Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-08 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wishing to speak at any Rearming Comm 4-.on meeting is encoutcaged to do 40. 4 you do w,voh to speak, please nee and a4ten you have been &ecognLzed by the Chain., give you& name and comp.2e to addnas you witt then be aI_,2owed to spear. P2eas e note .that pub/it to timony- -may be £Lmited by the Chain and no /matey Ls not a22owed agen the pub.P,ic hecuzi.ng hao been c2oted. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 8, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, Oregon II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS ANU ORDERS: Meeting of May 25, 1983 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PLANNING ACTION #83 -41 is a request for a Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Designation Change for 4 parcels located from the NE corner of Siskiyou Blvd. and Mountain Ave. to the alley on the east. The pro- posed changes are to C- 1(Retail Commercial) zoning and Commercial Compre- hensive Plan designation. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, Low Density Residential). Assessor's map 10CB. Tax lots: 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700. APPLICANTS: Sandra Proebstel, et al B. PLANNING ACTION #83 -44 is a request for a Site Review for a proposed 2 -story addition to the rear of the existing fire station at 455 Siski- you Blvd. The addition will provide sleeping quarters. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's map 9AC. Tax lot 15300 APPLICANT: City of Ashland Fire Department C. PLANNING ACTION #83 -47 is a request for preliminary approval of a 24 unit PUD located south of 536 Ashland St. The project is to be developed in 4 phases at undetermined intervals. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family residential /Low density residential. Zoning: R- 1;10P/ RR -.5P. Assessor's map 16AB. Tax lot 2100. APPLICANT: Ed /Joann Houghton D. PLANNING ACTION #83 -48 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Reveiw and Ordinance Variance for the use of the auditorium portion of the existing structure at 777 E. Main ST. for various classes. The owner's living quarters are in the rear of the building. The Variance is re- quired for no provision of on -site, off street parking; 5 spaces will be provided on the Safeway parking lot. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi family residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, Multi- family Resi- dential). Assessor's map 9AC. Tax lot 9500. APPLICANT: Donna Eden IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: A. PA #83 -49, Minor Land Partition at the SW corner of Otis Willow Sts. V. STAFF BUSINESS: A. Study Session 6- 22 -83, joint with CPAC /CC re: SW Rezone B. Field trips 6/10 6/17 C. Quarry /Satellite Antennae draft Ordinances VI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 1983 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Don Greene. Members present were Tom Owens, Mary Ann Alston, Ethel Hansen, Michael Slattery and Betty Lou Dunlop. 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 May 25, 1983 meeting were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -41 ZONE CHANGE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION CHANGE SANDRA PROEBSTEL, ET AL PLANNING ACTION #83 -41 is a request for a Zone Change and Comprehen- sive Plan Designation Change for 4 parcels located from the NE corner of Siskiyou Blvd. and Mountain Ave. to the alley on the east. The proposed changes are to C -1 (Retail Commercial) zoning for tax lot 6400 and Commerical Comprehensive Plan designation for all parcels. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family, Low Density Residential). Assessor's Map 10CB. Tax lot #'s: 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700. APPLICANTS: Sandra Proebstel, et al STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report. 2) Owens asked whether condition #2 would be a normal condition under the Site Review Chapter at the time of development. Jannusch noted that this was true, but it was Staff's intent to let the applicants know this information at the onset of this application. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Craig Stone, 708 Cardley, Medford, Planning Consultant for the applicant, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He explained the APC, 6/8/83, Page 1 findings that he had submitted for the application noting that all the parcels are presently fully developed with existing structures and that changes to the site would probably be internal and pursuant to the Site Review approval. He stated that Siskiyou Blvd. is a good arterial, fully developed and adequate to handle any additional traffic generated, which would be minimal in this proposal. He noted also that Siskiyou has an improved bikeway. One of the primary find- ings exhibited was the noise problem on the corner and Stone cited the Municipal Code referring to decibel readings allowable adjacent to a residential structure. The decibel readings taken on tax lot 6400, which is at the corner of Siskiyou and Mountain exceeded those standards allowable for residences both on the