Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-14 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wi.shLng to .speak at any P.2anw%ng Comm -us4 -Lon meeting .us encowi.aged to do 4o. you do w.ush to 'speak, p.2ea6e Wise and aitelr. you have been necognLzed by the Chai give your name and comp.2e-te addnei4 you wilt then be a!2owed to 'speak. P.2ea3 e note that pub tie tatLmony may be t mi ed by the Chaik and nonmc ey .us not at owed aite.'L the pubtLa heats ing ha's been cJozed. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. Revisions to the R -3/R -2 zone code. V. STAFF BUSINESS: 1. NO study session in December. 2. Cooper update. VI. ADJOURNMENT: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 14, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of November 9, 1983 and Hearings Board of November 22, 1983. 1. PLANNING ACTION #83 -93 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of an existing hangar into a paint shop. Compre- hensive Plan designation: Public Facility. Zoning: RR -.5 (Rural Residential). Assessor's map 12. Tax lot: 301. APPLICANT: Southern Oregon Skyways 2. PLANNING ACTION #83 -94 is a request for a Zone Change to E -1 (Employment) for the Ashland vunicipal, Airport located between East Main Street and Dead Indian Road. Comprehensive Plan designation: Public Facility. Zoning: RR -.5 (Rural Residential). Assessor's map 11, 12, 13B. Tax lots: 300, 301, 2001. APPLICANT: City of Ashland. 3. PLANNING ACTION #83 -104 is a review for renewal of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Ordinance Variance for the use of the auditorium portion of the existing structure at 777 East Main Street for various classes. The owner's living quarters are in the rear of the building. The Variance is required for no provision of on -site, off street parking, 5 spaces will be provided in the Safeway parking lot. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, Multi- family Residential IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: 1. PA #83 -99, 1 yr. extension for Site Review approving McDonald's Restaurant on Hwy 66. 2. PA #83 -100, 1 yr. extension for a Flag Partition between Scenic and Alnut, near Strawberry Lane. Applicant: Judith Clark. 3. PA #83 -103, Site Review to demolish the existing shed behind the residence located at 248 Fifth St. and construct a new one. The Site Review is necessary because the property is on the National Historic Register. Applicant: Curt Anderson MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 1983 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. at the Civic Center by Chairman Lance Pugh. In attendance were Commissioners Tom Owens, Ethel Hansen, Neil Benson Don Greene, Betty Lou Dunlop, Carlyle Stout, Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1983, and of the Hearings Board meeting of November 22, 1983 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW SOUTHERN OREGON SKYWAYS PLANNING ACTION #83 -93 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of an existing hangar at the Ashland Municipal Airport into a paint shop. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public Facility. Zoning: RR -.5 (Rural Residential). Assessor's Map 12. Tax Lot 301. APPLICANT: Southern Oregon Skyways STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report. He explained that it was Staff's contention that the proposal was an expansion of a nonconforming use but that the owner of Southern Oregon Skyways, Elmont George, maintains that aircraft painting has been an ongoing activity. Jannnusch explained further that George was hiring Steve Green to conduct the activity. The subject Use would involve two locations; an existing hangar and an outdoor location to be used for stripping of paint material from the planes. He expressed Staff's primary concern relative to this area for paint stripping in that the dispos- al of the stripped paint and any toxins used in the process should be disposed of by a method to be approved by the Department of Environ- mental Quality. He stated that this should be a third condition applied to the approval of the application. APC, 12/14/83, Page 1 At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Since no public testimony was recieved, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the Planning Action with the additional condition that disposal of the paint materials from the stripping of the planes shall be done by methods approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. Dunlop seconded the proposal. The vote was unanimous to approve. The Planning Staff will be contacting the DEQ to keep them apprised of the situation. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -94 ZONE CHANGE CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION #83 -94 is a request for a Zone Change to E -1 (Employment) for the Ashland Municipal Airport located between East Main Street and Dead Indian Road. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public Facility. Zoning: RR -.5 (Rural Residential). Assessor's Map 11, 12, 13B. Tax Lots: 300, 301, 2001. APPLICANT: City of Ashland STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report noting the history of the property relative to its original zoning and the requirements mandated by the LCDC. It is noted in the Staff Report that when the property was annexed it was undetermined at that time what type of use would be desired at the airport facility. Adjacent zoning to the southwest is Employment and it had been determined under subsequent discussion that the facility would be more appropriately zoned Employment. He mentioned further that the CPAC had recommended approval of the proposal but that they had expressed concerns regarding potential conflicts with the Employment zone relative to FAA approval of the City operating the Airport facility. A letter by Mr. Jack Nicholson was then entered into the record addressing these concerns. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Since there was no public testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. APC, 12/14/83, Page 2 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION After futher discussion, Greene moved to approve the Planning Action with Dunlop seconding. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -104 RENEWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE DONNA EDEN PLANNING ACTION #83 -104 is a review for renewal of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Ordinance Variance for the use of the auditorium portion of the existing structure at 777 East Main Street for various classes. The owner's living quarters are in the rear of the building. The Variance is required for no provision of on -site, off street parking, 4 spaces will be provided in the Safeway parking lot. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, Multi family Residential). Assessor's Map 9AC. Tax Lot 9500. APPLICANT: Donna Eden STAFF REPORT 1) Commissioner Greene declared a conflict of interest and stepped down into the audience. 2) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting that the application was being reviewed as a condition of approval from the original applica- tion. He explained to the Commission the subsequent encounters with the applicant including the violation involving the construction of the deck and stairway out into the public right -of -way and noted the one official complaint received by Staff from adjacent neighbors relative to larger classes being held on the site than those approved by the Plannng Commission. He concluded by noting that Staff was generally supportive of the present application. 3) Pugh asked whether the applicants were requesting an indefinite approval at this time. Fregonese stated that although this was their intent, it was the Planning Commission's option to approve or deny such a request with time limitations. He noted further that the applicants were requesting modifications to the original approval, particularly the expansion of hours from those existing to 9:45 P.M. and, secondly, a request to allow up to 25 students per class. He stated that Staff could not endorse these requests feeling that the intent of the Planning Commission could be best met by retaining the existing conditions. APC, 12/14/83, Page 3 4) Donna Eden, the applicant at 777 East Main Street, stated that she in fact was requesting that classes be expanded to 25 students and that hours be expanded to 9:45 p.m. She cited a petition circulated by her throughout the neighborhood signed by 34 of her neightbors supporting this application and the expansion of the original approval. She stated that she was trying to be particularly sensitive to any objections felt by her neighbors. 5) David Feinstein of the same address stated that there was a necessity for 3 hour classes because it is extremely difficult to complete certain of the classes in less than this time period. With a minimum 9:00 p.m. curfew, classes would have to start at 6:00 p.m. and there are too many people who cannot attend at this early hour. He then stated that the Fire Department would allow them to have 50 individuals there at any given time and that they are only asking for 25. 6) Darrell Bluhm of 106 N. 1st Street in Talent, stated that he is teaching Aikido and Tai Chi at the facility. He stated that this location is the only reasonably priced place to be found in Ashland. He then requested the time extension also and reiterated the amount of effort that the applicants had made to maintain positive relationships with the neighbors. 7) Don Greene of 375 Normal stated that he owns rental property directly across the street. He stated that he was still against the use because of the weak Findings for the granting of the Variance for no parking. He stated, however, that his tenants had filed fewer complaints than anticipated. He did wish to speak against increasing the use to 25 because of the parking Variance that had been granted. He felt that this would be putting an unreasonable burden on the neighborhood. He stated also that he was in opposition to the extension of the hours of operation but this was not as critical as the additional enrollment request. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Owens stated that he was not necessarily opposed to the extension of the curfew for classes but that he would be opposed to any increase in the numbers allowed to enroll in the classes. 2) Pugh stated that he realized that when the bike lanes were installed along East Main that this took away all the parking along this frontage. He stated, however, that he was at a loss as to how to justify including the parking at Safeway. Bluhm stated that the manager at Safeway had agreed to allow them to use the parking as overflow and had signed an agreement to that effect. He stated further that this option had been discussed at the prior approval. Fregonese stated that this agreement had no legal status and could be APC, 12/14/83, Page 4 revoked at any time. 3) Pugh asked who would be responsible for enforcing the parking. Fregonese noted that Staff keeps its ears open in situations like this, particularly when they are so controversial. He stated further that this is the only current Planning Action where enforcement requires more of an effort. He concluded by noting that Staff had dealt in a straight forward manner with the applicant. 