Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-09 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wishing to speak at any P.Carmi.ng Comn bszion Meeting is encoutcaged to do do. 1 you do wish to speak, p.2ease ntise and Wen you have been n.ecogwized by the Chain, give your name and comp.2ete add/tes4. you wilt then be aifowed to speak. P.2ease note that pub.P,i,c testimony may be £Lmited by the Chain. and nonmaP2y ,L4 not aLPowed agen the pub2,i.c hecuiLng has been cto4ed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 9, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of May 12, 1982; adjourned meeting of May 18, 1982; and special meeting of May 26, 1982. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Renewal of Conditional Use Permit for Ashland Youth Hostel, 150 North Main Street. B. PLANNING ACTION #82 -38 is a request for a Flag Partition to divide a 26,400 sq. ft. lot into two parcels of 7500 and 18,900 sq. ft. each, the smaller to be the flag lot. The larger lot has an existing single family residence on it and is located at 809 Clay St. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Subur- ban Residential. Zoning: R -1:5 (Single family Residential). Assessor's map 14B. Tax lot: 4500. APPLICANT: Robin Lawson C. PLANNING ACTION #82 -41 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and associ- ated Site Review to convert a portion of the existing dwelling and accessory structures at 165 Almond St. into an Arts Centre offering short -term workshops and classes in the arts. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R- 1:7.5. Assessor's Map 8AA. Tax lots: 6400, 6402. APPLICANT: Valerie D. Holst D. PLANNING ACTION #82 -42 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and associ- ated Site Review to convert approximately 600 sq. ft. of the existing dwelling at 191 Oak St. into a bicycle shop. The remaining living quarters would be occupied by one of the owners. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, density). Assessor's map 9BB. Tax lot: 11200. APPLICANTS: Merrill Hayes /Richard Whitley E. Revised Comprehensive Plan Map F. Revised Zoning Map G. Revisions to the Land Use Ordinance 1. Physical Constraints 2. Site Design and Use Standards 3. Woodland Residential 4. R -3, Multi- family, high density 5. R -2, Multi- family, low density 6. R- 1:3.5, Suburban Residential District 7. C -1, Retail Commercial 8. M -1 Industrial District 9. Solar Access 10. Street and Greenway Dedications 11. Manufactured Housing Developments 12. Off- street Parking 13. Conditional Use Permits 14. Revisions to Minor Land Partition Ordinance 15. E -1 Employment District H. Comprehensive Plan Document IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: A. PA #82 -43, Minor Land Partition at 288 Harrison St. Applicants: Ron /Bev Lamb. V. STAFF BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 9, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Pro Tem Don Greene at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Gene Morris, Jackie Reid, Tom Owens, and Ethel Hansen. Planning Director John Fregonese and Associate Planner Steve Jannusch were also present. Due to the resignation of Chairman Jeff Barnes, it was determined that a chairman should be appointed in his place. It was moved by Morris and seconded by Owens that Lance Pugh be Chairman and that Greene be Vice Chairman. The motion passed unanimously. In the absence of Chairman Pugh, Vice Chairman Greene conducted the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of May 12, 1982; the Adjourned Meeting of May 18, 1982; and the Special Meeting of May 26, 1982, were all approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING RENEWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ASHLAND YOUTH HOSTEL DESCRIPTION: Renewal of Conditional Use Permit for Ashland Youth Hostel, 150 North Main St._ STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese read the staff report. He noted that the applicant had received a variance for 6 parking spaces in lieu of the 11 that had been required by code. He further noted that the parking area was not presently paved, but the applicant, Mark Ahalt, had made an honest effort to resolve this and other problems which had developed at his site. Three options were proposed for the applicant in the staff report: 1) To turn away individuals requesting lodging after the parking lot is full; 2) to designate on- street parking at Helman St.; or 3) to limit the number of residents allowed at the hostel to 11. 2) The second portion of the staff report involved the applicant's problems in obtaining a health permit from the County Health Dept. APC, 6/9/82, Page 1 3) The third paragraph of the staff report dealt in more detail with the paving of the parking area. Fregonese noted that he had met with the property owners earlier in the day, and it appeared that the parking problem was being resolved at this point. 