outside of the struc- ture and on the inside. His contention was that the excessive noise level at the site represents a public nuisance and therefore inval- idates the existing zoning. He felt that the property was not suited for offices either since such a development would require a more quiet atmosphere. He then read a letter from Ms. Pam Swap who had been a renter, stating that her reasons for moving from the location was because of the noise. He further noted that the vacancy rate over the past 27 months has been 28 2) Slattery asked Stone whether any businesses had been anticipated for the sites under study stating that he felt access directly off of Siskiyou, particularly for tax lot 6500 is impossible. Stone re- sponded by noting that the access to 6400 is directly off Mountain Ave, while the other three properties access directly off the Boulevard. He felt that any commercial use of the small duplex would only generate a minimal increase in traffic. He stated that the applicant has a potential tenant who would rent outdoor recreational equipment and utilize the existing garage for storage 3) Teri Vait, CPAC member, stated that at the meeting of June 7, 1983, CPAC had recommended granting approval of the request with a vote of 8 -1, due to the noise level and the proximity to the High School. 4) Ron James, 837 East Main St., Medford, stated that he was an affected property owner, specifically of tax lot 6701, across the alley from the proposal. He stated that he felt that the future use of these properties along the north side of Siskiyou would be commer- cial rather than residential and was hoping to include those pro- perties between the alley and Palm Street as a part of this proposal. Fregonese responded by noting that an additional area would need to be noticed in terms of the affected property owners. He stated that this addendum could not be discussed at this point. James stated that he was aware of this and that he would be back at a later time with his own application. 5) Mary Ann Olson, 279 Palm St., stated that there are four lots for sale next door to her. She felt that approving this proposal would be bad for her neighborhood since it would be opening up the area for more changes. She stated that when she had bought the property that APC, 6/8/83, Page 2 it was zoned residentially and that the zoning would be the protec- tion for her and her family. She cited subsection C under permitted uses of the retail commercial district and stated that she did not desire to have eating, drinking and entertainment establishments at this location. She also felt that it would be appropriate to nego- tiate with the High School to reroute the buses. 6) Jannusch read a letter from Don Cowan into the record. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Owens stated that he felt the applicant had made a good case for the proposed changes. He also felt that the proposal as expressed by James should not be reviewed at this point. 2) Hansen expressed concern about the limited yard space available with these properties. She felt that great care should be taken to retain the residential character of the area when the sites are developed to ensure the beauty of the Boulevard. Such controls should be exercised at the Site Review when the parcels are de- veloped. She noted that perhaps a combination residential and busi- ness district should be developed here. Fregonese noted that this has been done in other areas and that since this is a part of the Historic District, that Historic District guidelines can help reg- ulate proposed developments. He stated his doubts as to whether these structures would ever be demolished. 3) Slattery reiterated his concerns about the traffic hazards back- ing off of the parcels onto Siskiyou. He stated that the chiroprac- tor's office recently reviewed by the Planning Commission is a good addition to the area and noted that professional offices in his opinion would be more appropriate than retail. He wondered whether there would be provision for off street parking in the rear. 4) Fregonese stated that there is no access in some cases to the rear of the parcels. He stated that the Planning Commission could require an easement to the rear, accessing off the alley. He further noted that if the Planning Commission did not like the idea of com- mercial uses, that the Zone Change should not be granted. Jannusch concurred, stating that only tax lot 6500 is the one with an access problem to the rear of the parcel. 6400 has access off of Mountain Street while 6600 and 6700 are accessed via the alley. 5) Slattery reiterated that by permitting a C -1 application to this property, it would be opening Pandora's Box. He felt that the in- creased densities had been steadily creeping south for a number of years. Fregonese noted that, in fact, this area had been recently downzoned from R -3 to R -2. 