Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-21 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wi shLngto 'speak at any Nanning Comm ,ion Meeting s encowwcged to do Aso. 14 you do wish to 'speak, ptea4e n.ise and age& you have been n.ecognLzed by the ChcWt, give you& name and comp.eete addne/m you wit then be afjowed to 4 peafz. P.2eai e note that pubt c ta.,%mony may be .Umi ed by the Chain and nonma!2y ,us not a22owed agen the pubJ?Le hea/Ling hcv, been ctoied. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 54., 1982 2i) I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of June 9, 1982 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLANNING ACTION #82 -44 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence at 514 Siskiyou Blvd. into travel- ers accommodations consisting of 2 guest suites. Comprehensive Plan desig- nation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, low density). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lot: 7600. APPLICANT: A.L. M.R. Gieleghem 2. PLANNING ACTION #82 -47 is a request for an Ordinance Variance to construct a deck around the existing swimming pool in the rear yard at 149 Alder Lane. The variance is necessary to build the deck to the property lines in lieu of the 6 ft. required on the west side property line and 10 ft. on the rear property line. Comprehensive Plan designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 (Single family residential). Assessor's map 4BB. Tax lot: 2500. APPLICANT: Jerome J. Hoffman 3. PLANNING ACTION #82 -49 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for construction of a rental center at 639 Tolman Creek Road. The center would basically serve the needs of the homeowner, and in addition the rental of some equipment, trucks, and trailers. Comprehensive plan desig- nation: Retail Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Retail Commercial). Assessor's map 14B. Tax lot: part of 700. APPLICANT: Henry J. Mellema 4. PLANNING ACTION #82 -50 is a request for a Variance to construct a deck addition to the existing residence at 1060 Emma Street. The variance is necessary to build the deck to the property line on the west in lieu of the 6 ft. as required by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:10 (Single family residential). Assessor's map 16AD. Tax lot: 2100. APPLICANTS: Michael /Janet J. Murphy 5. PLANNING ACTION #82 -51 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a seasonal Saturday Market with temporary booths located in the parking lot behind and on the west side of 346 E. Main St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Downtown Commercial. Zoning: C -2 (Downtown Commercial). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lots: part of 6100 and 6200. APPLICANTS: David Van Landingham /James Dalke 6. PLANNING ACTION #82 -52 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the seasonal use of a portable push -cart to sell fresh fruit smoothies. The cart is to be located on weekdays in the alcove of the Varsity Theatre, 116 E. Main St., and in the parking lot of I -Deal Used Furniture, 374 E. Main St. on weekends. Comprehensive Plan designation: Downtown Commercial. Zoning: C -2 (Downtown Commercial). Assessor's map 9BC. Tax lot: 500 APPLICANTS: Ann Sloatman /Jeff Breakey IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: 1. PA #82 -07, extension of time limit on approval of construction of a 4 -plex at 268 Hersey St. Applicant: W. R. Welch. 2. PA #82 -40, extension of time limit on approval of a 6 -unit PUD on Jacquelyn St. Applicant: Don Ballew. 3. PA #82 -48, Minor Land Partition and Site Review to divide the parcel at 2270 Hwy 66, west of Western Bank, and construct a Pizza Hut Restaurant. Applicant: Summit Investments. V. STAFF BUSINESS: 1. Special meeting of July 28, 1982 for rezoning of south Ashland area. VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Lance Pugh at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Tom Owens, Jackie Reid, Ethel Hansen, and Christian Apenes. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of June 9, 1982, were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -47 ORDINANCE VARIANCE HOFFMAN DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -47 is a request for an Ordinance Variance to construct a deck around the existing swimming pool in the rear yard at 149 Alder Lane. The variance is necessary to build the deck to the property lines in lieu of the 6 ft. required on the west side property line and 10 ft. on the rear property Iine. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1 -7.5 (Single Family Residential). Assessor's Map 4BB. Tax Lot: 2500. APPLICANT: Jerome J. Hoffman. STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch read the staff report. MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 21, 1982 2) Fregonese made two points. He noted that the variance criteria is specific in the ordinance and states that extraordinary circumstances must exist for the Commission to grant a request such as this. Staff did not recognize such circum- stances in the findings and proposal submitted by the applicant. Secondly, he noted that the pool, around which the deck would be constructed, was legally built with the appropriate permits and its 3 -ft. setback is a permitted use since it is considered an accessory structure. He then noted the definition of an accessory structure from the ordinance. He stated that conditions existing at the site were APC, 7/21/82, Page 1 self- imposed and not conditions the applicants had no control over. 3) Jannusch read a letter into the record from Mr. Mrs. J. Williams in opposition to the variance request. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Jerome Hoffman, applicant, spoke on behalf of his request. He noted, as had been stated by the staff report, that there was a drainage ditch currently existing around the pool. The deck would be necessary as a safety measure to keep people from falling into the ditch. He noted that the deck would be constructed up to pool height, which was 30 inches above the ground. He further noted that the deck and people on it would not be seen from the neighbors' and thus would not interfere with the neighbors' privacy since the fence was 6' -5" high. He stated that only the guests in the fence secured yard would see the deck. 2) Alice Hoffman, co- applicant, spoke on behalf of her request. She stated that those neighbors who had written a letter were objecting from anger. They and their neighbors were not on speaking terms. 3) Owens asked whether the pool had been installed by the applicant. Mr. Hoffman stated it had been installed by a contractor for him. The public hearing was then closed COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Reid pointed out that an individual standing on the deck could see over the fence, thus infringing on the neighbors' privacy. 2) Mrs. Hoffman replied that they could see into the neighbor's yard from their back porch already, and they had constructed a trellis and had planted vines on the trellis to help block the view. 3) Reid continued by stating that pools should not be allowed in required setback areas, since a logical location for any proposed deck would infringe further into that setback area, as had been requested by the applicants. 9) Owens stated he agreed with staff, that the request is clearly against the ordinance. 5) Fregonese pointed out that the alternative to granting the request contrary to the ordinance would be to amend the ordinance so that it would permit such construction within the setback area. 6) Apenes asked if it was okay to deck the pool on the other sides, which are not within the setback areas. Fregonese stated that it would be appropriate to do this 7) Hansen asked if there was just the one objection to this request. Fregonese stated that there was only one objection, by the adjacent property owner. Hansen further stated that she thought it would be proper to change the ordinance, but she APC, 7/21/82, Page 2 felt there was no right to grant the variance at this point, contrary to the ordinance that now exists. 8) Owens moved to deny PA #82 -47. Apenes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 9) Mr. Hoffman asked for a clarification of the motion. Pugh stated the Commission would be looking into the ordinance revision at another opportunity, but at this point the application was denied. 10) Reid further stated that, since there was probably no other place for construction of the pool within the backyard area, this could possibly constitute an unusual circumstance, justifying the applicants' request. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -49 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW MELLEMA DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -49 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for construction of a rental center at 639 Tolman creek Rd. The center would basically serve the needs of the homeowner and, in addition, the rental of some equipment, trucks and trailers. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Retail Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Retail Commercial). Assessor's Map 14B. Tax Lot: part of 700. APPLICANT: Henry J. Mellema STAFF REPORT: 1) Jannusch read the staff report. 2) At the conclusion of the staff report, Fregonese commented to the Commission that it had previous objections to the construction of metal buildings within the City, but since the applicant had made efforts to make the building architecturally pleasing, and since it was located adjacent to the railroad tracks and behind Bi- Mart, and since it would also be extensively landscaped, a metal building in this location should not create undue negative impact in the area. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Henry Mellema, Auburn, California, the applicant, spoke on behalf of his application. He noted that the area in back of the building at the site would not be used for truck storage. He then noted that he has a franchise for Ryder trucks and that at any given time there would probably be approximately 6 trucks, give or take, stored in the area. He then praised the planning staff for their cooperation and staff report. The public hearing was then closed. APC, 7/21/82, Page 3 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) Pugh asked why the staff had recommended that the applicant use high pressure sodium Lighting at the facility. Fregonese pointed out that this type of lighting was energy- efficient and cost effective. He further stated that the applicant is energy- conscious and that there will probably be solar applications on the building, as well as extensive use of insulation in its construction. He further noted that the City is converting all of its street lights to high pressure sodium elements. 