Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-27 Planning MINCALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Chairman Lance Pugh. In attendance were Commissioners Tom Owens, Ethel Hansen, Neil Ben- son, Mike Slattery, Don Greene and Betty Lou Dunlop. Also in at- tendance were the Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE TEXT CHANGES, EXPANSION OF QUARRIES WITHIN CITY LIMITS 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report explaining that the proposed Ordinance will allow the continuation of mining of the open area of the quarry, but expansion of the quarry face would require a Condi- tional Use Permit. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 1983 1) Since there was no comment pro or con, the public hearing was closed. 1) Owens stated that he read the proposed Ordinance to mean that taking virtually anything out of the quarry would require a Condi- tional Use Permit, thus prohibiting continued use of any quarries within the City limits. 2) Fregonese replied that this was not the intent of the proposed Ordinance, that the mining of previously disturbed topsoil only would be allowed. He then illustrated the workings of the Ordinance on the blackboard, noting that the Ordinance would require a Conditional Use Permit for any excavation beyond the existing quarry face. 3) Benson suggested to Owens that it may be appropriate to define the term "quarry face Owens then stated that Fregonese's explana- tion had helped him to better understand it, however, a definition would be appropriate for future Staffs, Commissions and applicants. 4) Fregonese then stated that the Ordinance proposal could be ap- APC Minutes, 7/22/83, Page 1 proved by the Commission at this time on the condition that Staff be directed to define "quarry face" either by the State statutes or through Webster's dictionary. 5) Greene stated that this would only affect two quarries within the City limits. Fregonese then replied that the City would be respon- sible for securing a Conditional Use permit just as a private indivi- dual would for any expansion of the existing City quarry. 6) Slattery then suggested that a quarry would become inactive after 10 years if it were not expanded. Fregonese stated that these guide- lines would establish the limit for the cutting of these quarries and to undercut the base of the quarry would be dangerous. 7) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the proposed Ordinance with the direction to Staff to provide an appropriate definition for "quarry face Benson seconded the proposal and the vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING REVISION OF SOUTHERN OREGON ZONE REQUIRING THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION OVER 40' IN HEIGHT BE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report, noting that in Commercial zones heights are limited to 40' above grade, while in the Downtown Overlay District, a structure may be 40' to 55' only with a Conditional Use Permit. The intent of this amendment would be to bring the SO zone into conformance with the remainder of the City. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Since no public testimony was given, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) After discussion, Greene moved to approve the proposed amendment to the Ordinance with Owens seconding it. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW OF THE SOUTHWEST ASHLAND REZONE 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report, noting the changes on the map. APC Minutes, 7/22/83, Page 2 He also expressed the concern stated by Commissioner Alston, who was absent, about the connection of the proposed collector road via Lisa Lane to Liberty St. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Gary Prickett, 2300 Morada Lane, asked for clarification of the Staff's proposal relative to Lisa Lane acting as a ventilating street. He noted that as an affected property owner he had not been notified about the proposed changes. Fregonese stated that relative to Prickett's property, no changes had been proposed beyond those previously reviewed in the Study Session held previously. 2) Ed Hungerford, 535 Terrace, requested a clarification as to the intent and purpose of the proposed half -acre zoning. Fregonese explained that as a result of the City Council public hearing, the Council had remanded the proposed Area #1 back to the Planning Com- mission since they felt that quarter acre Lots were not appro- priate for this section of the City. 3) Hungerford then asked about the development above Liberty and Long Way. Fregonese stated that the timing for this development is up to the property owners, however, the Planning Commission had approved a 39 unit PUD at the last public hearing, using the existing zoning. The present proposal based on half -acre zoning would be changing this. He stated further that the quarter -acre zoning proposed initially would have allowed for 180 total units in this area, cutting it back to half -acre zoning would reduce this by half to 90 potential units. 4) Hungerford then asked about the access via Terrace St. Fregonese responded by noting that this had been covered previously in the Planning Commission workshop. This access was needed for future fire protection and it had, in fact, been on the master road plan adopted by the City in 1966. The actual engineering for the connection with Terrace would be addressed at the time the areas were developed. 5) Thomas Keevil, 600 Ashland Street, stated that inasmuch as he had been on sabbatical, this was the first public hearing he had been able to attend. He addressed the proposed collector route on the Comprehensive Plan and felt that this was a logical location for placement of such a road. He felt that utilizing Lisa Lane may prove to be difficult in terms of access, but his primary concern dealt with his conception that he, at some point, would be assessed for improvements to a road which would serve no useful purpose to him. The proposed plan would, in fact, involve two future streets crossing on his property and the benefits to be gained by him would not be outweighed by the costs incurred for these improvements. APC Minutes, 7/22/83, Page 3 6) Fregonese clarified this matter for Keevil. He explained the Performance Standards to him, informing him that according to this option, lots would not necessarily have to be split into half -acre parcels. The only time that the right -of -way would be improved in this area would be when he developed or if the City were to condemn it which is a rarity and should the City condemn this property, he would be compensated for it. The decision to develop would be up to him. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene commented that his concerns still revolved around main- taining the Water Line Road as a collector road through this proposed development and beyond. Benson agreed. 