Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

MAY 11, 2004

Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on May 11, 2004 in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.

000 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Kerry KenCairn*
John Fields
Marilyn Briggs
Allen Douma
Olena Black
ABSENT MEMBERS: Dave Dotterrer
COUNCIL LIAISON: Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.)
STAFF PRESENT: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner/Housing Specialist
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary

* KenCairn left the meeting after the first public hearing.

Chapman introduced the new Commissioners, Allen Douma and Olena Black.

The next drop-in Planning Commissioner's "Chat" will be held from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services building on May 25, 2004. Members of the public are welcome to attend to talk about general land uses issues.

The Planning Commission will hold a Study Session at 7:00 p.m. on May 25, 2004 at the Council Chambers. The topic will be re-forming the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee.

Morris/KenCairn m/s to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2004 Regular Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed.

There were no Findings reviewed for adoption.

Lynn Constantino, 892 Harmony Lane, expressed his concern regarding illegal accessory units. He would like to require property owners to live on-site. He has seen garages converted to living spaces and automobiles end up parking on the street. The converted garage units oftentimes end up close to property lines. These units are beginning to change the character of the neighborhood. Should there be guidelines limiting the number of rentals in a neighborhood?

McLaughlin said the Housing Commission is looking at making accessory residential units easier to approve. This might be a good topic to revisit.


A.       PLANNING ACTION 2004-030

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
New members, Douma and Black did not participate in this hearing.
Briggs was not present last month but she listened to the tapes and read the materials in the packet, therefore will participate at tonight's meeting.

Chapman noted the hearing would be restricted to the tree issues, private property connection and right-of-way for a subdivision, public utility easements as it connects to the right-of-way, and liability and maintenance issues for the part that remains in private ownership.

Molnar reviewed the application. The application is to divide the property into four lots, three within the city limits. The fourth lot would retain the existing residence in Jackson County.

The application was continued because there are numerous oak and pine trees on the land and not all the trees were shown on the application. The applicant provided the additional information showing where the trees are located.

Additional findings have been provided by the applicant addressing some of the issues from last month regarding the ability to provide utilities to the property and the ability to serve a subdivision that is landlocked. The property doesn't touch city right-of-way. It is currently accessed by a 30 foot wide ingress/egress easement that was originally provided for three parcels. The easement documentation includes an allowance ingress/egress to the property, extension of utilities through the easement, it requires all benefited properties to assist in maintenance of the easement area, and also identifies that the easement rights would go onto any further divisions of these properties.

The Staff Report notes there are a total of 89 trees inventoried in the Tree Protection Plan. Twenty-one trees are earmarked for removal. Five to six trees will need to be removed in order to construct the roadway to City standards, 22 feet, curb and gutter on both sides and a sidewalk along the side under control of the applicant. Fifteen trees are in the proposed building envelope locations.

There was an e-mail in the record from Thomas Heumann. His property fronts on Orchard and he had gotten permission from the current owner to plant some sequoia trees for screening. He expressed his concern about the impact on the trees due to expanding the road. Staff's review has indicated there are some options for extending utilities to the property. Staff has provided a Condition 5 that discusses the final utility plan be coordinated with the Tree Protection Plan to choose the most non-intrusive route through critical root areas.

Last month the question was raised: Is there a procedural issue in approving a subdivision that is landlocked? The City's Legal Department made an interpretation that unless our Land Use Ordinance clearly states that one cannot apply for a Variance to the provision (in the subdivision code), requesting a Variance is legal. The applicant is requesting serving four lots instead of the three with a private drive. therefore, a Variance is required to increase the number of lots served beyond those already deriving access. The applicants are willing to construct the access facility to a street standard that would normally be required if ten to 30 home sites were served. They are willing to dedicate right-of-way all the way to the southern point of the property, if at a later date the road should be extended. The public improvement (asphalt, curb, gutter and sidewalk) would terminate at Parcel 3. The road could be extended at a later date.