4) The fourth area of concern involved the common boundary between the North Main Inn and the hostel and the fence required on the property line. 5) Morris asked whether the State could shut the hostel down at this point. Fregonese replied that, since presently there was no Health Dept. permit obtained, they could shut them down at any time. He noted, however, that hostels are a unique entity and do not fit precisely into the mold of motels, hotels, or travelers' accommodations on a typical level. He felt that the applicant should be given a chance since his operation was particularly unique. 6) Reid noted the option requiring the applicant to turn boarders away after the parking lot was full would be difficult to enforce. Owens agreed with Reid. 7) Hansen asked whether the applicant could use other parking facilities elsewhere for overflow. Fregonese pointed out that there was no lot close by to his knowledge for excess parking. 8) Reid asked about the lot at the corner of N. Main and Helman. Fregonese replied that he anticipated that this lot would soon be developed and it would only provide a short -term remedy to the problem. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Mark Ahalt, applicant, addressed the parking and paving problems he has encountered. He further stated that the facility had been successful since its inception, noting, however, that there was a tremendous fluctuation in the amount of traffic which occupies his parking lot. It averages about 1 -1/2 cars per night. He cited the month of March and noted that he had 90% occupancy during that month, with an average of 3 -4 cars per night using the parking facility. He further stated that this could change during months of higher use, such as in August during the height of Shakespeare. He further stated that the the number of cars that had been required to use street parking was infinitesimal. He noted that the facility has become more of a group facility than an individual facility, with buses providing transportation instead of automobiles. 2) Relative to the problems Ahalt had dealt with in getting his health permit, he noted that youth hostels do not fit into the hotel /motel niche, and his primary problem revolves around the State of Oregon not recognizing youth hostels as a unique entity. 3) Relative to the paving situation, Ahalt noted concurrence with the staff report that this problem was being worked out. 4) Relative to the fencing question between his facility and the North Main Inn, Ahalt noted there was no problem during the last year, but since that time, a boundary line dispute has developed with the apparent boundary between the two APC, 6/9/82, Page 2 facilities being at his front porch. He concluded this point of his testimony by reiterating the problems with the Jackson Co. Health Dept. and stating that in other places in Oregon, youth hostels were recognized as organizational camps and thus could obtain a health license. Jackson Co. did not recognize hostels as such, and since their guidelines were not established presently, his application was in a state of limbo. 5) Morris asked Ahalt if he knew the health regulations when he opened. Ahalt stated that he felt like he understood the State's view of youth' hostels, but that the County does not interpret hostels as the rest of the State does. He noted further that the National Director of the American Youth Hostel Association has stated that his operation is probably the best hostel in the state. 6) Owens asked Ahalt if the cost of the fence would be shared between himself and Roanne Lyall of the North Main Inn. Ahalt replied that Lyall had agreed to survey the property, and he had agreed to build the fence. 7) Roanne Lyall, 142 North Main, stated she had no objection to Ahalt's proposal, except for the parking and fence problem. She hoped a loading area would be re- quired for the hostel so that individuals loading and unloading would not use her parking lot and cross her property to his facility. She endorsed the applicant's proposal for a parking variance. Relative to the land survey, she stated it would be taken care of in a month or so. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Morris asked Fregonese if a health permit was required by ordinance. Fregonese replied no, but it had been a condition of the original approval when the CUP had been granted. After perusing the file, however, he realized that this had not been a requirement of the original approval. He told the Commission that this condition could be attached to the new conditions, and he felt it should be the case. 2) Reid asked Fregonese what his recommendations would be for the paving of the parking lot and alley. Fregonese pointed out that the alley should at least be improved to Public Works standards, and the parking area to those standards estab- lished by the Planning Dept. He stated further that an improvement district should take care of the problem with a 6 -month period. 3) Owens suggested that the applicant be allowed to use Helman St. for his over- flow parking. Reid stated that, if parking were unobtainable, he should limit the number of guests allowed beyond this point. 