2) Benson then asked Fregonese for the density proposed in this total of Area #1 revamp would be the same as the existing. Fregonese responded that the actual density would be less as portions would be downzoned to Woodland Residential. 3) Benson then asked the status of the hearings with LCDC. Frego- nese responded by stating that though this was not related specifi- cally to this hearing, he had planned on covering this later in the Staff business. 4) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the exhibited zoning with Hansen seconding the motion. The vote was unanimous to approve. STAFF BUSINESS 1) Fregonese then explained the status of the City's dealings with the LCDC. He stated that the original hearing date to review our Comprehensive Planhad been July 15, 1983. Since there were some disagreements between the City Staff and the staff of LCDC, Ashland's plan was pulled from the agenda. He said that the problems involved a couple of things, primarily some minor bookkeeping and a situation which is actually no one's fault but provided some interesting read- ing. The major problem involved the ultimate LCDC suggestion that those areas, three of which are Single Family Reserve the fourth of which is Woodland Residential, are not justified as a part of the plan. LCDC's contention was that if land is in the City limits, it cannot be placed outside the Urban Growth Boundary because since it is within the City limits, it is automatically, by definition, urban land. A similar case arose with the City of Wilsonville, involving agricultural land. LCDC was going to deny the Comprehensive Plan for Wilsonville based on no justification for the agricultural land it has within its incorporated area. 1,000 Friends of Oregon went to the aid of the City of Wilsonville and in the Supreme Court case, the APC Minutes, 7/22/83, Page 4 1,000 Friends won. Basically, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court was that any lands within the corporate limits have to be justified as to urbanizable land. A similar case arose with forest land in Astoria. He then continued by stating the problem related to the Woodland Residential property in the southwest section of Ash- land. Just on the other side of the City limits, the parcels are classified Class 5 forestry land and the County zoning is 160 acre. 2) To summarize the existing status of negotiations with LCDC, Fregonese noted that LCDC agrees with maintaining the Wrights Creek area as Single- Family Reserve, and the area adjacent to Crowson Road is acceptable. Thirdly, the area adjacent to North Mountain Street would be appropriate with some revisions proposed to the text. LCDC would be willing to give us what they termed "segmented compliance" with their policies and guidelines and give us a 150 day time period to develop a proposal for exclusion of alI the Woodland Residential properties outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff's belief is that it would be appropriate to retain all parcels under 20 acres in size within the City limits and manage the remainder of these proper- ties in Woodland Residential as Woodland Resource and exclude these 20 acre parcels and Larger from the Urban Growth Boundary. 3) There were some ordinance changes requested by LCDC, specifically relating to Manufactured Housing and the Performance Standards. Clauses included in these two ordinances were deemed discretionary by LCDC relating specifically to Chapter 18.84.010 "...and to conserve and stabilize the value of property and in general to promote the public health, safety and general welfare A similar clause exists in the Performance Standards option under 18.88.010. Their concerns were that the City could deny development based upon ambiguous word- ing in these two sections. In addition, they had asked that as a portion of the Performance Standards under approval of the outline plan, that language adopted by the Tualatin, Oregon Comprehensive Plan be included. Fregonese continued by stating that he agrees that these changes should be made and proposed that a public hearing be set up for September 1983. We would have to change the wording in the ordinance to read that this is a low priority area of development and not a non developable area. He proposed then that a Work Session be set in August to establish the Urban Growth Boundary and to send the Area #1 rezone to the Council concurrently so the Urban Growth Boun- dary and the rezone could be taken care of at one time. 4) Greene asked whether the public hearings on the Urban Growth Boundary would mean that the southwest rezone would be reopened. Fregonese stated that it would only include establishment of the new Urban Growth Boundary and rezoning would not be considered. 5) Hansen stated her concerns about the area excluded from the Urban Growth Boundary and the Woodland Residential, wondering whether pro- perty owners could develop here at all. She asked whether these properties could be approved with wells and septic tanks. Fregonese APC Minutes, 7/22/83, Page 5 stated he doubted septic tanks would be allowed by County Standards in this area, however, if the County were to approve this, wells and septic tanks would be permitted. He stated, however, that City services could be made available to these areas should the property owners wish this. He then stated that some logging may occur and would reduce the fire danger. 6) The Planning Commission concurred that this was a good plan for scheduling of Study Sessions and public hearings and instructed Staff to continue in scheduling these meetings. ADJOURNMENT 1) After further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. APC Minutes, 7/22/83, Page 6 John Fregonese, Executive Secretary �PH Y' ESS' NO O w ns v Hansen Benson Pugh t/ Slattery l/ Greene Dunlop TOT /2— PH YES NO Slattery Alston Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Dunlop Owens Greene TOT Dunlop Sl attery Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Alston Greene Owens TOT PH YES NO PH PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD PH 5D YES NO PH ES NO Greene Owens Slattery Pugh 1/ Benson Hansen Dunlop TOT PH YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Owens Pugh Greene Slattery Dunlop Greene Pugh Owens Berson Dunlop Warr Alston Hansen Hansen Slattery Benson Alston Warr TOT TOT TOT Owens Greene Sl attery Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Alston Dunlop TOT Pugh Dunlop Greene Owens Slattery Hansen Benson TOT 9 YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Pugh Alston Greene Owens Dunlop Slattery Hansen Warr Benson TOT 2' 8 PH YES -NO Benson Hansen Dunlop Owens Greene Slattery Pugh TOT Benson Warr Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Pugh Dunlop Benson Warr Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh TOT