Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-13 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you do wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that public testimony may be limited by the Chair and nor— mally is not allowed after the public hearing.has been closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 13, 1983 I. CA 0 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR II APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of March 9, 1983 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PLANNING ACTION #83 -07 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Re- view and Ordinance Variance for a mini storage warehouse located south of Hersey St. on Williamson way. Access would be off Hersey St. The Variance is required for no provision of off street parking. Comprehensive Plan designation: 4DC. Tax lot #s; 3509, 3512. APPLICANT: Lonnie Fitzpatrick B. PLANNING ACTION #83 -12 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed addition of a sundeck to the roof of the existing garage at 61 Nutley St. The Conditional Use Permit is necessary for alteration of a non- conforming structure. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 APPLICANT: Bill Cowger C. PLANNING ACTION #83 -16 is a request for Annexation, Subdivision and Zone Change for approximately 16.7 acres of land located north of Crowson Road immediately west of I -5. The property is presently designated as RR -5 in the County and would be rezoned as M -1 and E -1 upon annexation. Compre- hensive Plan designation: Industrial Employment. Zoning: RR -5 (County) Assessor's map 14D. Tax lot #s: 100, 101, 201. APPLICANTS: Claude /Delores Benson D. PLANNING ACTION #83 -20 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Ordinance Variance for the operation of an ambulance service at 287 Maple St. The existing dwelling would be used a crew quarters with the-existing storage building being converted into an office. The Variance is necessary to construct a carport for ambulance parking on the existing slab which is one foot from the west property line in lieu of 6 feet as required by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designaiton: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (multi family residential). Assessor's map 5DB. Tax lot:700 APPLICANT: Litwiller Ambulance, Inc. E. PLANNING ACTION #83 -21 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing dwelling at 111 Third St. into medical offices. ff- street parking would be provided on the west side of the rcel, adjacent to the alley. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family residential). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot: 8800. APPLICANT: David Kirkpatrick, M.D. F. PLANNING ACTION #83 -22 is a request for a Conditional use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the existing guest cottage adjacent to the single family residence at 171 Granite St. into a single -unit travelers accommoda- tion. An Ordinance Variance is also requested for provision of 2 paved off street parking spaces in lieu of 3 as required by Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family Residential). Assessor's map 8AD. Tax lot 7900. APPLICANTS: Rod /Susan Reid G. PLANNING ACTION #83 -23 is a request for a Minor Land Partition on Strawberry Lane south of Westwood, to divide the existing parcel into three separate lots of 5 acres each.. Access would be provided via an extension of Westwood St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low density residential. Zoning: RR -.5 Assessor's map 8BD. Tax lot 100. APPLICANTS: Gentry /Sheffield H. PLANNING ACTION #83 -24 is a request for preliminary approval of an 18 -unit PUD on approximately 5.5 acres, located on Pinecrest Terrace NW of Starlight Place. The proposal consists of 15 single- family residences and 3 attached units to be constructed in 3 phases. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family residential. Zoning: R -1:10 (Single family residential). Assessor's map 15 BD. Tax lot 7400 APPLICANT: Dave Giambrone I. PLANNING ACTION #83 -29 is a request for preliminary approval of Oak Knoll Meadows, an 108 unit PUD on approximately 39.5 acres located south of the Oak Knoll Dr. street stub. The project is proposed in phases with the first 17 lots to be developed during the summer of 1983. Comprehensive Plan desig- nation: Single family residential. Zoning: R -1:10P (Single family resi- dential). Assessor's map #s: 13B, 13C, 14AD. Tax lots: 2300, 2400, 6200. APPLICANTS: B G Properties IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: A. PA #83 -19, request for an Ordinance Variance at 363 N. aurel to construct a greenhouse addition within 5' of the corner sideyard property line in lieu of 10' as required by Ordinance. Applicant: Neil Benson B. PA #83 -25 is a request for a Minor Land Partition to divide the lot at 180 Nutley St. into two parcels. Applicant: Steve Benson. C. PA #83 -27, request for a Minor Land Partition to create a flag lot at 525 Grandview Dr. Applicant: Rob Stephens D. PA #83 -31, request for a Minor Land Partition