4) After further discussion, Reid moved to approve the operation of the youth hostel subject to the findings and staff report conditions. Morris seconded the motion. Amendments to the conditions were to read that total compliance should be required by October 1, 1982, and that an addendum to item #3 read that the applicant be required, as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit, to not accept any guests which arrive by automobile once the 6 off street parking spaces have been filled, unless parking can be provided off street. The Methodist Church parking lot was a suggestion. APC, 6/9/82, Page 3 5) The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING FLAG PARTITION LAWSON DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -38 is a request for a Flag Partition to divide a 26, 400 sq. ft. lot into two parcels of 7500 and 18,900 sq. ft. each, the smaller to be the flag lot. The larger lot has an existing single family residence on it and is located at 809 Clay St. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1 -5. Assessor's Map 14B. Tax Lot: 4500. APPLICANT: Robin Lawson STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese read the staff report PUBLIC HEARING 1) Robin Lawson, applicant, questioned the requirement for 20 ft. between the fences on the flag drive, noting that, to his recollection, some flag drives had been provided along Scenic Dr.'with a narrower access required. He questioned his neighbor's motives for her subsequent willingness to not fight his application, subject to certain terms which she had outlined. 2) Don Rist, 310 Bridge, realtor who had sold the property to the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. 3) Ann Preston, 825 Clay, stated she was opposed to the request. She noted that the access drive to the flag lot would be along and adjacent to her bedroom window. She felt her property would be devalued. She showed the Planning Commission pictures she had taken of the area outlined as access, with the existing fence and shrubbery she felt the applicant wanted to maintain. 4) Pam Lawson, co- applicant, attempted to clarify the earlier conversations she had with Preston. She noted thatshe'd stated, "We will do anything to make the situation agreeable." She did not mean that she would give Preston a portion of her property to allow Preston to develop her own parcel. She stated she had never had problems with neighbors in the past, and she wants to live in this neighborhood under the same conditions. She added that their intentions were to improve the fence. 5) Fregonese asked Lawson if a 3' or 4' setback would be agreeable to him for placement of the access road back to the rear lot. Lawson replied that it would be. 6) Preston stated that the fence would be located 2' on her property. The public hearing was then closed. APC, 6/9/82, Page 4 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Morris noted that other flag partitions had been approved in this area, even though he didn't particularly like the idea of flag lots per se. He questioned whether the Lawsons could create a third lot on their property sometime in the future. Fregonese replied that they could, but they would have to demolish their garage in order to do so. 2) Reid asked about the screening requirements. Fregonese read directly out of the zoning ordinance what screening would be necessary for the flag Reid stated that she would like to encourage a hedge in lieu of a fence for the screening material. 3) Greene agreed with Morris's assessment of the flag drive and about this particular request. 4) Morris moved to approve PA #82 -38 with the attached recommendations. The motion was seconded by Owens and passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PA#82 -41 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW KOtST- DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -41 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing dwelling and accessory structures at 165 Almond St. into an Arts Centre offering short -term workshops and classes in the arts. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R- 1 -7.5. Assessor's Map 8AA. Tax Lots: 6400, 6402. APPLICANT: Valerie D. Holst STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese read the staff report. 2) Morris asked about drainage plan requirements. Fregonese replied that this should be made an attachment to the conditions of approval. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Valerie Holst, applicant, answered various questions from the Planning Commission relative to the nature of the proposed use and the number and kinds of teachers employed there. The public hearing was then closed. APC, 6/9/82, Page 5 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Morris moved to approve PA #82 -41 with the attachment that, under condition #5, a drainage plan be approved by the Public Works Dept. for the parking area. In addition, the parking area should be improved to a minimum of the County road standard E in lieu of the oil matte surface which was outlined in the staff report. Hansen seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimously in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -42 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW HAYES WHITLEY DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -42 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert approximately 600 sq. ft. of the existing dwelling at 191 Oak St. into a bicycle shop. The remaining living quarters would be occupied by.one of the owners. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- Family, High Density). Assessor's Map 9BB. Tax Lot: 11200. APPLICANTS: Merrill Hayes /Richard Whitley STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch read the staff report. 2) Morris noted the parking problems which exist on both sides of B St., which would potentially create a blind spot for someone backing out of the driveway onto B St. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Merrill Hayes, applicant, stated that parking would be provided two deep in the driveway, and one parking stall would be provided in the garage. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Morris again stated his concerns about the parking on B St. Fregonese responded that there was no real solution to the pre- existing situation. The applicants were not creating a new problem, rather trying to work with an existing situation. 2) Owens moved to approve PA #82 -42. Greene seconded the motion which passed unanimously. APC, 6/9/82, Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP 1) Fregonese recapped the proceedings to date. He further outlined the two areas subject to change in the proposed plan. The first one was the inclusion into the UGB of property belonging to Vince Oredson on the west end of Tolman Creek, which presently is outside the UGB. Fregonese stated he could see no justification for including this property in the UGB since at present public need for additional residential property does not currently exist at that location. The second area of controversy was the property off Long Way owned by Dave Lewis. The developer's concerns here were in regards to the appropriate zoning of his property which would be either Woodland Residential or Rural Residential .5. Fregonese further noted that the most appropriate method of zoning this area would be to zone it using topographic maps which the City had just received recently for the area. He noted that this should be done using painstaking methods. To hold up the whole Comp Plan for the time required to rezone this area would not be in the City's best interests. He noted that it would be appropriate to place an interim zoning on the area and to forward the plan as is to LCDC, maintaining an interim zoning in the subject area above Long Way. While the plan is pending with LCDC, it would be appropriate to break the Long Way area up into 5 or 6 discrete planning areas and study each individually topographically. Fregonese then read an addendum which should be attached to the Comp Plan as a modifications to the definitions in Chapter II under Land Use Designations. These changes outline the differences between Woodland Resi- dential, Low Density Residential and Single Family Residential. He urged the Planning Commission to take a conservative posture in the Comp Plan relative to the Long Way property and that the Zoning and Comp Plans should match in the final outcome. 2) Morris expressed concern about the surplus of lands which are presently avail- able within the City for building. He further questioned the rationale behind designating a majority of this property along Long Way as Woodland Residential when other areas within the City, such as along Prim St., have similar slope problems. Fregonese stated that Prim was different from the Long Way area and Morris replied that it was not in fact different. The same controls with roads and access and restrictions on building there should be imposed. 3) Fregonese replied that Performance Standards should cover the development on Prim St. He noted that the Prim St. area does have a 25 -40% slope, but that the Long Way area has a lot more relief to it with a lot of gullies breaking up the land. He further noted that the area above Long Way was right up against the Siskiyous and the Prim St. property had development presently above the area. He noted that the Long Way area had similar problems as the Granite St. property of Mark Cooper and did not want to get into the same situation that has developed with the Cooper property by not allowing the residents of the area a chance to have input in the development of the property. He added that CPAC has not yet had a chance to fully study the Long Way question. 4) Morris felt that it was unfair to hold up the development in order to allow the property owners a chance to speak their minds. Fregonese replied that it was the essence of good planning for all individuals affected to have a chance to have some input. APC, 6/9/82, Page 7 5) Reid asked whether these areas would be protected under Performance Standards. Fregonese replied no, that it would be regulated by the zones proposed for the area. He then outlined the density standards proposed for the Woodland Residential, RR -.5 and the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes that the developer had proposed for part of the area. He continued by stating that this was a very public process, and once the topographic maps are available, a more accurate assessment of the densities proposed could made. Typically those best decisions that have been made in the past have not been made too hastily and it was the Planning Commission's duty to make its decisions objectively. Reid agreed that there was not enough neighorhood input at present to make a final decision. 