Molnar noted there is additional correspondence in the record from Alvin Turiel, Planning Manager, Jackson County, stating the parcel was legally created but it doesn't conform to the minimum lot size for the county zoning district. The City's position (as in similar applications) is the area under the City's jurisdiction (3.4 acres) is not changing. It makes sense to review it under City ordinances. The portion in the County, (3.5 acres) will stay as it is. Turiel wanted the City to make it clear in the record that the applicant is aware that by making the home on the site more non-conforming in the eyes of the County ordinance that it could place some restrictions on the residual parcel for further improvements to that property. Staff reviewed it with the City's Legal Department. They felt our ordinance is silent to this issue and the City applies approval standards to what is in the city limits. Staff has recommended strongly to the applicant that if the application is granted approval at this meeting, before they go to Final Plan approval, they should have another conversation with the County. The City's Legal Department also recommended the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) address not only the Tree Protection Plan and maintenance of the section of roadway outside the right-of-way, but the CC&R's raise a flag to the residual remaining parcel. A check with the County would need to be done before any further improvements are made because there could be restrictions based upon subdividing of the property in the City.

Staff felt the justification for the Variance and the criteria for a Physical Constraints Permit and Outline Plan have been met. There are 15 attached Conditions. Molnar suggested a Condition 16 that the three properties would sign in favor of agreeing to participate in the event a Local Improvement District (LID) is formed for the final extension of the road. The Tree Commission passed along a revised recommendation suggesting wording in the CC&R's regarding the trees (included in the record).

Briggs noted the stop signs and street lights were mentioned during last month's meeting. Molnar said Engineering will evaluate at the time of final design, the necessity of installing a stop sign at that intersection.

Chapman wondered how the easements from a private to a public street will be worked out. Molnar said they couldn't grant a pubic easement across a private easement. Public Works discussed a number of ways that have been done before, but they are waiting for Final Plan to take into consideration tree location to find the best option to use.

EVAN ARCHERD, P. O. Box 699, Ashland, OR, introduced JOHN GALBRAITH, Landscape Designer. He addressed the issues from last month's meeting:

Utilities: In the very corner of the property is a junction box and conduit - everything they need. They can come off the junction box and put a transformer somewhere next to the road, so electrical service won't be an issue. There are a couple of ways to bring water to the site. They can connect to the existing sanitary sewer easement.

Trees: They tried not to remove any more trees and not encroach onto the neighbor's common lot line. The smallest trees are those they have chosen for removal.

ROBERT DINKEL, 605 Orchard Street, questioned Page 8, Condition 14 of the Staff Report (dated May 11, 2004). Molnar said they wanted a one foot wide street plug at the southern terminus of the property for the eventual extension of the roadway. A one-foot street plug is a one foot wide strip of land by the width of the right-of-way, owned in fee by the City in order for the City to have control for the orderly extension of that street. Molnar said the Condition should read: "That a one-foot street plug be provided on at the southern terminus of the property." Delete the remainder of the Condition.

Dinkel said he did not see where traffic was addressed. He is concerned about slowing down traffic.

Staff Response
Molnar said traffic issues are usually addressed through the Street Standards and the Traffic Safety Commission. He said there is some grade as the street starts turning to a 13 percent downhill grade. The City's narrowest street standard of 22 feet should serve to slow cars down.

Archerd has spoken with the County and he felt they could come to a resolution. Also, he would like to see a stop sign at the intersection.

Chapman restated the amendment to Condition 14. It should read "That a one-foot wide street plug be provided on the southern terminus of the new public street." Condition 16, "That the homeowners agree to participate in a LID for a future street connection."

Briggs asked Molnar to reorder all the Conditions so everything pertaining to trees is together and everything about the creek is together. Molnar said he would do that for the Findings document.

KenCairn/Fields m/s to approve PA2004-030 with the attached Conditions and modification of Condition 14 and the addition of Condition 16.

There was no further discussion.

Roll Call Vote: Morris, KenCairn, Chapman, Fields and Briggs, YES. Motion passed.

KenCairn left the meeting.

B.       PLANNING ACTION 2004-031

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All Commissioners had a site visit.

Goldman gave a brief history of the property as outlined in the Staff Report dated May 11, 2004. In January of 2004, the City Council recommended that Staff proceed with a three-lot partition. The City filed an application on February 6, 2004 and after notice was mailed to surrounding property owners, it was called up for a public hearing. A Tree Protection Plan has been provided. The property is zoned RR-.5. Three parcels are proposed, each exceeding one-half acre in size. Lot 1 is sizable enough to be partitioned at a future date into two separate lots, one with a flag lot accessed off Westwood Street. Each lot complies with the minimum lot size. The lot width and depth dimensions (100 feet in width and 150 feet deep) are met. The partition and subsequent development of properties won't impede access to adjoining properties. All public facilities are available to the site. The City has recommended a Condition of approval recommended by the Fire Department that would require installation of interior sprinkler systems in each of the properties.