6) Stone stated that he had not prepared an actual site plan for the APC, 6/8/83, Page 3 parcels east of 6400. He felt that by requiring an easement, one parking stall might be lost and if this were the case, a Variance might be necessary for four stalls in lieu of the five stalls re- quired for commercial development on 6400. Fregonese felt that the requirement for an easement could be a condition of approval at the time the Site Review application is made. Greene concurred, stating that at this time, such an easement could tie into the alley. Stone then showed the Commission a possible plan for parking areas and the easement that would be necessary to access the facility. 7) After further discussion, Hansen moved to approve Planning Action #83 -41 with the staff recommendations and to add the conditions that at the time of development of tax lot 6400 or 6500 that access will not be provided off of Siskiyou Blvd. That an easement be provided across tax lot 6400 and 6500 for access to the alley at the time of development of these parcels. That all subsequent development be subject to review and approval by the Historic Commission. Alston seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve the propo- sal. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -44 SITE REVIEW CITY OF ASHLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANNING ACTION #83 -44 is a request for a Site Review for a proposed 2 -story addition to the rear of the existing fire station at 455 Siskiyou Blvd. The addition will provide sleeping quarters. Compre- hensive Plan designation: Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's map 9AC. Tax lot 15300. APPLICANT: City of Ashland Fire Department STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese presented the Staff Report noting that this Planning Action had been called up from a Type I hearing by the Planning Commission. He reviewed the application and noted on the Site Plan where proposed landscaping would be installed then turning to the north elevation, he noted the proposed changes and outlined the purposes for the second story addition and the treatment of the elevation. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Dan White, representing the Fire Department, spoke on behalf of the application. He explained to the Commission that the second floor would be six inches below the tops of the windows. From this point, the floor joists would drop, thus creating a block of flooring roughly 2/3 up from the bottom of the windows. He said the intention of the Fire Department was to block in the windows with some type of attractive material. He stated further that the lower parts of the windows that were louvered would remain intact. APC, 6/8/83, Page 4 2) Greene asked whether the floor levels could be raised. White stated that they could not, due to the existing height limitation. 3) Alston asked why the applicant would not go to an 8'6" high ceiling to which White replied that this would not satisfy the problem of blocking the windows with the floor. Alston asked about the louvers to which White replied that they would be approximately 18" high. He noted further that the building was not designed as a Fire House originally and that no matter how much redesigning was done, the building would still be a garage. 4) Slattery then asked why the windows would be blocked up along the property line adjacent to Michael's Hamburgers. White responded by stating that this was a Fire Code requirement. 5) Jannusch explained some of the Historic Commission's concerns that the second story windows retain some symmetry with the first story windows and that the stairways be plastered and painted. In addition, he noted the Historic Commission felt the redwood chevrons over the windows would not be in keeping with the rest of the build- ing and suggested blocking the top windows completely with masonry and leaving the louvered bottoms. 6) Historic Commission Chairperson, Deb Barker, stated that the symmetry was the primary concern along that elevation. White stated that the revised plans indicate the necessary revisions. 7) Alston stated that the proposed idea looked terrible. She felt that the architect should provide alternate suggestions for the windows. White then stated that budgetary constraints made it neces- sary to put a low dollar figure on any proposed renovation. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Alston stated that she felt strongly about the necessity to make the building look attractive even though she understood the financial crunch. 2) Greene stated that he did not like the idea of blocking in the windows either. He felt it would be identical to the blocking in of the windows on the downtown City Hall prior to the remodel. 3) Slattery asked Barker whether the Historic Commission had any specific ideas to relate to the applicant. Barker stated that in initial discussion they thought that the applicant should start over with their design. After discussion with the Fire Department, the Historic Commissioners only had the suggestions previously noted and other than that, had no further ideas to express. APC, 6/8/83, Page 5 4) Slattery then asked whether it would be appropriate to hold up the application based on the poor design. Greene did not feel that this was fair to withhold approval any further. Hansen stated that she thought it would be appropriate to recommend approval as long as the Fire Department would work with the Planning Staff. 