6) Hansen asked, since better tools were available now, why couldn't the decision be made now? Fregonese replied that if it were the Commission's intent to hold the plan back, the time could be taken now to study the topographic maps and submit the whole plan totally with revisions, but it would still take approximately 3 to 4 months before this could take place. This time would be necessary in order to break down the raw data and allow for at least 2 workshops with CPAC and the Planning Commission and at least 2 more public hearings. 7) Reid stated she would be willing to meet 2 or 3 nights in a row in order to take care of the process most expeditiously. 8) Morris pointed out that the Council would also have to be involved in the decision making process. 9) Fregonese noted that it would also be possible as an option to place the UGH within the City limits since the recent decision by LUBA had found this to be legal. 10) Reid asked for a clarification as to time frames she had heard and whether it would be 3 to 4 months to complete the process or 6 to 9 months as had also been stated. Fregonese explained that, with both the Planning Commission and the Council processes involved, it would probably range from 6 to 9 months. Reid then asked where the applicant's rights came into play relative to this decision making process. 11) Fregonese pointed out that a zone change or Comp Plan change could happen at any time once the Plan was adopted. He further noted that it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to make just rulings for the whole City and not necessarily to be responsible to the applicant. 12) Greene stated he liked the new memo. 13) It was further noted that, to make a clear ruling on this area, the soil types, vegetation, and services available should be thoroughly investigated prior to making a final decision on the area. 14) Reid asked what additional steps needed to be taken before the Plan could be forwarded to LCDC. Fregonese replied that the Plan could be sent away probably around the first of July, and that it was his opinion that this area could be designated asindicated on the existing Comp Plan draft on an interim level. APC, 6/9/82, Page 8 15) Owens moved to accept the Comp Plan as presented by staff. The motion died for the lack of a second. 16) Reid stated that additional discussion would be required before she could make a final decision on the question. Relative to Oredson's proposal to include his property on Tolman Creek Rd. within the UGB, she stated she saw no findings that had been submitted by the applicant, and, in her opinion, there was not sufficient public need to justify the inclusion of this area in the UGB. She further noted the problems that had been encountered by the Planning Commission in the past, such as with the Cooper property in making hasty decisions at the last minute. She did not feel comfortable with making that same mistake again. 17) Morris stated he was in favor of including Oredson's property within the UGB. 18) Hansen concurred, and stated that it was an excellent piece of property, but it would be more appropriate for the applicant to come back at a later time to be included in the UGB. 19) Morris noted that there are currently roads to that area and services are available there. 20) Greene noted that other people had been excluded from the UGB and some areas had been put in reserve categories because of the excess of urbanizable land presently within the UGB. He felt it would be tough to justify to those people why their properties were put in reserve and to then include Oredson's property as a part of the UGB. 21) Reid stated she needed to see some findings to Justify his proposal. 22) Owens felt that it would be appropriate to exclude the property from the UGB. 23) Fregonese clarified the property in question above Long Way. Owens stated he felt it was imperative to stick with the Comp Plan as proposed by staff and developed through the past months at the Planning Commission level; once the Plan is sent to LCDC, to fine -tune the zoning proposed in the southwest quadrant of the City. 24) Greene agreed. 25) Reid stated her frustration in trying to make a decision on this item, since she understands both sides, she felt it would be most proper to expedite the question as soon as possible. 26) Owens again moved to accept the Comp Flan as it was now drawn and to have future hearings on the Rural Residential .5 and Woodland Residential question. Morris seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. APC, 6/9/82, Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING REVISED ZONING MAP 1) Fregonese explained that the only change proposed at this time was for Mrs. Herndon's property on the corner of Clay and Siskiyou. Part of the property is presently zoned R -3 and the rear portion of it is zoned R -1 -5. Mrs. Herdon would prefer to have this all zoned multiple family, and staff's suggestion would be to zone it all R -2. 