Document text
Jacksonville residents fear code changes could 'destroy this town' Thursday Jan 19, 2017 at 4:45 PM Jan 19, 2017 at 5:59 PM Tony Boom for the Mail Tribune Proposed code revisions that would allow taller buildings, vacation rentals by owners and planned unit developments anywhere in Jacksonville drew a large crowd Wednesday that implored the Planning Commission to reject the changes. The commission held a two-hour public hearing on the revisions in the Jacksonville Elementary School gym to accommodate a crowd of 140 people. Eleven speakers testified, and the hearing was continued to Feb. 1. Planning commissioners can table the proposals or make recommendations to the City Council to approve or deny the proposed changes. “The code has the potential to dramatically change the town’s character,” said former Councilor Linda Meyer, who submitted 28 pages of written testimony prior to the hearing. “It’s a town out of time,” said Lois Cartier, who spent seven years restoring her 1854 house. Lots of spaces wouldn’t be protected under the revisions, and the ambience would be gone, she said. “Please don’t destroy this town. This could do it. People could take advantage of this to make money,” said Cartier. The process of revising the city codes began in 2012 because of concerns that regulations governing development and designed to protect historic structures were not workable for residents or developers and produced confusion. Among the issues were historical standards mixed with requirements for other uses. In September 2014, the City Council formed a Citizens Advisory Committee that revised a second draft. The Planning Commission held public workshops in 2015 and 2016. Suggestions from an Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development model code were incorporated in the reworks. Among the proposed revisions: • The Historic and Architectural Review Commission would be renamed the Historic Preservation Commission and would have oversight for development only in the downtown core and for designated historical structures outside that area and their adjoining properties. Currently it reviews all development in towns. • Historical issues are consolidated into one chapter. In the present code, they are found in three separate chapters. There would be four levels of approval with varying oversight for development. • Commercial lots could have buildings covering 80 percent of the property rather than the current 50 percent. Multifamily housing would need to devote 10 percent of area to landscaping rather than the current 25 percent. Taller buildings would be allowed. • A Downtown Historic District would be established and development in the area would be overseen by the new commission. The district would replace a Core Enhancement Overlay. The revisions don’t change any current zoning. • The tree removal process would be simplified, there are provisions for vacation rentals by owners, and planned unit developments could take place anywhere in town with approval by the Planning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. “I strongly recommend that HARC retain its name and oversight of all development,” said Meyers. The DLCD model code doesn’t address issues specific to the town, she said. Citizen involvement needs to be broadly representative in all phases, said Thomas Gorman. He noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee had included at various times several members from the development sector, including Realtor David Jesser, building industry spokesman Brad Bennington, builder Mark Thomas and engineer Mike Thornton. Former Councilor Jocie Wall said the city did not follow the first goal of state land use planning, which calls for public involvement. She said the city hasn’t had a Committee on Citizen Involvement for four years. One owner of a historical property said he liked the proposed changes. “A city can’t conduct its business with codes which are chaotic and can’t be cross-referenced,” said Bill Savage. He also said that people in the town were aware the revision process was going on and had options to participate. “Now is the time for public input, not the time to ignite a miasma of wishes,” said Savage. Despite a number of calls to table the revisions, Commission Chairman Roger Thom continued the hearing. He said the commission and its legal counsel need to look at whether the city violated requirements for public input. “Our job is not to tear apart Jacksonville and make it easier for a developer,” said Thom. “Our job is to clean up the code. I do want to preserve the character.” — Tony Boom is an Ashland freelance writer. Contact him at [email protected].