Goldman compared the lots proposed for partition with the surrounding lots. Most range in the half-acre minimum lot size, although there was dedicated common open space for the subdivisions. There is some City public open space in the vicinity.

Goldman mentioned tree preservation. There are three trees on the site that are over six inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). He is suggesting a modification to Condition 4 so the trees on both Lots 2 and 3 shall be protected consistent with the Tree Protection Plan.

It was the Housing Commission's original request that the City Council consider selling the parcel as surplus property. The City Council, as an applicant, directed Staff to divide the property, as presented, and has committed to using the proceeds from this sale to establish a housing trust fund. Staff has concluded the application meets all applicable criteria for a Land Partition. Only three lots are proposed. Given the future development potential of Lot 1, Staff wanted to show that could be subdivided at a future date with a flag partition. There are eight attached Conditions.

Douma noted there was some confusion in the lot numbers. Goldman clarified the largest lot is Lot 1.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, Director of Community Development, City of Ashland, is representing the City Council as the applicant. McLaughlin said for several years the Strawberry Lane area was under moratorium due to inadequate water pressure to serve the upper areas of Ashland. In 1986, the City purchased the block of land and partitioned it into three lots. Through a trade, the City was able to use a portion of land in the Strawberry area to construct a new reservoir. The City has always maintained the proposed property in separate ownership (not dedicated as parks) as something to utilize in the future for perhaps another trade for land or for some other purpose of public benefit. McLaughlin said that over the years, the area was been taken off the moratorium, the streets have been improved, and services provided.

The Council, at the request of the Housing Commission found it would be appropriate to sell this as surplus property but use the proceeds for a housing trust fund. The Council is looking at maximizing their return on this property. The Council discussed this item at its meeting of April 20, 2004. McLaughlin included a memo in the packet addressing the Council's concerns. While the Council is sympathetic to the neighborhood, they feel it is in the public's interest to continue on with ultimately a four-lot subdivision.

McLaughlin explained the ways in which the City has been a participant in the development of this area. The lot sizes they are proposing are similar to those of the surrounding area and not out of character in size or style with the slope that is proposed. While the City is ultimately doing a subdivision, they have also dedicated substantial amounts of open space for the neighborhood, along with providing trail access. The City owns a parcel above that provided the public facilities that allowed for development of the area. In addition, the City has put in over $450,000 in public funds to allow for street improvements. Here is an opportunity to partition and sell a piece of property for a genuine public good and one identified in the Housing Action Plan endorsed by the City. The overall public benefit of the four lots will provide an additional $300,000 per lot that can be used directly for affordable housing.

It is McLaughlin's belief that all ordinance requirements have been met. It is an appropriate pattern of development for the neighborhood. The Council and the Housing Commission is looking at surplus property. The City looked at rezoning, found it inappropriate and rather than trying to build affordable housing at this location, they felt they should sell it and use the proceeds to leverage opportunities for affordable housing elsewhere.

Douma asked had an average citizen owned this property, and if there was not all the common good occurring as a result, does the application meet all the ordinances anyway? McLaughlin's opinion is yes. If a private party tried to partition the lot, it would be held to the same City standards and ordinances.

Briggs wondered if the neighbors want to hold the City to a higher standard and why has the City chosen not to ask for four lots now? McLaughlin said that would be a subdivision and a subdivision under the City's Performance Standards sets an allowable density for the one-half acre zone at 1.2 units per acre. It is assuming when doing a subdivision, the parcel would be larger and building a public street and dedicating open space for a larger number of lots. Under that approach, the City could not apply for a four-lot subdivision on this property. Because the property is relatively flat, there are no significant natural features; there is no need to build additional streets because we dedicated right-of-way when we did the partitions previously. The partition seemed to be the appropriate way to achieve allowable densities and meet an overall public benefit.

Chapman read an e-mail from Debra Kutcher.

ALEX KNECHT, 959 Drew Lane, stated he is an adjacent property owner and is not opposed to the development. His development group paid for a large section of road development. The City is not required to show building envelopes, landscaping, access, pedestrian access, trees, etc., all the things his group was required to provide. He thought they should have a conceptual plan for the four lots. He agreed they met the criteria for approval, but there should be some continuity to the 21 lot subdivision there now.