to divide the recently annexed Industrial Park into two parcels. Applicant: AIDC V. STAFF BUSINESS: Joint Study Session with CPAC 4 -27 -83 Formation of CPAC /PC Subcommittee for Air Quality VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -07 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE LONNIE FITZPATRICK MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7 :35 p.m. by Chairman Lance Pugh at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Mary Ann Alston, Ethel Hansen, Don Greene, Mike Slattery, Tom Owens and Barry Warr. Also present were Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the March 9, 1983, meeting were approved as written. PLANNING ACTION #83 -07 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Ordinance Variance for a mini- storage warehouse located south of Hersey St. on Williamson Way. Access would be off Hersey St. The Variance is required for no provision for off street parking. Comprehensive Plan designation: Employment Zoning: E -1 Assessor's map 4DC. Tax lot #'s: 3509,3512. APPLICANT: Lonnie Fitzpatrick Fregonese stated that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Since the applicant was not in attendance and there were no other individuals present to speak in favor or in opposition to the propo- sal, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene moved to deny Planning Action #83 -07, without prejudice, Owens seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. APC, 4/13/83 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BILL COWGER PLANNING ACTION #83 -12 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed addition of a sundeck to the roof of the existing garage at 61 Nutley St. The Conditional Use Permit is necessary for altera- tion of a non conforming structure. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single Family Residential. Zoning: R- 1 :7.5. Assessor's Map 8AD. Tax lot 1600. APPLICANT: Bill Cowger STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report. 2) At this point, Alston arrived. 3) Fregonese stated that the compatibility with the neighborhood is the primary finding in determining approval or disapproval of this Planning Action. 4) Pugh asked for a clarification relative to use as a garage versus the use as a deck. Fregonese stated that use as a garage would mean that it would be used primarily for storage of equipment and vehicles and use as a deck would mean that the owners would have access to the roof area on a regular basis, thus the change in use. 5) Pugh then asked how the structure at 63 Nutley relates to this property line. Fregonese stated that the building at the site is in conformance with present day setbacks. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Bill Cowger, 61 Nutley Street, spoke on behalf of the applica- tion. He presented a memo to the Planning Commission sent by the Building Official, Everett Murrell, stating that the railing around his deck had been installed at the time the stop work order was directed. He stated that he had taken the time to consult all the neighbors prior to construction of the deck to let them know what his plans were. Once the deck was started and questions were raised to the Planning and Building Departments he was required to stop con- struction. He then presented some pictures taken of before and after shots of his house and garage indicating the style of work that he does and the changes between the gable roof and the flat roof. He stated that the Building Department had dealt with the stop work order relative to no building permit and said that he was now seeking a Conditional Use Permit as his second obligation to the City. One APC, 4/13/83 Page 2 of the photographs shown indicated how the hot tar roof had been placed around the railing. He noted, however, that the deck cannot be used unless the hot tar roof is covered with a redwood decking. He stated also that a stairway would be necessary for access. In addition, he showed pictures taken looking into the Faske's backyard. He stated that there had been problems in communication with the Faskes, in that they were not receptive to discussing the issue with him. He felt that he could ensure both parties privacy, noting in the picture that with a five foot piece of plywood attached to the railing, no one can be seen in back of it nor can anyone see over it into the Faske's yard. He then showed a petition he had circulated to the various homes within the area, noting the neighbors who were in support of the proposal. He then showed a copy of the Minutes from the Historic Commission meeting of September 1, 1982, noting that this was the first Historic Commission review and that at the second Historic Commission meeting, which he had not attended, the proposal was denied. 2) Fregonese stated that the second Historic Commission review was to comment on the Conditional Use Permit and not on the deck. 3) Cowger then showed a copy of the shadow plan relating any poten- tial problems with solar access. 4) Jannusch stated that there would be no apparent problems with solar access. 