5) Fregonese stated that he felt the blocking in of the windows with masonry would be more expensive and would essentially prevent the remodel from taking place. He suggested that perhaps shutters would be appropriate to place on the windows. He further stated that the Planning Commission should possibly give them the option of either blocking the windows in with masonry and stucco or go to shutters for the outside of the windows depending on the finances available. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Fire Department could possibly request a transfer of appropriations from the Council for the extra money it would take to block the windows with masonry. 6) After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the application with the condition that the City first choose to block the windows up and stucco them and if the cost were prohibitive to go to shutters. Alston seconded this motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -47 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PUD ED /JOANN HOUGHTON PLANNING ACTION #83 -47 is a request for preliminary approval of a 24 unit PUD located south of 536 Ashland St. The project is to be developed in 4 phases at undetermined intervals. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1 (Single- family Residential). Assessor's map 16AB. Tax lot 2100 STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report and suggested amendments. Rela- tive to condition #1, he felt that it was appropriate to delete this condition. Relative to condition #2, the option should be given the applicant to install the road to these specifications with 20' park- ing bays or to install the road to 28' of width curb -to -curb. Rela- tive to condition #3, the City Planning Director and Public Works Director should decide where the location of the Forest Street stub should be, but that it would not be necessary to have this stub paved. Only that the applicant should sign in favor of future im- provements to it. Relative to condition #4, that sidewalks be pro- vided on one side of Weller Lane upon the development of the lots throughout the entire length of the street. Relative to condition #5, that one additional on- street parking space be provided. Rela- tive to condition #10, that in lieu of four off street parking spaces provided in the flag drives, that two spaces plus a two -car garage or APC, 6/8/83, Page 6 carport be provided. In addition, condition #13 would be to move the path from the east boundary to be located along the street and condi- tion #14 that street trees be provided a minimum of one for every 30' of frontage along Weller Lane. In addition, he read a letter from Mr. Rodney Badger addressing his concerns about the development and noted testimony from Mr. Thomas Keevil. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) John Chmelir, Engineer for the applicant, 666 Thornton Way, stated that the owner would develop lot #24 at the time the water line road was built. At this point, access cannot be achieved from the remainder of the project. In addition, he noted that lots #4,6 and 18 were the only lots under 10,000 sq.ft. and they are approxi- mately 9,000 sq.ft. in size. He said although the adjoining property owners had chosen large lots for their personal use, that the Hough tons are in fact in conformance with the zoning ordinance. The additional access is being provided for fire protection. The path- ways and open space are being proposed as a passive recreation area rather than active. He stated further that the applicants had held a neighborhood meeting and the complaints raised were relative to the stub on Forest Street and the problem with the intersection with Euclid. He agreed that if the owner was given the option of a 28' wide right -of -way, that 40 parking spaces would be provided. To continue, he noted that the proposed alignment with Forest Street would come to within two feet of Mr. Badger's garage and would neces- sitate the removal of a beautiful oak tree. He then showed pictures noting that, in his estimation, the hazard would not be Weller Lane, but actually Euclid. In addition, he noted that he would prefer to have alternatives to curb and gutter installation of the road. In discussing this with the Public Works Director, he would hope to have the Planning Commission's support of an alternative design for the drainage. He recognized further that a realignment of Forest Street would be probably necessary and that Mr. Keevil may agree to relocate Forest Street. He agreed in addition to eliminate the path along the east side and would like to construct the sidewalk as each lot de- veloped. 2) Fregonese noted that street trees would be required on Weller Lane. 3) Owens asked Chmelir why he was opposed to curb and gutter installation for the improvements of Weller Lane. Chmelir stated that admittedly, financial savings would be generated with a lack of full city standards here, however, that an alternate design would help ensure the rural character of the neighborhood. 