MEG BROWN OLSON, 385 Strawberry Lane, said their development group had to develop with one unit per acre. It is a little galling to have the City come in and they get four lots. Her land is too steep to go more than one unit per acre. Since the City is doing a subdivision in a roundabout way, it would be nice if they had to conform to the type of neighborhood they set up.

KIRK MCALLISTER, 395 Strawberry Lane, agreed with the City's intent to build on this land. He is not so sure the City can get more value from three lots rather than four. By increasing the density, the other lots around could be reduced in value. Aesthetically, maybe two-third acre parcels would be more pleasing.

PAUL HWOSCHINSKY, 443 Strawberry Lane, objects to the half-acre parcels. For the properties within the Strawberry Meadows subdivision, a building site may be a half-acre but it is bordered by private open space. Having a creek between you and the next neighbor is a very different quality from having a half-acre with a six foot fence around the other half-acre. The City doesn't own the property; they are holding it in trust for the community. It is for a good cause.

Hwoschinsky said they spent ten to twelve years creating an ambience and that ambience is being changed. They created value and the City created tremendous value. The development group took that risk. That has to be honored. He understood originally the City was going to ask for three lots, not four. There is no integrity in the process.

Hwoschinsky wanted some kind of CC&R's. They have 60 pages of CC&R's that the City could fold into.

KEN BARNES, 274 Village Park Drive, owns the property contiguous to Lot 1. He is asking the City to take the same care that was required and taken by the surrounding area so it could be seen as part of the larger development. He is concerned about how the property is currently being cared for. There has been a fair amount of dirt dumped on the property from road construction. It has left a four or five foot unnatural grade. Whoever builds on this lot, will be four or five feet higher. There are drainage issues on the parcel.

CATHERINE DIMINO, 2682 Takelma Way, asked the partition be considered part of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision and that they come under the same requirements that have been imposed by the CC&R's for a subdivision. They are concerned about the rural character of the whole neighborhood. She wanted the same design review standards for the neighborhood.

Staff Response
Goldman noted that in evaluating subdivisions, the City requires CC&R's only as they relate to the maintenance of common areas. There is no common area proposed in this application and the City did not see CC&R's were needed.

Building envelopes are not being required. Envelopes are required to delineate where the potential home sites will be in order to stay out of sensitive areas. The property is ten percent slope and Staff did not see a need to establish building envelopes other than the base setbacks that apply.

Goldman stated there is a Condition of approval in the Staff Report stating that one tree per 30 feet of street frontage be provided both on Strawberry Lane and Westwood.

Molnar said that while there is not a building envelope required to be identified, it doesn't mean someone could cover the entire lot. It is still bound by the ordinance.

McLaughlin said the Council considered the CC&R's but felt they did not want to create such a document for such a small development. There is not a requirement to provide CC&R's. The City has had extensive involvement as a property owner over the years. We have a trail system that is developed in the area and is all part of a maintenance agreement established with the Parks Commission. The Parks Commission could easily consider a park on the ten acre parcel. He will check with Public Works regarding the fill on the site and have it removed, if necessary.

The Council considered lot value and size and they felt it was in the best interest of the community to achieve four parcels. The Council will make the determination on how the lots will be marketed or sold.

Black thought as an applicant, the City to insure the quality of the homes, should consider CC&R's. McLaughlin said he could recommend to the Council that they require CC&R's. Briggs said there is a wide variety of building types existing there now.

Briggs suggested the larger lot might sell for twice the money if left as one lot. McLaughlin said he would take that suggestion to the Council.

Briggs wondered if the larger northern lot was ever turned into a flag lot, why wouldn't the flag be the easement? McLaughlin said that might be considered.

Chapman verified the modification of Condition 4 as stated above.

Fields felt there is no doubt the City has met the requirements for a partition like any other applicant. Additionally, he stated he thought there is more value in an independent lot not being part of the CC&R's and everything involved in a homeowner's association. Any other developer can take advantage of partitioning if they have a parcel such as the City's. The sheer value of the lots will insure high quality homes will be built there. CC&R's won't really protect people. Civic pressure is enough to keep people in line.

Fields/Briggs m/s to approve PA2004-031 with the attached Conditions and modification to Condition 4.

