Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-23 Planning MINII. SOUTH ASHLAND REZONING: III. ADJOURNMENT I. Quarry Issue ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Ashland Civic Center 1175 East Main Street A. Continuation of Commission discussion and motion, adoption of Findings to be distributed at meeting). JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH CPAC CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Lance Pugh at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Mary Ann Alston, Ethel Hansen, Barry Warr, Neil Benson, Lance Pugh, Don Greene and Tom Owens. Also present were Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secre- tary Ann Baker. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 1983 1) Warr asked why the rezoning had been divided into three areas reduced from the original five areas under study. Fregonese replied that the study was simplified by this reduction. 2) Fregonese recapped the procedure involved during the past nine months relative to the rezoning. This period had involved numerous public hearings with notification being sent to all affected property owners involved in these changes. He continued by noting that this evening's meeting was for review of any modifications as proposed by the Planning Commission and to address the written testimony received by staff. 3) Warr suggested that discussion first center around the Prick ett /Lewis proposal in review of a letter submitted by Peak and Assoc- iates outlining a request for a change of zoning and a conceptual plan being presented. Fregonese noted that the plan had been submit- ted for pre application conference to be held on Thursday, February 24, requesting that 15 units be allowed above Long Way in lieu of the 10 that would be permitted by the zoning proposed at this time. He noted further that there had been no justification expressed for the request, only that the request was being made. He then showed the plans to the Commission, at the same time explaining the pre application conference procedure. 4) Warr asked a specific question to Lewis. He wondered why Lewis hadn't testified to this request during the approved public hearing process. Lewis approached the rostrum and explained that the resi- dents of Long Way do not want access through their cul-de-sac. He stated that Fregonese had suggested that access be provided via Terrace with Terrace improved to a Class "D" standard established by the County. He continued by stating that preliminary estimates of such an undertaking would be $60,000 and that to underwrite the cost more units in this area would be necessary. APC, 2/23/83 Page 1 He stated further that the area could support 25 to 30 units easily and that they were only asking for 15. He continued by showing the Commissioners access for the areas off the project, noting that it was strictly a matter of economics. He felt that if he could not get more units, that he would use his legal right of access through the Long Way cul -de -sac if these additional units were not permitted. 5) Greene asked whether the project was proposed to be installed in phases, to which Lewis replied that construction would commence all at once. 6) Owens suggested that it would be more appropriate for the appli- cant to submit a request for a zone change at a later time with the appropriate findings submitted and additional information. Lewis re- plied that this had already been a two year process. 7) Fregonese responded to Lewis' remark by stating that when he had purchased the land, it had already been zoned for 2 acre parcels. He stated further that Lewis had had plenty of opportunities during the last nine months of hearings to enter these requests into the public record. He expressed his concerns about the procedures of the even- ing stating that this was not supposed to be a public hearing, only Commission review of the previously received testimony. He did not feel right about Lewis lobbying for the increased density at this time. Lewis replied that each time he had approached the Planning office that the requirements changed and the different stories make it impossible for him to make a proper decision in his development. Pugh interjected that it was not appropriate for this disagreement to be settled at the public forum. Lewis said that he did not appre- ciate Fregonese's lobbying comment. Pugh replied that Lewis should sit down. 8) Warr asked one of the affected neighbors, Oz Johnson, living on Long Way, if he was aware of the changes proposed and how he felt as a representative of the neighborhood. Johnson stated that he would not be opposed to the three units exiting out an existing private driveway. He would, however, be opposed to opening up the cul -de -sac for increased traffic leading to the area above Long Way. 9) Greene asked Fregonese if during the pre application conference the question of the legality of access would be determined. Frego- nese replied that legal access in this case, would be subject to legal interpretation. 10) Warr stated that it was unfortunate not having this information earlier. He felt that there was no reason that this question could not be peacably resolved, stating that in his opinion the slopes would suit the requested density. Fregonese replied that the area is roughly half Low Density and half Woodland Residential permitting approximately 10 -12 units maximum under Performance Standards. He noted further that no justification was being given for the requested AFC, 2/23/83 Page 2 change. 