5) Cowger then showed a letter addressed to the Faskes noting his good intentions. 6) Pugh asked whether is was imperative in terms of the Planning Commission review, that the three parties communicate with one another. 7) Fregonese stated that this is not a condition or a requirement of review and approval by the Planning Commission. That the burden of proof in terms of no negative impact is on the applicant. 8) Ownes felt that Pugh's issue was relevant to the case. 9) Cowger then stated that his efforts with the letter were to open the channels of communication and try to get the neighbors to discuss things on a personal level. Cowger then showed a number of alterna- tives he was willing to accept relative to the design of the deck and its use. 10) Warr asked Cowger whether he had been aware that he needed a building permit for this construction. Cowger stated he was. APC, 4/13/83 Page 3 11) Warr then asked why he had opted not to get a permit. Cowger stated that in all his building, he had always taken out permits, but that since this was his own property, he just didn't get around to it. 12) Doug Faske, 63 Nutley St., spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that it was basically an invasion of privacy and that it stops the sunshine into his backyard. He then showed a few pictures of his backyard to the Commissioners. 13) Pugh told Faske that he would prefer that the neighbors be able to work this situation out. Faske stated that there was nothing to work out. 14) Jannusch then stated that at the second Historic Commission meeting the Commission had, in fact, recommended denial to the structure as a deck. 15) Chris Hald, acting as a member of the Historic Commission, stated that the Commission had basically found it a disfavorable design and had recommended denial based on the apparent attitude of the applicant. He stated he felt that Cowger had known of the rules and regulations of the City codes and building codes since he had been a builder in town for quite some time. 16) Gary Rigotti, 119 Granite St., spoke on behalf of the applica- tion. He stated that Cowger had improved the looks of the structure considerably and felt that anything that Cowger would do would be tasteful in design. He then stated that Cowger looks down on him every day as Rigotti lives below Cowger on Granite Street. 17) Patricia Krader, 80 Nutley St., spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated that the Faske's had lived there for 40 years and that in her seven years of being there, that she had seen the Faske's put a lot of loving energy into the yard. She said that the Faske's had spent a considerable amount of money last year in terrac- ing the backyard and she felt that it was important for the Planning Commission to consider these items particularly when the rights of human beings collide. She then asked for clarification of the shadow plan feeling that the walls would loom over the adjacent neighbors. She then noted that though visual privacy may be ensured by the applicant, that audible privacy could not be ensured, as in years past the Cowgers had lead a pretty active social life with a number of loud parties held at their house. 18) Roger Ledbetter, 112 Nutley St., stated that all the people in the area live close together and that any compromise would be helpful in trying to reduce the conflict. 19) John McLean, 129 Granite St., stated that he had lived a number of years directly below the Cowger's house and had never yet heard APC, 4/13/83 Page 4 any noise. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Owens stated that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission could not grant approval to the application without more than a minimal impact on the affected neighbors. He stated, however, that Mr. Cowger should be congratulated on his exemplary restoration of the structure at the site. He then moved to deny the application with Warr seconding. The vote in favor of the motion was 6 -1 with Alston voting "no PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -16 ANNEXATION, SUBDIVISION ZONE CHANGE CLAUDE /DELORES BENSON PLANNING ACTION #83 -16 is a request for Annexation, Subdivision and Zone Change for approximately 16.7 acres of land located north of Crowson Road immediately west of 1 -5. The property is presently designated as RR -5 in the County and would be rezoned as M -1 and E -1 upon annexation. Comprehensive Plan designation: Industrial and Employment. Zoning: RR -5 (County). Assessor's map 14D. Tax lot #'s: 100, 101, 201. APPLICANTS: Claude /Delores Benson STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report, adding to Condition #4 that sidewalks should be included at the time the subdivision was devel- oped. 2) Pugh asked if this application were approved based on the exist- ing condition of any availability of services would this preclude a similar request by a subsequent developer. Fregonese read a number of policies statements from the Comprehensive Plan and concluded that the decision to approve or disapprove would be up to the Planning Commission as a discretionary decision. He stated, however, that it was not uncommon to annex with services provided down the road. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Richard Stevens, RCS Management, 843 East Main Street, Medford, spoke on behalf of the application, regarding the public need and the availability of public facilities. He stated that he wanted the subsequent findings of fact to be entered into the record as part of APC, 4/13/83 Page 5 the proceedings. He noted that 45 acres had been annexed into the City in the past few months. With this additional annexation, that acreage level would be put up to approximately 61 1/2. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan mandates that 104 acres would be nec- essary for compliance to the year 2000. With the Ashland economic diversification program developing, he felt that a variety of land would be needed to achieve this objective. He then presented a letter of recommendation from Mark Nobel as a member of the Economic Development Committee. In addition, he presented letters from three potential individuals looking at possible locations in the develop- ment. He then contended that the Fasano decision does not apply in this case relative to the findings of fact required by the City. He cited a court case involving Marie Newberger and others versus the City of Portland. He contended that this case overrules the Fasano case proving that it was not necessary to prove public need in the findings of fact. 2) John Jensen, Consulting Engineer for the project, spoke on behalf of the application. He stated that the application had presented some unique problems due to the location of the property between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5. He noted that he had been in discussion with the Planning Staff in the preparation of the study for this project. He noted that the 6" water line from McGrew's that runs under the freeway to the Oak Knoll Golf Course area would not be adequate as per the requirements of the City Water Utility. This would be changed to an 8" line and connected with the 8" line 300 to 350' west of the Benson property on the McGrew property. Relative to sewer facilities for the development, he discussed three alterna- tives. One, to procure an easement across the private property from Clover Lane requiring approximately 3500 lineal feet of sewer pipe and a pump station. He presented a letter of consent from all of the affected property owners willing to grant a public easement across their property for this sewer line. The second alternative would be to bore under Interstate 5 to Oak Knoll and the third would be to provide a sewage lift station to be routed up to the McGrew's pro- perty. He noted that the third alternative would be the least expen- sive but it did create other problems in its development. The most likely option would be to go to Clover Lane for their sewage dispo- sal. The cost of these sewage improvements to Clover Lane would be in the area of $50,000 to $75,000. His estimates for the water improvements would be in the area of $30,000. 3) Stevens referred to the letter of consent provided for easements across the private properties. 4) Greene asked whether the .lift station would be dedicated to the City and Jensen replied that it would be as well as maintained by the City. 5) Slattery asked whether the water line along Crowson Road was projected to be a 10" or 12" line. Jensen stated that it was APC, 4/13/83 Page 6 proposed to be a 12" line that would go all the way to Oak Knoll. 6) Stevens concluded that the cost of the utilities could be recovered over a 10 year period. 7) Fregonese noted that Jensen's presentation had been thorough and accurate. He stated that it would be helpful to the Council if these options were presented in written form to them. The application would have a better chance of receiving approval with this done. He then stated that Mark Nobel in fact, was not a member of the Economic Development Commission. Next he noted the consumption rate of avail- able lands based on a 5 year supply or 1/4 demand of the next 20 years as 50 1/2 acres. He asked whether the developer had a time line for marketing, to which Stevens replied that typically marketing takes place two years from the start of a development. 8) Claude Benson, applicant, stated he was not sure as to the pre- cise time of development. 9) Fregonese then asked if Benson would, in fact, proceed with the project were it granted approval. Benson stated, yes, he would be the developer. 10) Duane Smith, 639 Prim Street, voiced his opinions about the development. He stated that one year ago, the City was placing options on properties in this area, instilling the sense of an emer- gency in the area of not having enough industrial lands. His conten- tion was that it is not a function of planning to decide if a project if economically feasible. He noted that our industrial lands in Ashland are extremely expensive compared to many other jurisdictions. He then concluded by stating that the Comprehensive Plan states that we shall maintain these numbers of acres in industrial land. It does not state that we cannot have more than these numbers. Fregonese interjected that the industrial park was not owned by the City, that in fact, it is being developed by the Ashland Industrial Development Corporation. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked whether the parking area submitted by the applicants was correct. landscaping plan would be required at the well as for the'individual site review of the parking area adjacent to Crowson Road not a good location. APC, 4/13/83 Page 7 indicated on the plot plan Fregonese stated that the time of final approval as each lot. Greene felt that and the dwelling there was 2) For the benefit of those individuals in the audience who did not understand the proceedings, the Chairman reopened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING, CONT. 1) John McCollum, 376 Crowson Road, asked staff to clarify what the impact on Crowson Road would be. Fregonese explained the impact. McCollum asked whether Crowson Road would require improvement by these developers. Fregonese stated that Crowson Road is improved to the County Road Standards at this point, but that the developer could be required to sign in favor or future street improvements to Crowson Road as part of an assessment district. 2) Ilse Vorney, 330 Crowson Road, stated her concern about indus- trial developments on Crowson Road and traffic impact. Fregonese stated that he felt Crowson could handle the additional traffic. 3) Rick Hayes, 2234 Siskiyou Blvd., questioned whether staff had looked at the polluting factors involved in an industrial development such as this and the potential industrial waste which occurs in many industrial areas. Fregonese stated basically, that protections exist in the zoning ordinance against emissions, both in air and water pollution. 4) Jim Skog, 252 Crowson Road, stated that he had moved to the area to get a home in the country. He questioned the zoning of the area feeling that it sould be maintained as rural. 5) Don Pullman, Oak Knoll Drive, spoke in opposition to the develop- ment, stating that he felt it was wrong to invite more industrial development into the area. 6) Stevens stated in defense of the proposal that the planning process does allow for this kind of development on the property in question. He offered assurances to the individuals raising doubts that the developments in the subdivision would be environmentally benign. At this point, the public hearing was closed again. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Alston asked what CPAC had had to say about the development. Fregonese stated that CPAC had recommended denial of the proposal but this had only been based on the staff report and that no testimony had been presented by the applicants. 2) Hansen asked Fregonese what his opinions were relative to the viability of the project. Fregonese stated that typically staff does not delve into what the investment costs are in a development. He stated that his calculations showed that the development would not be as expensive as first thought. He stated that if this additional information had been available at the time of the staff report, a more favorable recommendation would have been presented. He cont- APC, 4/13/83 Page 8 inued by noting that a two to three year development would justify the acreage proposed for the development noting that because of the deficit of land that we have had for so long, it has created a different concept of what is necessary and what is not. He felt that the free market idea and the competition generated would be benefi- cial to the community. He stated that the strongest reason for his recommendation of denial was the lack of services. 3) Hansen then stated that she felt that the Planning Commission is responsible for the economic welfare of the citizenry. 4) Warr stated that he felt it was important to consider Ashland's economic future and provide ample opportunity for these developments. 5) Owens asked Fregonese to read the policy statements from the Comprehensive Plan again. Fregonese read policy #'s 1 and 2 of Chapter XII on Urbanization from the Comprehensive Plan and policy #1 of Chapter VII, Economy. 6) Slattery stated that he sympathized with the Crowson Road inhabi- tants who had fears about the traffic impact. Specifically, he was concerned about the school bus stops along Crowson Road. Greene expressed a like concern. 7) Fregonese stated that with the 16 acres proposed in the new industrial park, traffic generation would be increased to 1400 to 1000 vehicle trips per day. He said it would be appropriate perhaps to attach the condition that the applicants sign in favor of future street improvements along Crowson Road including sidewalks and that the Council should determine the appropriate assessment. 8) Pugh stated he thought it would be appropriate for these appli- cants to have a greater frontage than what their property is along Crowson Road and for any improvements to include bike lane markings. Any appropriate easements should be obtained prior to annexation. 9) Greene stated that he wanted to see a landscaping plan included in the final plan and that sidewalks should be included in the development as well. 10) Alston asked whether the noise pollution ordinance would apply for this area. Fregonese stated that he did not believe that the residences in the County were under the protection of the City noise pollution ordinance. 11) After further discussion, Warr moved to approve the application with the nine conditions attached. Slattery seconded the motion. Alston asked if Warr would be willing to amend the motion to include conditions relative to noise protection for the County residences. Warr said he would be willing. The vote was unanimous in favor. APC, 4/13/83 Page 9 At this point, a 5 minute intermission was taken. Pagh stated that only one additional planning action would be covered this evening and that the remaining public hearings would be held on Thursday evening, April 21, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW, ORDINANCE VARIANCE LITWILLER AMBULANCE STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report. Pugh asked why the grease pit was necessary for this operation. Jannusch noted that the grease pit was not an immediate request, but that when it was installed, it would be used for the maintenance of the ambulances and it would be screened. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Gordon Brown, the applicant, spoke on behalf of this proposal. He stated that the new owner of the Litwiller Funeral Service did not want to take over the ambulance operation. He further stated that he would be willing to agree with all the conditions established in the Staff Report. He then said that the grease pit woul�i be to change the oil in the ambulances as oil changes are a regular necessity for these vehicles. 2) Pugh asked Brown whether he would be willing to paint the build- ings sooner than one year. Brown stated that this would probably be one of the first things that they would be doing. 3) Slattery asked whether the sign would be necessary for this operation. Fregonese stated that signs are permitted in an R -2 zone in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit such as this and that people would need to locate the business in order to pay their bills. 4) Alston then asked whether the applicant would be willing to meet with the conditions relative to no lights on Maple Street. Brown stated that he would. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve the proposal with the amended conditions. Warr seconded it and the vote was unanimous in favor. TYPE 1 PLANNING ACTIONS APC, 4/13/83 Page 10 PLANNING ACTION #83 -19, a request for an Ordinance Variance at 363 N. Laurel to construct a greenhouse addition within 5' of the corner sideyard property line in lieu of 10' as required by Ordinance. Applicant: Neil Benson. This planning action was approved. PLANNING ACTION #83 -25 is a request for a Minor Land Partition to divide the lot at 180 Nutley St. into two parcels. Applicant: Steve Benson. This planning action was approved. PLANNING ACTION #83 -27 is a request for a Minor Land Partition to create a flag lot at 525 Grandview Dr. Applicant: Rob Stephens. This planning action was approved. 1) Alston asked whether four parking stalls were a regular condition applied for such a development. Fregonese stated that this was a code requirement. PLANNING ACTION #83 -31 a request for a Minor Lane Partition to divide the recently annexed Industrial Park into two parcels. Applicant: Ashland Industrial Development Corporation. 1) This planning action was presented by Fregonese as he reviewed the plat and the reasons for the amendments to the original application. 2) This planning action was then approved. STAFF BUSINESS 1) Relative to the joint subcommittee between CPAC and Planning Commission for Air Quality, Fregonese stated that three members of the Planning Commission were needed to volunteer for this subcommittee. 2) Relative to the joint subcommittee on policies relating to annexations, Fregonese stated that two Planning Commissioners would be needed. Greene and Hansen volunteered for this subcommittee. 3) Fregonese then stated that he wished to initiate the public hearing processes for the quarry issue relative to making expansion of quarries a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned at 10:05 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 4/13/83 Page 11 PH 8 YES r Hansen Warr Pugh Greene Owens TOT TOT us Hansen Warr Zeings ug Alston Greene Owens TOT l -v PH YES Alston Hansen Warr Pugh -wlls Owens Greene PH YES NO PLANN1NU GUMM1551UN VUIlNU Kts NO PH 51-/ YES NO PH ff3- YES NO Owens Greene Pugh Warr Hansen Alston_ )4t;tct.-7 NO PH YES NO Owens Greene Pugh Warr Hansen Alston TOT PH YES NO Owens Greene NOM Pugh Warr Hansen Alston s 0 Pugh aeries Greene Owens Alston Hansen Warr afiRiaR TOT PH YES NO Pugh Greene Owens -As Alston Hansen Warr TOT PH YES NO Pugh Alston Greene Owens H Warr Iftzzan TOT PH 6 P 5 .2 Y 4 4.44 S NO Warr Hansen Alston y .Ag§ Owens Greene v Pugh TOT PH YES NO Warr Hansen Alston -gam Owens Greene Pugh His TOT PH Warr Hansen Alston Names— Owens Greene 14- Pugh TOT YES NO