2) Morris moved to approve the Zoning Map with the proposed change. The motion was seconded by Reid and passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO LAND USE ORDINANCE Fregonese questioned what the Planning Commission's desires would be about declaring a 20 -ft. setback along Highway 66, indicating that there was still no clear direction given to staff relative to this question. There was then a discussion and it was determined by the Planning Commission that a 20 -ft. setback should be required along all arterial streets as designated by the Comp Plan, except in those areas in the Downtown Overlay district. Physical Constraints 1) Fregonese recapped the process that had been undertaken by staff and the committee developed by the Chamber of Commerce to rewrite this ordinance. 2) After further discussion it was moved and seconded to approve the Physical Constraints ordinance as prepared. The vote was unanimous. Site Design and Use Standards 3) Fregonese asked whether it would be the PIanning Commission's desire for the staff to review duplexes rather than going through full planning actions for reviews of these two family dwellings. 4) The Planning Commission's direction was that this would be appropriate. 5) The next item discussed was the proposed drive -up window ban which had been developed by CPAC. The Planning Commission did not feel that this would be appropriate at this time to ban drive -up windows. 6) It was moved and seconded to approve this ordinance, and the vote was unanimous. Woodland Residential 7) Greene stated some concern about the density transfer which is permitted in the re- proposed ordinance. He was concerned about the wording under "Purpose" of the district, and he felt the wording should read "steep or forested lands" and not APC, 6/9/82, Page 10 "steep and forested lands." He further felt it would be necessary to exempt the cutting of trees on proposed building sites or within road rights -of -way proposed for developments. These changes were to be included under the new ordinance. 8) Owens moved to approve the Woodland Residential district. Reid seconded the motion which passed unanimously. R -3, Multi Family, High Density 9) Fregonese outlined the proposed changes relative to travelers' accommodations. He felt it should be included in the revisions that the permanent use of travelers' accommodations under a Conditional Use should be permitted only for the applicants currently proposing the facility. The annual review of bed and breakfasts would terminate at the end of three years unless otherwise deemed by the Planning Commission. Upon the transfer of ownership of a travelers' accommodations, the new owners would be subject to the annual review, again for a three -year period. At such time, the Planning Commission could grant the application on a permanent basis. This would also apply in the R -2 zones. 10) Morris moved to approve the revised R -3 district. Reid seconded the motion which passed unanimously. R -2, Multi Family, Low Density 11) Greene stated concerns about the proposed densities for rooms allowable in travelers' accommodations. It was determined that applicants could provide one unit for every 400 sq. ft. of building, or one unit for each 1800 sq. ft. of lot proposed at the specific site. 12) Morris moved to approve the proposed R -Z zone. Owens seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. R- 1 -3.5, Suburban Residential 13) Reid moved to approve the proposed zone. Owens seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. C -1, Retail Commercial E -1, Employment 14) It was determined that the E -1 Employment district could be discussed at the same time. The proposed setback for either the E -1 or C -1 zone which were adjacent to residential properties should be 10 ft. per story. 15) Greene noted that there are conflicts in the general regulations expressed in the Employment district as it pertains to light industrial uses. He noted the Darex property and the potential for trucking operations to be permitted adjacent to residential zones. 16) Fregonese noted that these conflicts could be resolved by the clause that had been inserted in the E -1 and C -1 zones, specifically stating that no use would be allowed except as permitted in this ordinance, which covers uses throughout the APC, 6/9/82, Page 11 entire Land Use Ordinance and not just specifically in each individual ordinance chapter. 