11) Benson asked whether this area had been double checked by the Planning staff to which Fregonese replied that this area had been scrutinized more closely than any other area studied. 12) Warr felt that it was important to settle this dispute at this time to a void potential litigation at a Iater time. Fregonese re- plied that he doubted whether litigation would follow regarding the City's involvement and that the proposed zoning addresses these problems. 13) Warr stated that he felt it was important to listen to the developer and that economics should be considered in the decision making. Fregonese replied that economics of the development were not the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Pugh asked Warr if he would feel different if the figure were 812,000 or 8200,000 and not the 860,000 expressed by the applicant. Warr stated that the figure proposed would not matter, he just feels the slopes in the area can take more development. 14) Fregonese stated that the field inspections that had taken place had verified the accuracy of the slope maps, that in fact there were little differences between the actual slopes and those represented in the topographic maps. 15) Benson asked whether Lewis could request a zone change at a later time, to which Fregonese replied, he could and in fact, staff would feel better looking at it at that point with more information available. Greene concurred with Fregonese's statement. 16) Hansen stated she was pleased with the Performance Standards. She stated she knew that economics are not supposed to enter into review by the Planning Commission but her to her way of thinking, it was important to consider the economics philosophically to ensure the safety of land use planning at the state level. Hansen concluded that the wiser use of Performance Standards the better since this would provide a basis on which to make decisions. 17) Owens agreed with Benson and Greene. He stated that this re- quest may have merits, but that not enough information was received and what information has been received has taken place at the 11th hour. He then moved that Lewis' request be denied. 18) Pugh asked whether the Commission should procedurally review each letter individually. Fregonese stated that he thought it would be appropriate to vote on the entire concept. 19) Warr felt it was proper not to be too rigid, that even though nine months of public hearings had ensued in reaching this point, it was not too late to consider testimony at this point. If justifica- APC, 2/23/83 Page 3 tion could be given to change, it would be appropriate to address it at this point. Pugh felt that this request could be reviewed at this time, but more information was needed to give an intelligent review. 20) Alston stated that she was confused as to which area was being regarded for upzoning to R -1:10. Fregonese indicated on the map where this would be, noting that the applicants requested that the zoning line be moved in their favor. Greene noted one again the lack of information provided by Lewis and Kauble. 21) Owens suggested the need to react in some manner to each letter specifi- cally. After continued discussion, Greene seconded Owens motion to deny Kauble's request. The vote was unanimous with Slattery abstaining. 22) The Houghton letter was then brought up for discussion before the Commission. After some initial discussion, Warr moved to deny the action with Alston seconding. The vote again was unanimous with Slattery abstaining. 23) The third letter presented by Robert and Mary Ann Alston was then discussed by the Commission. Hansen asked Alston why she had apparently taken the 360 degree turnaround from her initial position. Alston responded to Hansen by stating that originally, there had been no plans for a collector road through their property. Now with the prospect of having to pave 2500 feet of this road, the cost would be astronomical and to retain the Woodland Residential zoning throughout the whole area would create an incredible burden on them. She stated further that it was not their intent to subdivide at this point, that this was a long -range plan for them. 24) Fregonese pointed out to the Commission that presentation by the Alstons pointed out Justifications for this request, essentially creating findings in backing up their proposal. In recognizing that areas 2,3 and 4 should not be Woodland Residential, Fregonese asked Alston how she felt about reducing this to a Low Density Residential. Alston had no objections. He then noted on the maps where the specific areas were. 25) Greene felt that Low Density Residential zoning for these par- cels was appropriate. 26) Warr then moved to accept Alston's letter, but suggesting that area 4 should be in Low Density. Benson then asked whether areas 4 and 5 would be in Single Family. To which Warr replied, no. To clarify, Warr restated his motion that areas 1,2,3 and 4 should be Low Density and area 5 as exhibited in the map presented by Alstons should be Single- Family. Greene seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with Slattery and Alston abstaining. APC, 2/23/83 Page 4 27) The Commission then moved onto the Findings and maps prepared by staff. After continued discussion, Greene moved to accept the Find- ings and map, as amended and to send these documents to the Council with the Commission's endorsement. Warr seconded Greene's motion and the vote was unanimous with Slattery abstaining. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. to the Joint Study Session with the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary AFC, 2/23/83 Page 5 Chairman Ashland Planning Commission Ashland, OR 97520 February 18, 1983 Dear commissioners At the outset, may we offer our appreciation to you for your diligent work in developing and completing a master plan for Ashland. Making decisions which will affect the lives of Ashland's citizens in the future is a major responsibility; we wish to thank you for the patience and thoroughness you have shown in reaching your decisions. Because the master plan directly affects two parcels of property which we own in Ashland, we ask that you consider our requests before publishing the Findings Report on February 23, 1983. The first parcel of land affected by the master plan is ten acres located at 564 Ashland Street. At the last public hearing on January 26, 1983, we asked you to consider the impact that the master plan proposals (changes in zoning and a network of roads) would have on this acreage. The zoning changes would increase the number of building sites on this property. Although the new density might be theoretically feasible, we felt that the esthetic value and livability of the property (currently pasture lands and wooded areas) would not be enhanced by zoning which included a street through the property. We questioned the practical need for a road carrying traffic north and south through our property. We suggested to you at that hearing that lowering the zoning density on this property would be more appropriate than increasing it. We also suggested that a north -south road was not practical. We have since learned that the commission has revised the master plan, and in effect, accepted our suggestion on zoning and has eliminated the plan for a north -south road through this property. We understand that the north south road has been shifted to Morton Street, including an extension of Morton Street to the south. We certainly concur with these revisions and appreciate your decision. The collector road crossing the south end of our property, which remains on the master plan, continues to concern us. We question the necessity of such a road, which we were given to understand was designed to carry traffic to and from homes in the proposed developments bordering our property. As we understand it, only ten to twelve homes may eventually be built in the development to the west of our property. Traffic from this development would have access via Terrace Street. The proposed development east of our property will have access on Liberty Street- a street already in existence. Extension of Terrace and Liberty Streets provides adequate access for these developments; therefore, is the proposed 600 feet of road across the south end of our Ashland Street property an absolute necessity? The second piece of property which we awn (four acres of land at the southwest end of the Ivy Lane cul -de -sac), also figures in the master plan. The proposal for the collector road to slice through this acreage also seems questionable to us. As we understand the plan, traffic from this collector road will flow onto Mountain Avenue which will then carry the traffic north to Siskiyou Boulevard. Because Mountain Avenue is already a congested street in the vicinity of Southern Oregon State College and Ashland Senior High School, we would suggest that an alternate plan which has the collector road joining Beach and Liberty Streets would be more practical because traffic could then move north on Beach and Liberty Streets to Siskiyou Boulevard, thus avoiding additional congestion at the corner of Mountain Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard. Again our thanks to you for your consideration of our requests, and for your conscientious work in developing Ashland's master plan. Sincerely Edward L. Hough 90 JoAnn W. Houghton PH1)100/ pc Alston Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Amiga Greene Owens 5 /5— TOT A'"°15 YES NO PH Apenes Alston Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Helms Owens Greene TOT PH Apenes Helms Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Al ston Greene Owens TOT NO PH tVAA Owens Greene Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Alston s YES NO Owens Greene Helms Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Apenes Alston TOT PH Owens Greene Helms Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Alston Apenes TOT PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING f CORD NO PH Ctifr Pugh 143111116" Greene Owens Aromas Hansen Warr Benson TOT Pugh Helms Greene Owens Apenes Alston Hansen Benson Warr TOT Pugh Alston Greene Owens Apenes Helms Hansen Warr Benson TOT NO PH NO Benson Warr Hansen Alston Ap000g Owens Greene Heiler Pugh TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Alston Apenes Owens Greene Pugh Helms TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Alston Apenes Owens Greene Helms Pugh TOT