Douma said the critical issue is that the citizens that came to testify have their perspective of what is happening. There is a perception the City doesn't have to jump through the same hoops they had to. Regardless of how the vote goes, we need to communicate to people that the City doesn't have a higher power. The amount of money the City makes is not the issue. It appears to follow the criteria. At the same time, we need to go out of our way to make sure that we understand there is this kind of a weird thing between partitioning and subdivisions and part of it makes sense and to some, part of it doesn't make sense.

Morris had concerns that this would create a precedent on how this could develop. It appears to fit the criteria of the partition and he cannot see a reason to deny it.

Black is uncomfortable that someone can buy that lot and develop it. What is the minimum someone can do? It seems the City is not protecting the investment of the neighborhood.

Chapman doesn't see anything in the criteria that would allow him to vote against the application. He would agree with Fields and Douma.

Roll Call Vote: Morris, Douma, Chapman, Briggs and Fields voted YES. Black voted NO.

Douma wanted to make sure we communicated the nuances and complexities of this, particularly to those who testified, but in general because he would presume it will happen again. McLaughlin added that he would take forward the Planning Commissioners' concerns to the City Council.

VI.      OTHER
A.       Ordinance Interpretation regarding the use of private residential garages in the E-1 zones Employment with the Residential Overlay E-1.

Harris said it is unusual for the Planning Commission to look at an interpretation. A potential applicant requested it. Staff believed the issue was important and has broader implications for areas of Ashland that allow mixed use development. Staff felt they had an obligation to seek a recommendation from the Planning Commission to ultimately take to the Council for their interpretation.

As a word of caution, though some information has been provided in terms of the history of the interpretation request, it is likely an application on this property will come before the Planning Commission in the future for a decision, therefore, Harris suggested it would be best not to talk about the facts or merits of the specific application.

The question before the Commission is: Are individual private residential garages permitted in the E-1 zone with mixed-use development for the purposes of satisfying the off-street parking requirement?

Staff has reviewed the issue and made an interpretation based on the requirements of the Procedures Chapter. The Planning Commission can adopt or modify the interpretation for their recommendation to the City Council.

Harris showed some examples of mixed-use development in E-1 zones. Can you enclose one or two parking spaces with this type of development? What kind of parking configuration can you have? A garage is not accessible at all times. It only becomes accessible to the individuals who have access to the garage. In a mixed use building, can there be a garage associated with the residential unit or units on the second floor or in the development? The garages would be strictly for the tenants of the residential unit.

In reviewing the Land Use Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan policies, and the history of the revisions to Chapter 18.92 (Off-Street Parking) and 18.40 (E-1) of the Land Use Ordinance, Staff's opinion is that garages should not be permitted in the E-1 zone as a component of required off-street parking for mixed use development. The two reasons are: 1) Garages prevent the shared use of parking or the flexibility of parking. When parking spaces begin to be enclosed in a garage, the fluid movement of cars using spaces can no longer happen. They can only be accessed by certain individuals. 2) When garages are built, they can be used for storage. The cars that were intended to park in the space or spaces end up going to the adjacent spaces.

Displaced automobiles can cause a potential impact not only on the site but if there are neighboring businesses, people tend to park in the neighboring businesses parking or on-street. When those areas become full, the parking will begin to spill into adjacent neighborhoods.

Harris has used A Street as an example in the Staff Report, largely because it is an area that has developed under our ordinance requirements put in place in 1992. That development has been happening over the last ten years and we have seen what does and doesn't work.

Harris showed five of the Comprehensive Plan policies Staff looked at in coming to the interpretation. The Procedures Chapter (18.108) says if there is doubt regarding the intent of an ordinance, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision or refer it to the Planning Commission. In doing an interpretation, the Planning Commission is required to consider: 1) the Comprehensive Plan, 2) the Purpose and Intent of the Land Use Ordinance, and 3) the opinion of the City Attorney. The City Attorney has reviewed the interpretation as presented in the Staff Report and concurs with the interpretation. Items 1 and 2 are discussed in the Staff Report.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for an efficient parking system that tries to use parking spaces to their highest capacity. There is a recognition in the policies that has to be balanced with maintaining livability of adjacent neighborhoods. When you introduce an element such as an individual private garage not intended to be built in the zone, what is the impact? In this case, when there is a parking system that is working quite well, Staff's concern is allowing garages to tip that balance in the wrong direction and cause an impact that would be unacceptable.