4) Owens then commented on the open space relative to fire protection and asked whether brush would be removed as a part of the development. Chmelir said that a trail would be constructed to the APC, 6/8/83, Page 7 water line road and that a picnic table would be added again to create a passive recreational area. 5) Stella Demo, 505 Ashland St., stated that she was not opposed to the development, but she did have some concerns. These involved the adequacy of storm sewers and whether or not the public would end up paying for subsequent storm sewer installations. The second concern was relative to water pressure for the area. The third concern related to appropriate fire access for the upper lots. The fourth concern related specifically to the traffic hazard at the Ashland Street /Taylor Street intersection. She stated that there is extremely poor visibility at this location and that there is only a two -way stop and that most cars don't stop and only a few of them slow down. Her primary concerns were with kids going back and forth to school and other pedestrian traffic. She then submitted a written list expressing these concerns. 6) Phil Gates, 604 Taylor Street, expressed his concern about the development, noting that it was his understanding that the cul -de -sac normally cannot go beyond 500' in length and that this would be 800' in length. Fregonese responded that this was the purpose of the Forest Street extension to create a loop instead of a long cul -de- sac. Mr. Gates continued by stating that the traffic hazard along Ashland Street is intense. 7) Mr. Rodney Badger, 610 Ashland St., then stated his concerns. He thanked the Planning Commission for dropping the path idea along the east property line. He noted that this is a lovely setting and felt that fewer units allowed would help alleviate the problems as expres- sed in the Staff Report. He said his primary concern was the exten- sion of Forest Street. When he built his house, the site was chosen carefully for solar access, panoramic view and other amenities. The extension of Forest Street would essentially go through his back deck. He further noted that he would personally chain his body to Pat Wolfe's oak tree if the bulldozers would threaten it. He sug- gested that a possibility would be to extend Forest Street between lots #18 and #19 with the approval of Keevil. He said there was currently a fire break there and also an existing fire hydrant. He concluded by noting that he intends on never moving or developing his property. 8) Mrs. Pat Wolfe, 650 Forest Street, expressed concerns about the extension of Forest Street. Fregonese explained to Mrs. Wolfe the planning procedure relative to a project such as this and that final decision would not be reached at this evening's meeting but only after a final plan was submitted and at this time, it would be the best to provide her input. 9) Chmelir stated that he had been in discussion with the water quality superintendent about the storm sewer on Ashland Street. He stated that ample facilities were available through an inlet at Morton Street and also at the bottom right corner of the project. He APC, 6/8/83, Page 8 further noted that no water pressure problems existed at the site and that this information had come from the City. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery congratulated Chmelir for his thorough job. He asked Fregonese why the recommendation would be to not pay for the sidewalks and have them installed from the onset. Fregonese stated at this point, this was standard practice from the City since individual dwellings would be sited on the lots and that driveway locations are impossible to predict at this stage of the planning process. 2) Alston asked why the easement would be provided for the trail if the adjacent property owners object. Fregonese stated that people walk there anyway. Alston responded by stating that it is currently difficult to get to the ditch. Fregonese felt that a long term solution should be reached rather than a stop gap measure. Alston then stated that the option of installation of the trail would be left to the developers. Fregonese felt that this should be determined by the Planning Commission. 3) Greene questioned how the applicant was going to achieve the bonus points. He also questioned the five flag lots in the develop- ment inasmuch as in his opinion it was a poor way to develop property particularly with the option of Performance Standards. In addition, he felt that those lots without street frontage could not be legally platted. Fregonese responded by stating that those lots without street frontage should be required to have street access but that common driveways could be provided for the series or clusters of houses off of those flag drives. In addition, he noted that some people prefer to live in a rear lot on a development. Greene noted that by allowing a flag drive to be constructed at the south end of the cul -de -sac, that this would essentially lengthen the cul -de -sac to 1,000' in length. 4) Alston stated that she felt that there should be a limit on the number of units allowed on a cul -de -sac. Fregonese stated that code prohibits the development of more than 10 dwellings on a dead -end street, but that the Forest Street stub would eventually create the loop necessary to alleviate this problem. 