2) Apenes asked if there would be any problem with the exterior lighting infringing on the residential properties in the adjacent areas. Fregonese pointed out that it was probably 200 ft. to the nearest residential parcels and he felt this distance would probably dissipate much of the lighting directed to the residential cones. He did state, however, that it would probably be appropriate to require that no lighting element be directly visible from adjacent residential properties. He concluded by stating that the color of such lighting is on the order of a peachy- white. 3) Hansen asked again how many trucks would be parked and what kinds they would be. The applicant responded that the trucks are primarily homeowner rental trucks used for moving personal belongings. He further noted that there would be some trailers parked in the fenced, screened area. 4) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve PA #82 -49. Hansen seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -50 VARIANCE MURPHY DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -50 is a request for a Variance to construct a deck addition to the existing residence at 1060 Emma St. The variance is necessary to build the deck to the property line on the west in lieu of the 6 ft. as required by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1 -10 (Single- Family Residential). Assessor's Map 16AD. Tax Lot: 2100. APPLICANTS: Michael /Janet J. Murphy. STAFF REPORT: 1) Jannusch read the staff report and noted that this request was similar to the one previously reviewed by the Planning Commission for construction in the setback area APC, 7/21/82, Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Michael Murphy, applicant, spoke on behalf of his proposal. He stated that the topography of his property was steep. He circulated a plan with pictures attached for the Commission to review. He stated the proposal was an effort to correct the problem of deteriorating stairs which had been built many years ago. He noted that the neighbors did not object and the proposed deck would be below the grade of the adjacent neighbor's property. He then submitted a list of the neighbors he had contacted who had stated support of his project. He then stated that the Building Official was aware of his application and had no concerns with the proposal. 2) Fregonese showed the Commission a plan which indicated the 6 -ft. setback line. He further noted that a variance for 3 ft. from the side property line could be granted as a Type I procedure permitting the deck and /or the stairway to be built in this area. 3) Owens asked where the new deck and carport would be relative to the placement of the old deck and carport. Murphy stated that the new carport would just be replacing the old carport in the same location. 4) Fregonese again stated the alternative of permitting the applicant go build within 3 ft. of the property line. Addressing the applicant's main request, he noted the application goes beyond his minimum needs, that in order to repair the pre existing problem area the applicant does not absolutely need to go to within 10 inches of the property line as he is requesting. Murphy reiterated that the deck would be below the grade of the neighbor's property and asked again why the deck would not be permitted, yet pea gravel or a slab would be. 5) Pugh asked for a clarification of a staff proposal to permit such construction in setback areas where heights above grade are low. Jannusch pointed out that the ordinance is specific in its definition of structures per se, and in order to legally grant this request, a restructuring of the ordinance would be required. 6) Reid was concerned for the applicant about the usable outdoor living area that she felt may not be utilized if this request was not granted. The neighbor directly impacted by the proposal is 85 ft. away. 7) Owens responded by stating that, though the construction to within 10 inches of the property line may be more attractive and more aesthetically pleasing, the ordinance is definitely clear on building structures within the setback. Since no structures were allowed in the setback area, the Planning Commission had no option but to deny the request. 