating undue hardship for the owners of these establishments. 22) Beaver objected to the necessity to show continued need for these facilities to the Planning Commission. He felt it was no a Planning Commission issue. 23) Fregonese agreed with Beaver on this point. He further noted, however, some extreme examples of how a travelers' accommodation could develop into a negative situation. What if the the owner became an alcoholic, or for any one of a number of reasons the establishment became a flophouse? Under the existing conditions, the annual review would be able to control this. 24) Barnes agreed with Fregonese, stating that if this sort of potential situation became a reality, the quality would fall off. 25) Lyall stated that it wouldn't make sense to let the quality of her operation fall off. 26) Beaver agreed with Lyall, stating that there were pretty strict regulations that the bed and breakfast owners impose on their own operations, such as no children, smoking or pets allowed in some of their operations. 27) Hansen suggested that possibly unifying the regulations amongst the bed and breakfast operations may help in their quality control. 28) Lyall stated that they were only asking for a review after a 3 -year period rather than review on an annual basis. APC, 5/18/82, Page 4 29) Reid asked what kind of ramifications would be created by the changing of this policy at this point. Fregonese noted that there would be essentially a permanent use allowed under this proposal. 30) Hansen noted that the applicant would bear the burden of proof relative to their need at the end of the 3 -year period. 31) Robertson stated that the need had to be shown for the initial application, and that the need would always be there. He understood that the concern is with the caliber of the business and the quality of the operation. He noted another control that the bed and breakfast operators had to deal with in Health Dept. requirements. 32) ZeIma Lamb, 634 Iowa, and Evans pointed out some technical building code requirements that they had to meet in putting together their operations. 33) Barnes asked if granting a longer period of approval after the 3 -years would help the operators. Beaver noted that if there was a problem created, the Planning Commission wouldn't want to wait for that 3 -year period to expire. He felt it may be appropriate to call up a renewal of the license on a complaint basis. 34) Owens requested that staff prepare the revisions to the ordinance, including a 3 -year review, and, after the 3 -year approval, a 5 -year Conditional Use Permit issued, subject to an additional Type II hearing. 35) Apenes felt it would be more appropriate to allow the permit to be issued indefinitely after the 3 -year approval, with a call -up provision included if complaints were filed by adjacent property owners. 36) Barnes asked if the Planning Commission could call up the application if a complaint were registered, and Fregonese replied yes. 37) In response to a question by Apenes, Fregonese continued by stating that licenses were required by the Health Dept. to run such a business within the City of Ashland, but revoking a business license would be ineffective in controlling future problems. 38) Barnes stated he was in favor of an indefinite approval after the 3 -year period, with a clause inserted for future review on an individual basis. 39) Greene noted that there were problems with permitting a permanent Conditional Use, since this was an intensified use for residential areas. He felt it might be appropriate to limit the size of such an operation in the criteria established in the ordinance. 40) Barnes noted that it had been his observation that most of those operations were nice places, that the uses were relatively benign, and no complaints had apparently been filed thus far. 41) Greene reiterated that it was necessary to incorporate very strong criteria for a permanent approval for these projects. APC, 5/18/82, Page 5 42) Fregonese concluded by stating that staff would investigate other municipalities which had developed criteria for travelers' accommodations, and would incorporate specific, stringent criteria in the draft of the ordinance. FINAL APPROVAL OF ASHLAND /JACKSON COUNTY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM Q€ UNDERSTANDING 1) Fregonese noted that the Planning Commission had requested the inclusion of item 9A in the agreement, and that justification for this item comes directly from the approval by LCDC and the Superior Court. The Memorandum of Understanding -notes that Jackson County has found health dangers in the North Ashland area. He noted that the Jackson County Planning Commission is opposed to not having controls in this area. He further noted that if the agreement goes through, there would be enough land use controls on the urban growth boundary area for the satisfaction of the governing bodies. He then recommended approval of the agreement as rewritten. 2) Relative to the Memorandum of Understanding, Fregonese felt it should be noted that the City has no concerns regaring the sewer improvements in this area, because it would be unwise to push the County into making the sewer improvements prematurely. He felt this would not affect the City of Ashland's interest either way. 3) Apenes concurred with Fregonese. 4) Greene moved to approve the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding. The motion was seconded by Owens and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE, UGB, COMP PLAN REVISIONS MEETING 1) Fregonese suggested May 26, 1982, as the date for the final public hearing for the ordinance revisions, Urban Growth Boundary, and Comprehensive Plan amendments. 2) The Planning Commission concurred. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 5/18/82, Page 6