4) The father of one of the students who attends the facility stated that he observes the parking requirements conscientiously. 5) Benson asked why Staff could not recommend approval to the suggested changes. Fregonese stated that he felt expanding the number of students allowed at the site would be stretching the limits of the parking situation where the Findings were already weak. He stated further that he thought the existing curfew was appropriate for the neighborhood. 6) Eden stated that her classes particularly took additional time and that it was extremely difficult for parents to bring children to class by 6:00 with working hours and dinner preparation typically being done during this time. Hanson asked Staff whether this had been a topic of discussion. Fregonese stated that it had not been and that in Staff's opinion the extension expanding the number of people to be enrolled was more undesirable than extending the curfew to 9:45. 7) Pugh recommended that whatever was approved this evenng be reviewed again in a six month period. Fregonese stated that the duration of use could be determined by the Planning Commission. Bluhm stated that he would like to invest some money in the improve- ments to the landscaping but felt that six months would provide a deterrent. He felt that one year would be more appealing. 8) Stout asked for a clarification relative to the Commission's powers in limiting the time of approval. Fregonese explained. He then stated that it was difficult to maintain reviews at different times of year and suggested that review of this application be in May when the travelers accomodations were all reviewed. 9) Benson stated that he did not feel that it was necessary for subsequent review by the Planning Commission of this application since the conditions of approval should provide safeguards for the neighborhood particularly with the outreach program that the applicants had begun to improve the relationships with the neighbors. He felt that the neighbors were informed enough to comment when they had a problem. Pugh stated that he did not feel that the Commission nor the Staff should have to rely on complaints for determining violation of a Condtional Use Permit. APC, 12/14/83, Page 5 10) Fregonese stated that by giving the applicants permanent approval the burden of proof would be shifted to the City in terms of any violations that may occur at the site. Revoking the application would require a conviction of a violation of the Municipal Code. He felt it would be more appropriate that the burden of proof be on the applicant. 11) Pugh asked whether any new owners would have this approval. Fregonese stated he would check to see. Benson asked whether travelers accomodations must get two or three reviews before a permanent approval may be granted. Baker stated that three annual reviews are required prior to permanent approval. Fregonese then responded to Pughs question by noting that original approval had not been limited to this applicant. 12) Owens moved that the Commission approve the Planning Action with a subsequent review in May with a possible longer review process to follow, that the applicant be allowed to operate until 9:45 P.M., but that the request to allow 25 students per class be denied by the Planning Commission. Dunlop seconded the motion and discussion ensued. 13) Benson asked that an additional condition be applied that approval be granted only for this applicant. Stout seconded this motion. The Commission then voted on the amendment to the original motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Greene abstained. The original motion was then voted upon with the vote unanimous to approve again, with Greene abtaining. KILN APPROVAL Fregonese then moved to a non agenda item asking for a Planning Commission opinion on construction of a pottery kiln in a residential zone to be located at 1927 Tamarack. He stated that Staff had on another occasion signed off on a Business License for operation of a kiln in a residential zone as a Home Occupation. This person had seen his operation grow in size and found it necessary to hire employees. This created a difficult situation in that Home Occupa- tions are designed specifically for individuals living on the premises and no employees. This operation was closed down. At that time Staff decided not to allow a commercial kiln in a residential zone in the future. He then noted that the Uniform Building Code limits hobby kilns to 20 cubic feet in size. The one proposed by Mr. Dahlquist would be in excess of this 20 cubic feet. He then read the definition of a Home Occupation from the Land Use Ordinance. Owens stated that the key word in the definition was "commonly" and that it would be important that any such activity not be observable from the exterior of the house. Fregonese stated that it had been Staff's policy to allow carpenters to set up shop up to 400 sq. ft. in their homes and to build APC, 12/14/83, Page 6 cabinetry. Stout asked whether this meant that cabinet makers could manufacture such units at their homes and sell them elsewhere. Fregonese said that this was the case. Pugh asked why this is being heard at this point and is not on the agenda. Fregonese stated that it was brought to Staff's attention on Monday and because of this could not be placed on the agenda. Pugh stated that review of the question should be placed under Staff Business. In order to continue on the agenda, this question was tabled until a later time. PUBLIC HEARING REVISION TO R -3/R -2 ZONE CODE STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese stated that it was his recommendation that the issue be killed at this point since he did not feel that it was a good idea any more and that no support was being generated from the community. He stated that this question arose from the proposed zone change on the corner of Mountain Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard noting that the proposal was approved by the Planning Commission but when reviewed by Council was found inappropriate and sent back to the Planning Commission. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Baker stated that she had notified Proebstel who had originally requested the zone change, and also those folks owning the property on the corner of Tolman Creek Rd. and Siskiyou Boulevard to review the zone change proposal. Neither property owner had responded to her notification. Stout then asked why CPAC had recommended denial of the proposal. Fregonese stated that this was because they had not seen a need for such a change. After further discussion, Greene moved to drop the proposal with Stout seconding. The vote was unani- mous to abandon the proposal to amend the R -2 and R -3 zones. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION #83 -99, 1 year extension for Site Review approving McDonald's Restaurant on Hwy 66. 1) Pugh stated that he had received numerous calls concerning this proposal and the public concern that this would be simply rubber stamped during the review process this evening. He attempted to reconstruct the course of events noting that review had occurred prior to adoption of our Comprehensive Plan and that McDonald's had requested a Public Hearing back then prior to getting their curb cut from the State Highway department. Receipt of the curb cut permit had apparently posed a problem for the restaurant chain though they APC, 12/14/83, Page 7 subsequently did receive the permit. They had been in a hurry to constuct the restaurant and now two years later they are requesting another extension. 2) Greene felt that the Findings noted by Staff could be utilized by others for economic hardships in granting such a request. He noted that typically the Commission had not looked at economic hardships as a reason for extending approval of such an application. 3) Benson stated that at the time the original proposal was approved, that the Comprehensive Plan had not been adopted by the Council nor approved by the LCDC. He stated that it has subsequently been approved. Fregonese concurred and stated that there is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan against drive -up windows. 4) Pugh asked how the Planning Commission could call this Type I Planning Action up for a Public Hearing. Fregonese stated that any Planning Action could be called up by affected property owners or a majority of the Planning Commission. After further discussion, Stout moved to call the proposal up for a Public Hearing. Benson seconded. The vote was four to three with Greene, Dunlop and Hansen casting the no votes. The Public Hearing will be scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1984. PLANNING ACTION #83 -100, 1 year extension for a Flag Partition between Scenic and Alnut, near Strawberry Lane. Applicant: Judith Clark. 1) Fregonese stated that the proposal had been approved originally in April of 1982 but had been amended in September of 1982. Greene asked whether the proposal was in the building moratorium area. Fregonese replied that it was not. 2) Stout asked Staff to clarify Findings 1 in the Findings included by Staff. Jannusch stated that it was the existing market conditions that were beyond the control of the applicant. Fregonese then stated that the only thing that had not been done is a survey of the property. Stout asked why it had not been surveyed. Baker stated that the lot had probably not been sold and that surveys frequently take place at the same time as the sale. After further discussion, the Planning Commission approved the Planning Action. PLANNING ACTION #83 -103, Site Review to demolish the existing shed behind the residence located at 248 Fifth Street and construct a new one. The Site Review is necessary because the property is on the National Historic Register. Applicant: Curt Anderson. 1) Fregonese noted that the shed had been built in the '50's and did not match the existing residence in any way. Jannusch noted that the proposed shed will architecturally match the existing house. It was noted further that the reason this required a Site Review was that APC, 12/14/83, Page 8 the property was on the National Registry of Historic Properties. The Planning Commission then approved the application. KILN APPROVAL Since both the Type I Planning Actions and the Public Hearings were concluded, review of the kiln on Tamarack was reconvened. Fregonese read the letter written by Carl Dahlquist, applicant, explaining his situation and clarifying that there would be no employees other than he and his family members involved in use of the kiln. Stout asked Dahlquist if his intent was to distribute his pottery elsewhere with no sales out of the home. Dahlquist replied yes. Benson asked Dahlquist how the pottery would be fired. Dahlquist stated that he would use natural gas. Stout then asked Staff whether the neighbors had been notified relative to this request. Fregonese stated that since it had only come to Staff's attention on Monday, there had been no time to notify the adjacent property owners. Dahlquist interjected that he had personally visited all of his immediate neighbors and had shown them the plot plan. They had in turn signed the plan stating they were in favor of the kiln location. Greene stated for clarification that Staff wanted an interpretation of the nature of this