8) Fregonese pointed out to the Commission that they could modify the request at this time and permit the application based on a setback of 3 ft. to the property line. He noted that the findings relative to the neighboring structure being 85 ft. from the proposal was not a proper justification, since new construction on the adjacent lot could subsequently take place and thus potentially be impacted. He then noted that similar and lesser findings could be applied for the granting of a Type I request relative to the 3 -ft. setback. APC, 7/21/82, Page 5 9) Reid asked about a previous variance request that had been granted on Leonard St. and how this particular request compared to the earlier request. Fregonese pointed out that the Leonard St. request involved a front yard setback, based on a substandard, pre existing front yard. In that case, the applicant had requested that the deck be permitted to align with the front elevation of the house. Reid again expressed her frustration with the application of the ordinance requirements relative to this specific request. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) Hansen noted that, though placement of the deck within 10 inches of the property line may be more aesthetically pleasing, the granting of the request would be illegal. 2) Apenes questioned the 25 -ft. figure expressed in the staff report. Jannusch pointed out that the figure reflected the distance from the carport to the proposed new line of the deck at the west property line. 3) Murphy pointed out that there would be a distance of 12 ft. to the top of the first flight. 4) Apenes stated he agreed with Hansen, that it was not within the Planning Commission's province to grant the variance without a change in the ordinance. He felt, however, that the granting of the 3 -ft. setback would be a good compromise. 5) Reid again expressed concern about the best utilization of the property and the privacy requested by the applicant. Fregonese empathized with this but stated that the Commission should remain consistent with the granting of previous proposals. He reiterated that a portion of the setback area could be used if permitted by the Commission. This would be no different if the deck was at grade level or a couple of feet above it. It was his opinion that all the space even up to the property line could be utilized by the applicant, but not for deck construction. 6) Owens reiterated that the consistency must be maintained as the ordinance is written. 7) Apenes asked the applicant if he would go for 3 ft. from the property line. Murphy stated that they would comply if the Commission so ordered. 8) Apenes moved to approve construction of the deck to within 3 ft. of the property line. Hansen seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APC, 7/21/82, Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -51 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VAN LANDINGHAM DALKE DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -51 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a seasonal Saturday Market with temporary booths located in the parking lot behind and on the west side of 346 E. Main St. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Downtown Commercial. Zoning: C -2 (Downtown Commercial). Assessor's Map 9BD. Tax Lots: part of 6100 and 6200. APPLICANTS: David Van Langingham and James Dalke STAFF REPORT: 1) Fregonese read the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Dave Van Landingham, applicant, stated he would be willing to eliminate place- ment of the booths in the granite surfaced parking area. He stated, however, that he would still like to maintain a minimum of 36 booths. He noted he has talked with Oeser Fabrics regarding their objections expressed specifically about parking and litter control. He added that he runs a lemonade stand and is part owner of the Sweet Shoppe, and this visibility in the community would ensure his availability for complaints and his guarantee that the operation would be main- tained in a neat and tidy manner. He then submitted a list of those businesses in the area expressing approval for his proposal. He stated he is interested in promoting foot traffic and generating more milling around in the downtown. He noted, as an aside, that he would like to propose a second location next year, once he uses this location as a test to determine the feasibility and success of future locations. He then cited some figures generated by the Portland Saturday Market. In 1981, with 350 booths, the Saturday Market in Portland generated 83 million in revenues. He stated that in booth fees alone, i.e., the registration for each individual booth, 8300,000 was generated. The business community in Portland is supportive of their Saturday Market. Relative to this request, he stated he needs a minimum of 30 -36 booths and a certain number is required to generate public interest. Van Landingham noted that he is donating 4 booths as nonprofit spaces. He noted further that driveways would be kept open and picnic tables would be provided for eating at the site. There are 25 potential craft vendors currently proposed for the Saturday Market. He concluded by noting that Elliott Reinert of the Chamber had visited the Eugene Saturday Market and is supportive of this particular proposal. 2) Fregonese expressed concern about signs proposed on the grounds. He stated that the booths could have signs as long as they are not oriented to Second or East Main Streets. In addition, a banner would not be permitted for the project, except for its grand opening. He stated, however, that a permanent ground sign could be constructed at the site advertising the facility. Appropriate permits would be required for the construction of the ground sign. APC, 7/21/82, Page 7 3) Van Landingham noted that, though his initial plan is to run through the summer, he is considering running the market around Christmastime as well. 4) JoAnn Eggers, 221 Granite, stated she was in favor of the request. As a potter, she would be participating in the Saturday Market. 5) Bush Hayden, 85 Winburn Way, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that food booths were almost impossible to control and quality suffers without appropriate controls on food dispensing. He stated that each winter, 3 -5 restaurants go out of business, and he wondered if permitting a Saturday Market would add competition to the currently precarious economic picture of restaurants and other businesses in Ashland. Although he felt that the Saturday Market theme is a picturesque idea, craftspeople have a sufficient marketplace through the existing merchants for the display and sale of their wares. He reiterated that this would create undue competition for the already struggling merchants in Ashland. 6) Bud LeFever, Greenmeadows Way, was concerned about the competition being created by this proposal. He raised the question as to whether or not those individuals selling wares and food at the Saturday Market were Ashland taxpayers. He stated he would not like to see this Saturday Market turn into a mini San Francisco. 7) Van Landingham stated that, in terms of controls for the dispensing of food, food booths would have Health Dept. inspections, thus ensuring the quality of the food. He further stated he would be selling ice cream and Geppetto's will be selling produce. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) Pugh asked Van Langingham how much resale was anticipated for the proposal. Van Landingham stated that, except for the buoyant balloon section, all items sold would be craft items, thus not creating a flea market atmosphere. 2) Hansen was concerned about maintaining a clean and litter -free operation. Fregonese responded by stating that the applicant would be required to maintain a clean operation, subject to Planning Commission approval. If there were any problems generated from this, these problems could be addressed the following year when the applicant's renewal came due. Pugh agreed, and stated that he felt it was good that there was one person in control of the project. If there were any problems down the line, the accountability for maintaining an orderly operation would be on that individual. 3) Apenes asked what the Historic Commission had to say about this proposal. Jannusch stated that the Historic Commission had approved the request, but they wanted to see any signs proposed at the Iocation. 4) Van Landingham noted CPAC's support for the project. 5) Reid noted that she had previously worked in a downtown business which had APC, 7/21/82, Page 8 wonderful products to sell but no traffic. She stated it had probably been the 1 most frustrating job she'd ever had. In response to concerns expressed about competition from the Saturday Market, she stated she felt that any competition would be outweighed by the support of the additionally generated foot traffic. She stated that if there were no people downtown, no products can be sold. 6) Owens moved to approve PA #82 -51 subject to staff's recommendations. Reid seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -52 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SLOATMAN BREAKEY DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -52 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the seasonal use of a portable push -cart to sell fresh fruit smoothies. The cart is to be located on weekdays in the alcove of the Varsity Theatre, 116 E. Main St., and in the parking lot of I -Deal Used Furniture, 374 E. Main St., on weekends. Comprehen- sive Plan Designation: Downtown Commercial. Zoning: C -2 (Downtown Commercial). Assessor's Map 9BC. Tax Lot: 500. APPLICANTS: Ann Sloatman and Jeff Breakey. STAFF REPORT: 1) Jannusch read the staff report and noted that the weekend location had been withdrawn. 2) Pugh asked if the proposal would be located on private property. Fregonese stated yes, that it would be the same as the lemonade stand at Rare Earth. He then noted that the sign proposed for the smoothie cart should be located on the front of the stand, and not above it as proposed by the applicants, such that the sign would not exceed 5 ft. above grade. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Ann Sloatman, co- applicant, stated she would comply with staff's recommendations, and the placement of the sign on the front of the cart would pose no problem. 2) Dave Van Langingham stated he was in support of the proposal, and thought it was a great idea as long as it was controlled. 3) Jannusch noted that the Historic Commission had given its approval to the stand and CPAC was also in favor. 4) Bush Hayden was in opposition to this proposal as well. He noted there was a proliferation of push -carts in Salem and it has become a real problem there. He stated that the hot dog carts in Medford are waiting in the wings to be located in APC, 7/21/82, Page 9 Ashland. He felt that before too long there would be these kinds of carts all over town. He felt it was really tacky and did not like it. 5) Van Landingham stated that, since this was a Conditional Use process, the Planning Commission had control over this kind of thing. Since Ashland is unique, it has control and scrutiny over such proposals. 6) Bud LeFever, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He wondered where this type of proliferation would stop. He felt that any precedent established by the granting of this request would subsequently come back to haunt the Planning Commission. 7) Hayden concurred with LeFever. 8) Sloatman reiterated that the Planning Commission has the authority to say no to subsequent proposals that do not meet their criteria. 9) LeFever stated that he had thought of the idea before and he may do it again and how many others would want to start a similar business. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) To put things into perspective, Reid wondered if the same things were said when the first retail stores were opened up in close proximity to residential properties. She felt that the market could protect people's interests, and good taste would determine what sells. 2) Owens noted that this proposal seemed acceptable, and future projects would be judged on their own merits. 3) Hansen agreed. 4) Apenes wondered how many millionaires had started off pushing carts. 5) Reid moved to approve PA #82 -52 subject to the conditions suggested by staff. Hansen seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. TYPE I APPROVALS 1) Planning Action #82 -07, an extension of time limit on approval of construction of a 4 -plex at 268 Hersey St.; applicant: W.R. Welch. The request for an extension was approved. 2) Planning Action #82 -90, an extension of time limit on approval of a 6 -unit PUD on Jacquelyn St.; applicant: Don Ballew. The extension was approved. 3) Planning Action #82-48, a Minor Land Partition and Site Review to divide the parcel at 2270 Highway 66, west of Western Bank, and construct a Pizza Hut APC, 7/21/82, Page 10 Restaurant; applicant: Summit Investments. Dick Hawkins, contractor for the applicant, stated that the roofing material originally proposed for the project would not be red, but would in fact be a shake roof, but the color of the building would still be a light grey or soft white. Cedar trim would also be utilized extensively on the body of the building. Fregonese explained the plans to the Commission, noting the landscaped areas proposed. He also noted the 20 -ft. setback was being maintained on Highway 66, which had in fact been in effect for the past few years. Reid expressed concern about the proper placement of landscaping for the project, noting that great care had been taken to ensure that the Taco Bell project was adequately landscaped from the front, and ample screening had been provided from Highway 66, but the back of the structure, with the exposed mechanical devices and service entrance, were unattractive. Fregonese pointed out that some landscaping was being provided on this project around the service entrance. He also noted that mechanical devices were being screened from the rear. He further noted on the plans exhibited that the pizza man on the elevations and the signs indicated on the roof would not be utilized at this site. Hawkins noted that he had just received word from Pizza Hut management that the chain link fence with slats originally proposed at the back of the project would be replaced by a cedar fence. The application was approved subject to the findings and conditions established by staff. STAFF BUSINESS Fregonese explained to the Planning Commission staff's intent for developing the maps for the rezoning of the South Ashland area. The first meeting to cover this area would be held July 28. Pugh noted to the Commission that he is involved in a push -cart business located in Portland. After further discussion, staff was directed to contact the cities of Portland, Eugene and Salem in efforts to establish a policy regulating push -cart businesses in the City of Ashland. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 7/21/82, Page 11 PH 1 YES NO v '142.- Apenes ansen ugh eid k /wens TOT Apenes H ansen p4e*y§ Pugh R e i d Gliegge TOT Apenes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris Pugh Reid Greene Owens TOT YES NO 14, PH 2; YES NO V Owens I Reid Pugh s Hansen JligishiaQs Apenes -a PH YES NO PH rLHNN I NO UVIVIIVI I JJ I VN vV I 1 I' r\cUVnu TOT PH Reid Pugh MamajliP Amaios Hansen Apenes TOT Owens Greene Reid Pugh Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes TOT YES NO YES NO PH r2 -5z Pugh Reid Owens Apenes Hansen TOT PH Pugh Reid Owens Apenes Hansen t•4 TOT PH Pugh Reid Greene Owens Anxnes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris TOT i Y v/ NO PH Q_ YE s NO Hansen Apenes Owens f Reid Pugh TOT YES NO PH Hansen Apenes Owens Reid Pugh TOT YES NO PH Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Reid Pugh TOT 6 YES NO YES NO