5) Greene asked Fregonese what he thought of the proposal to stub out Forest Street between lots 18 and 19. Fregonese thought that this may be a good idea, but that further study was necessary before he could make a proper recommendation either way. Greene then stated that fire prevention standards should be provided in openspaces. Fregonese noted that this would be treated as similar projects before, such as Cooper's relative to fire prevention standards pursuant to criteria E of the Physical Constraints standards. APC, 6/8/83, Page 9 6) Dunlop asked for a point of clarification relative to the placement of Forest Street between lots 18 and 19. Fregonese explained, noting that the property owners would be notified at the time a Type I Hearing was held for the review of the development and if property owners objected, could appeal to the Planning Commission. 7) Wolfe then asked whether the Planning Commission could move the dedicated right -of -way around. Fregonese stated that technically, no right -of -way had been procurred for this specific area, but that a road could be placed in an alternate location. 8) Greene suggested that the final plan be reviewed as a Type II Planning Action. The general consensus considered this to be a good idea. 9) Alston stated that she has no water pressure during the mid summer months and she lives within close proximity to this development. Fregonese stated that Alston could be in a different pressure zone. 10) Slattery expressed concern about the Ashland /Taylor St. inter- section, feeling that it may be appropriate to make a recommendation to the Traffic Safety Commission. Fregonese stated that Mrs. Demo would probably have more input by contacting the Traffic Safety Commission directly. 11) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve Planning Action #83 -44 with the amended conditions to include that under item #15 that final approval be subject to a Type II review by the Planning Commission. Slattery seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve the Planning Action. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -48 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE DONNA EDEN Vice Chairman Greene stepped down due to a conflict of interest as an effected property owner and turned the chair over to Chairman pro tem, Tom Owens. APC, 6/8/83, Page 10 STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report. In addition, he read a petition submitted by property owners in the area. 2) Owens asked whether proof of violation would be grounds for revocation at any point and Fregonese replied, yes. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Anand Madhu, 162 Fifth St., spoke on behalf of the application. He stated that he was primarily interested because he wanted to attend classes there. He further noted that there is a shortage of rental halls close to town and that this facility would provide such a place to take classes. He felt that there was ample parking available on the streets to handle the parking problem. He noted further the landscaping improvements that would be created by granting of this proposal and questioned the petition presented by stating that this is not truly a quiet neighborhood as it abuts East Main St. 2) Darrell Bluhm, 106 N. 1st St., Talent, stated that he would be an instructor for Tai Chi and Aikido classes at this facility. His intention would be to strongly regulate the parking. The very nature of the classes he teaches encourages harmonious peaceful interrela- tionships with individuals. The problem created in the past would no longer be in effect by the proposed use. 3) Don Greene, 375 Normal, stated that he owns property across Seventh Street and that he sympathizes with the applicant's proposal. However, he noted that his tenants have been complaining about the parking problem from traffic generated out of the building. He noted further that most of the lots in the area are small and that little on -site parking is available in most places and that by granting of this Variance, may be impacting the area even further. He stated further that the hours of operation, specifically evenings and weekends are not acceptable to him. 4) Owens concurred with Greene's statements noting that night operations including dance and martial arts may generate quite a bit of noise particularly during the summer months when the warmer weather would motivate the applicants to open the windows. 5) Donna Eden, 777 East Main, spoke on behalf of her application. She stated that it is important to her that noise be kept to a minimum because this is her place of residence. She further noted that her proposed curriculum would not include dance or music. 6) Owens asked her to specify what types of classes would be oper- ating in the facility. Eden stated that she is a teacher of methods for pain control, further she noted that a majority of her students are over 50 years of age. In addition, other classes would be APC, 6/8/83, Page 11 available in the facility. The primary idea would be to provide more control over the operation of classes than in the past. 7) Bluhm stated that his classes would be primarily done in the morning hours involving meditation with quiet stretching and movements. He stated that the very nature of Tai Chi is silent exercise. He reiterated his philosophy of desiring to maintain harmony in his teachings and in his operation of his classes. 