17) After further discussion, Morris moved to approve the C -1 and E -1 zones. Reid seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Solar Access 18) In response to Vince Oredson's suggestion that commercial zones be exempted from the Solar Access section of the ordinance, Fregonese suggested that in the C or E zones, graph C of the Solar Access ordinance be utilized, providing that a 16- ft. high shadow be allowed at the property line, unless it shades a residential property, this being for rooftop access. He then went on to explain the remainder of the Solar Access code and the proposed revisions to it. 19) After further discussion, Morris moved to approve the Solar Access ordinance. Reid seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Street and Greenwav Dedications 20) After some discussion, Owens moved to approve the ordinance. Morris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Manufactured Housing Developments 21) Fregonese explained that this applies Performance Standards to mobile home courts, and only mobile homes that are a minimum of double -wide with skirting would be allowed in proposed mobile home courts within the City. 22) Reid questioned how Performance Standards would apply to mobile home developments. Fregonese explained the difference between mobile homes and prefabricated homes was questioned. Fregonese pointed out that prefabricated homes meet Uniform Building Code requirements, whereas mobile homes do not. He noted that this difference should be defined in the proposed changes to the ordinance. 23) After further discussion, Morris moved to approve the Manufactured Housing Developments section of the ordinance. Reid seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Off- Street Parking 24) Fregonese outlined the proposed changes included in the packet. After some discussion, Owens moved to approve the ordinance. Morris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Conditional Use Permits 25) Reid questioned street capacity figures which had been established in the proposed ordinance. Fregonese explained that capacity would be determined as defined in the Comp Plan and Street Plan. Reid pointed out that she was very protective of residential streets and wanted to make sure that these streets were protected when applicants requested Conditional Use Permits. APC, 6/9/82, Page 12 26) Morris asked if this meant that paving and sidewalks would be required for CUP's. Fregonese replied that they would. 27) After further discussion, Morris moved to approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit ordinance. Reid seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Revisions to Minor Land Partition Ordinance 28) Fregonese suggested that, under Section 18.76.050, a new category should be added under (F), and that it should read, "That all lots in the proposed partition can be accessed by an improved City street at Least 20 ft. wide." 29) Reid questioned the ramifications of this, and Fregonese explained. 30) Greene asked whether, as a condition of approval, the Planning Commission could require the applicant to improve the street rather to sign in favor of improving the street accessing the proposed partition. Fregonese replied that this would empower the Planning Commission to require such a condition. 31) After continued discussion, Morris moved to approve the proposed Minor Land Partition ordinance. Owens seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 32) Fregonese requested that the Planning Commission permit public warehouses under a Conditional Use in the R -1 zones under Section 18.20.030(D). The opinion of the Planning Commission was that it would not be appropriate to permit warehouses in single family zones, either as a permitted use or as a conditional use. They felt it would be more appropriate to request a zone change for the area around the Civic Center as Fregonese was requesting. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT WITH ATTACHED MEMO 1) Gary Prickett asked if these standards could be adopted without public testimony. Fregonese replied that all public testimony had been received at previous Planning Commission hearings, and at this point the only modifications were of existing definitions within the document. Fregonese then read directly out of the Comp Plan, and then explained the definition modifications proposed. 2) Reid asked if the slope figures were involved In the Comp Plan. Fregonese replied that they were in the Environmental Resources section of the document. He then read sections VIII -9; IV -10, 11, and 12; and IV -8. 3) Morris noted that the memo proposed is directed only to the southwest quadrant of the City. Fregonese replied that it does, but that area is the only portion of the City where the Woodland Residential /Rural Residential question is of concern. 4) Hansen asked if Prickett had seen the proposed modifications. Prickett replied that he had not. He further stated that he understood that the proposed changes were designed to reduce the density of properties relative to slopes. He APC, 6/9/82, Page 13 wanted the public to have access to this document. Fregonese replied that it was public information. 5) Greene noted that the whole Comp Plan is basically only a guideline. 6) Hansen asked if the memo was defined enough for the public and for Prickett. Fregonese explained the memo with the definitions proposed. Prickett stated he did not understand the memo, because he has not had a chance to read it. 7) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve the memo. Reid seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. TYPE 1 APPROVAL 1) Planning Action #82 -93, a request for a Minor Land Partition at 288 Harrison St.; applicants: Ron Bev Lamb. After some discussion, the Minor Land Partition was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 6/9/82, Page 14