McLaughlin said because of setback requirements in residential zones, there are driveways that handle the overflow parking. The impact does not go beyond the residence. In an E-1 zone, setbacks can go right up to the property line, especially if there are alleys. There is increasing pressure to build residential in commercial zones. By pushing hard for garages to create truly residential units (homes) in a commercial zone, is impacting the commercial zone to the degree it becomes less effective in creating jobs and employment opportunities for the community and it becomes better at providing home sites.

Harris showed several examples of parking capacities on A Street. The parking demand is peaking during normal business hours.

Briggs said Reeves gave several examples of existing garages. McLaughlin said as we see the bigger picture, garages may not be the correct direction for us to go. We need to look at all sides of the issue.

Briggs said she remembered some discussion during the development of A Street. The idea would be that the people work downstairs and live upstairs so their use of an automobile would be minimal. Or, they may not have an auto. On the other hand, it is very difficult for someone to find employment within walking distance. She wondered, instead of a two-car garage for a unit, keep it to a one-car garage per unit. The number one criteria for the Employment zone is employment. The residential is overlay. This would be a small compromise. She also remembered it would be shared parking in that residents would park there at night and would be gone during the day, leaving open spaces for clients and customers. It isn't necessarily working out that way.

Fields said the mixed use parking credit allows a little latitude. Could someone use a credit for a garage? McLaughlin said it would be difficult to enforce an enclosed garage. Fields did not think we could have less than the required parking because uses change and the use becomes more intense. Eventually, it will force people out of their cars.

McLaughlin said we are possibly looking at an ordinance amendment.

Douma wondered how many residences are in the E-1 corridor on A Street. Molnar thought eight to 12, not counting houses. Douma said if all of those took one parking space each with garage parking, what percentage capacity would we reach? Harris said on the alley there are 30 spaces. Twenty-eight cars were parked. The two spaces not available were accessible.

Black considered using a garage for storage of inventory. It might not be used for parking, but you couldn't use it in your count. McLaughlin said if all other parking requirements are met, could a garage be allowed? None of the mandated parking could be in a garage.

Harris suggested the wording "private garages are not permitted in the E-1 and C-1 zone for the purposes of satisfying the off-street parking requirement." In other words, a garage cannot replace the mandatory off-street parking requirement.

McLaughlin said assigned parking would probably require an ordinance amendment.

Harris said in reviewing the files from 1992 and the staff report, there was a clear discussion that the primary purpose of the E-1 zone is to create business. Her understanding in reading the discussions is that though we want the residential component, we need to maintain an inventory of land for economic opportunity and job creation.

Molnar explained that the Housing Commission has talked a lot about mixed use. They had assumed the units built above the businesses would be moderately priced rentals. As you add amenities like garages, they are not moderately priced. How do we still try to get moderately priced housing in mixed-use neighborhoods?

Briggs suggested limiting it to one car per unit of so many square feet (1000 square feet or more) to warrant a garage. McLaughlin is not sure how that would fit with an interpretation.

Harris said they have a couple of options. They can adopt the interpretation Harris read and Staff could look at specific modifications that would be more tailored to consider all the factors to refine the ordinance in the future.

Douma/Briggs m/s to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. Motion passed.

Douma said in trying to encourage multi-modal transportation, where do we factor in the discouragement of the auto? Fields said our strategy is that there is not enough parking now.

Morris felt Employment should be for employment and the residential is an add-on. He does not think we want to promote residential by giving people a garage over E-1.

Fields said he agreed with the intention of the interpretation. There is a limited amount of parking and it needs to be unassigned and it needs to be available. He is not willing to interpret it to say no garages are allowed.

There was discussion regarding assigned parking spaces (example - Ashland Community Food Store, Umpqua Bank and Land Mart). Can an owner control his or her own parking? McLaughlin said he would work on this.

Harris said the Land Use Ordinance says the Planning Commission may grant the mixed-use credit. McLaughlin gave an example of an overlapping use. The "may" language seems to work well.

Fields/Chapman m/s to adopt the ordinance amendment and send to the Council with the following wording: Private garages are not permitted in the E-1 and C-1 zone for the purposes of satisfying the off-street parking requirement.

Voice Vote: The motion passed.

The Planning Commission retreat is tentatively scheduled for Friday, June 18, 2004 from 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

VII.     ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary

End of Document - Back to Top

Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2023 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top