8) Leah Stringer, 155 Seventh St., stated that, in fact, there were 20 or 21 signatures on the petition signed by those neighbors who were in opposition to the proposal. All of those signatures were by landowners except for two of the individuals. Her primary concern was fear of what additional activities would be generated in the future. Relative to the parking problem, she wondered who would be policing the parking requirements established by staff. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Owens stated that he had some problems with the limitation placed on the amount of vehicles allowed at the site as enforcing this requirement would be difficult. Fregonese stated that the intent of the staff's recommendation was to set a standard for operation where the conditions would be followed in good faith. He noted further that if the operators of the facility slipped up just once, the permit would be subject to revocation. He stated further that meth- ods could be incorporated including surveillance of the property to verify the violation when a complaint is received. The other safe- guard is giving them a year for good behavior at which time the Planning Commission could once again review the operation to see whether the conditions have been met. 2) Owens reiterated his concerns about evening operation and felt that it would be a mistake not to stipulate at this time a curfew for the operation of classes. Hansen asked whether classes would be given on a year round basis to which the applicant replied, yes. 3) Fregonese read the discretionary powers of the Planning Commis- sion in granting a Conditional Use Permit from the Ordinance. The times of operation could, in fact, be stipulated as a condition of approval at this time. 4) Owens stated that a letter from Safeway granting the use of the five parking stalls should not be considered a binding agreement since Safeway could revoke this license at any time. 5) Slattery stated that he was familiar with the martial arts that Bluhm had noted he would be instructing and he felt that considerable noise could be generated from the instruction and practicing of some of these classes. He then asked Mrs. Stringer when she had heard the APC, 6/8/83, Page 12 loud noise from the building. Mrs. Stringer stated that she had not mentioned anything about the noise. Slattery then recognized that the noise question had been raised in the letter from Delma Black. Stringer then stated that there had been some weekends when Saturdays found classes operating from 9:00 a.m. to the remainder of the day with cars parked all up and down Seventh Street, particularly in front of her's and her neighbor's yards. Slattery remarked again that he felt the primary problem with the granting of this request would be with the parking problem. 6) Owens pointed out to Slattery that the granting of approval of this request with the staff's recommendation would mean that the parking problem would be alleviated. 7) Ann Baker asked the applicant that if her intentions were to move away for the summer, who would be controlling the operation of the facility. Eden stated that initially the plans were to have Bluhm be responsible for the supervision of the classes. She then stated that her plans had changed and she is intending on staying at the site this summer. Bluhm then stated that it has been impossible to find another facility for the conducting of these classes without having to charge large tuition fees to underwrite the rental of halls. 8) Owens asked the applicant to specify which classes would be in operation and who would be instructing the classes. Eden stated that she would be teaching one class from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday nights. Bluhm then stated that his Tai Chi and Aikido classes would be taught primarily in the evenings til 9:00 p.m. He further stated that he is a massage therapist and after receiving accreditation in Oregon, he would begin teaching classes in October. 9) Hansen asked Greene whether he observed any problems with the classes or the vehicle noise from his property across Seventh Street. Greene responded by stating that he does not live at this location, but that his tenants had complained to him about the parking situation. Hansen suggested that there is considerable noise generated between classes by vehicles coming and going and that this is a consideration that the Commission should not ignore. 10) Eden stated that particularly during the summer months, it is difficult to get classes operating much before 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. in that students typically do not attend classes offerred at an earlier hour. Bluhm stated that he would be receptive to time constraints being applied to the conditions of approval with the request that consideration be given to some flexibility for the summer hours. 11) Hansen asked Fregonese whether the renewal request could be established on a six month basis rather than on a twelve month basis. Fregonese noted that this would be proper. 