proposed use. Fregonese concurred stating that Staff's concern was whether it should allow this as a commercial kiln. Pugh stated that, in agreement with Owens, the key word in the definition of Home Occupation is "commonly" as it relates to residen- tial uses. Stout then stated that he has several friends who are potters and that most of them started out developing their craft at home. Jannusch asked Dahlquist for the specific dimensions of the kiln. Dahlquist stated that it would be approximately 5'7" in height and cover an area of 6' by 6' on the ground, the chimney would be 12' in height but only 2' above the wall which would be constructed around it to screen it from the adjacent neighbors. This wall would be made out of block and would match or be painted to match the existing wall at the house. He added that the kiln would involve a cantilevered, self supporting arch and that it would look like a large bar- b -que. Owens asked Dahlquist whether there would be any emissions generated from the kiln. Dahlquist stated that no more emissions would be generated than from a water heater since it was gas fired. It would also more than likely involve only one to two firings per month. He then stated that the nearest neighbor was approximtely 30 to 40 feet from the proposed kiln and that no windows exist on that side the neighbor's house. He then stated that, should he ever decide to move, that he would dismantle the kiln. APC, 12/14/83, Page 9 After further discussion, Stout moved to allow the kiln as a Home Occupation. Greene reiterated that no additional employees would be allowed. Fregonese stated that these types of operations sometimes involve the hiring of an apprentice and that this would be acceptable to Staff. He then repeated the Home Occupation requirements. The Commission then agreed that this should be considered a Home Occupa- tion and that Dahlquist should be allowed to build it. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL Greene expressed concern about automatic renewals for extensions of time requested in Planning Actions. He felt that it is necessary to establish a policy on renewals in that, though there may be no changes in an Ordinance to a specific piece of property, that certain trends and opinions do change. Fregonese felt that it was more important to change the Ordinance into something that no one could argue with. He stated further that Staff would implement the policy immediately to prohibit a second extension and would draft an Ordinance for a Public Hearing to held in the future. STAFF BUSINESS Fregonese then gave the Planning Commission an update on the Lithia Homes PUD being built by Mark Cooper. He stated that the minimums had been done pursuant to the Erosion Control Plan submitted by Cooper but that more violations exist on the site. Pugh asked Fregonese what could be done to stop the process. Fregonese stated that the Commission could revoke the PUD approval. He then read the process necessary for revocation to the Planning Commission. After further discussion, Greene moved that the PUD approval should be called up for a Public Hearing. Stout seconded the proposal. Further discussion ensued. Benson stated that he felt that the City has not enforced the terms and conditions of the original approval. He stated that Cooper should not have been allowed to start work in August. Fregonese stated that Staff has made every attempt to keep an eye on Mr. Cooper and to protect the area and to enforce the Conditions of Approval. He stated that Staff did not stop him in August because it was felt that the majority of the earth moving could be accomplished by summer's end. He then recounted, for the Commission, the steps Staff had taken to enforce the conditions. He stated that the Public Works Department had been notified that Cooper was conducting work there. Planning Staff typically does not have the expertise to critique road improvements. Thus, it was the responsibility of the Public Works Department to monitor such improvements. When concerns were raised, the Planning Staff met with Cooper and Jim Olsen, the engineer, and were assured that all erosion control measures would be installed by October 20th. This did not take place. Al Alsing, Director of Public Works, inspected the site and shut the project down. Cooper was given a deadline to install certain erosion control measures. He installed the measures to the most minimum standards possible, the day of his deadline. APC, 12/14/83, Page 10 2) Owens asked Fregonese whether he believed that violations exist. Fregonese responded by stating that he wanted to write Cooper a letter giving him until early January to come up with a proper plan for mitigating the erosion problems on the site. If no such plan is received by this time, then he would like to schedule a Public Hearing for February for possible revocation of the Permit. He stated that this would give the Staff time to investigate the situation, develop a report, and allow Mr. Cooper to respond to it. Hansen asked whether Staff would be consulting with the City Attorney relative to the appropriate measures to take. Fregonese said yes. 3) Hansen then stated that she thinks the Staff has done a splendid job in reviewing the Type I's noting that this does provide an expeditious manner for review of somewhat routine Planning Actions. She then praised Staff for the efforts it has made in the development of these processes. 4) Fregonese noted that Staff is preparing amendments to the Physical Constraints Ordiance and proposes to redevelop it such that it addresses both environmental and physical constraints with safeguards to conditions that exist such as those in the Cooper development could have been forestalled. He stated further that the Subdivision Agreement which is presently in use dates from the mid 1960's when the complexity of development and planning was not as sophisticated as it is today. He stated that this typical subdivision agreement should be reworked such that it favors the City's position rather than giving everything to the developer as it does now. 5) He then noted to the Planning Commission that recently the Solar Access Ordinance has received an evaluation from an independent consulting firm. Interviews had been made with 30 developers, realtors and contractors who have worked commonly with the Planning Department in utilizing the Ordinance. Of those 30 interviewed, 29 had been found in favor of the Ordinance. With an Ordinance as potentially controversial as this one, it was extremely encouraging hearing this feedback from the evaluation team. 6) Pugh stated that he will not be available to attend the Planning Commission in January noting that it is likely that elections will be held at this point. He stated that should he be nominated as Chairperson, he would accept the nomination. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 12/14/83, Page 11 JOHN W. NICHO LSON 1575 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND, OREGO N 97520 December 1 3 1983 Citizens Planning Advisory Committee Members of the and The Ashland Planning Commission City of Ashland 97520 Oregon w e the Zoning for the Ashland Ashland prop osal to O.har�g Rural Residential, Re: Municipal Airport from RR -5, to E -1, Employment e the zoning for the As Municipal Ladies and Gentlemen: to chaang he asu on the city's The proposal a housekeeping "largely of December 10, 1983. Because Airport was described an s (Page 3) 10, 1 acquired use in The Dail Th f �P g acq part" the federal government_ on property restrictions by because of safety considerationhe for of funds, possible factors, airport use the rport, and because of other p the airp be considered tiered by both the Citizens Plan s following to questions should b Commission: hC ze following q Comm ittee and the Ashland Planning ping Advisory A. Does the prop zoning change conform to the Ashland Municipal ro osed z which 1 understand is currently being Airport Master Plan, updated? of the airport master plan that 1 summary in the last COpy item: B. A the following reviewed included To assure that an. area of compatible Use• recommendations "Com sej Land a round the airport, land use is maintained eluded in the Master Plan to establish operations. Any are airport op Env In planning Environs Zone in areas affected by development proposed within the zone woulWitha�theoairport. de compatibility level review to assure its P t are Airport Environs one red? Willand the the Has proposed ent zoning for the poopa Employment contemplated Airport Environs Zone referre compati tible with to in the airport m a ster plan? C. Pub federal ort properties which are acquired through a t aus carry with them restrictions on the such res properties. usually the Ashland airport subject to any erties. 1n they? Will the proposed Employment zo n i ng in y conflict what are with the federal grant restrictionst grant r es Will the p any way permit violations of the federal g ns unle zoning ns unless specific caveats are included in the airpor trictio zoning ordinance? taken so that the city will not in the future D. Y1 steps will be exception or a land use that authorize a zoning rants? If such an conflicts with the restrictions in federal grants? this create conflict exception were to be made, inadvertent zoning one or more liabilities for the city? E. Will the proposed rezoning of the airport contain specific restrictions that are needed for safety or other reasons at the airport or in areas that are in close proximity to the airport? Examples would be: Height and placement restrictions on structures and land- scaping; Distracting lights and glare; Creation of electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between the airport and aircraft; Discharges (e.q., smoke or steam) from operations in an Employment zone that could impair the visibility for pilots of aircraft. Is the proposed rezoning of the airport just a housekeeping measure or are there more complex, substantive, and long -range matters to be considered? The zoning of any airport land and the adjoining areas seems to require careful tailoring to satisfy the needs of both the airport and the community. Will the proposed Employment (E -1) zoning meet these diverse needs? Should there be a special airport zone that makes any change in the use of airport property conditional on restrictions that now exist or that may be established at future dates? Sincerely yours, John W. Nicholson PH k3 13 YES N0 Owens Hansen Benson Pugh wry Greene Dunlop TOT PH y Hansen Stout Benson Pugh Dunlop Owens Greene TOT Dunlop Slattery Hansen Stout Benson Pugh Alston Greene Owens TOT PH YES NO PLANNI e .CO PH Y NO v Greene Owens Pugh 1/ Benson �S- Hansen Duniop TOT PH Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh Benson Stout Hansen Spry TOT Owens Greene Slattery Pugh Benson Stout Hansen Al ston Dunlop TOT PH YES NO ON VOTIN RE ORD PHf,3 /OYES NO Greene Owens t/ 1tter Hansen Benson Pugh Dunlop TOT PH NO Pugh Greene Owens Dunlop lk &n Hansen Benson Stout TOT PH YES NO Pugh Alston Greene Owens Dunlop Slattery Hansen Stout Benson TOT /a//4—/ PH Sc3_/ 4 (ES NO 1 Benson Stout' H ansen Dunlop Owens Greene Pugh 4t/ TOT l� U PH Benson Stout Hansen Al ston Slattery Owens Greene Pugh Dunlop. TOT Benson Stout Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh TOT YES NO PH YES NO