12) When Eden asked whether additional fees would be assessed for the renewal, Fregonese stated that none would be necessary for the APC, 6/8/83, Page 13 six month review. 13) Alston then asked whether the applicants would be willing to provide stickers for the vehicles so students could identify which cars were theirs. The applicants stated that they would be amenable to this. 14) Owens stated that a curfew would be desirable giving the hours of 9:30 p.m. during the summertime and 9:00 p.m. during the wintertime. He continued by stating that he was not completely satisfied with the staff recommendations relative to the parking requirements but he would be willing to accept them. He stated that he felt it was necessary to stipulate that no music or loud noises be permitted beyond the boundaries of the property. 15) After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the application with amended conditions that renewal be reviewed within a six month period and that the noise standards specified by Owens by applied to the operation of the facility. Specifically that no loud music or loud noises be permitted beyond the boundary of the property. Alston seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve the Planning Action. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS 1) PA #83 -49, Minor Land Partition at the Southwest corner of Otis Willow Streets. Hal Munson, applicant. As the Commission saw no need to call this action up, it was approved. STAFF BUSINESS 1) Fregonese explained what the proposed agenda would be for the Study Session to be held on June 22, 1983. He then updated for the Commission the status of the Comprehensive Plan compliance and the latest suggestions by the LCDC to move those lands within the City limits designated as Woodland Residential outside the Urban Growth Boundary as had been originally suggested by the Planning Staff months before. 2) Fregonese then read a proposed text for the Quarry Ordinance and the Satellite Antenna Ordinance. He noted as well that the proposal is to require a Conditional Use Permit within the SO Zone for any structure over 35' in height. 3) Fregonese suggested that the two gentlemen left in the audience should have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the satellite antenna installers to receive some input at this point. 4) Bud Perry operates an antenna installation service out of 1757 Highway 66. He stated that he felt the Ordinance would be detrimental to the industry. He stated that he desired to have some APC, 6/8/83, Page 14 input in the development of this ordinance. He further stated that in some communities, they were installing satellite systems in lieu of traditional cable systems in addition, he noted that a 3' dish simply does not work in the City of Ashland. He then asked for an explanation of the nonconforming use division proposed for the new ordinance. Fregonese explained. 5) Perry then questioned how this would affect the telephone company installation of dishes. Fregonese replied that a Conditional Use Permit would be required of them as well as they were a public utility. All dishes would be viewed identically by the proposed ordinance. 6) Richard Hake, 1100 Clay St., stated that he did not understand the provision prohibiting the construction of dishes that would be visible from a public right -of -way. Fregonese explained this. Hake went on to explain that larger communities such as Los Angeles have allowed the construction of dishes right in the middle of their large building complexes. He felt that such an ordinance in Ashland would be absurd. 7) Fregonese responded by stating that similar ordinances had been adopted by other cities in the state and he continued by stating that Los Angeles is rarely used in Ashland as a model for land use planning. He explained that some individuals have found the installation of these dishes offensive. 8) Hake then concurrred with Perry in stating that 3' dishes simply do not work here. 9) Greene stated to both individuals that these concerns should be addressed at the Study Session to be held on June 22, and at this time any input would be premature. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 6/8/83, Page 15 PH hre YES Owens Alston Hansen Slattery Greene Dunlop TOT PH YES NO Slattery Alston Hansen Warr gaivicomip Dunlop Owens Greene TOT PH YES NO Dunlop Slattery Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Al ston Greene Owens TOT PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD NO PHY3 1 YES N6 PH /3,4 ES NO Greene Owens Slattery Jitagerri— Hansen Al ston_ Dunlop .TOT PH YES Owens Greene Dunlop ikeitstrn Warr Hansen Slattery Alston TOT PH YES NO Owens Greene Slattery Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Alston Dunlop TOT Dunlop Greene Owens Slattery Alston Hansen U TOT NO PH YES 31 attery Greene Owens Dunlop Alston Hansen Warr TOT Pugh Alston Greene Owens Dunlop Slattery Hansen Warr Benson TOT PH i 3 �ES NO Hansen Alston Dunlop Owens Greene Warr Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Dunlop TOT Slattery c/ TOT Benson Warr Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh TOT v NO PH YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO