Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-09 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jarvis at 7:05 p.m.. Other Commissioners present were Howe, Bass, Cloer, Carr, Armitage, Finkle, and Bingham. Giordano was absent. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox and Yates. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Howe nominated Jarvis for Chair. Armitage seconded the nomination, the nominations were closed and Jarvis was elected. Finkle nominated Armitage for Vice Chair, Carr seconded the nomination and Armitage was elected. Carr and Bingham were elected as Co-Second Vice Chairs. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Armitage moved to approve the Hearings Board Findings (PA95-132) and the Minutes of the December 12, 1995 meeting. Bingham seconded the motion. Howe moved to approve the Minutes the December 12, 1995 Regular Meeting. Cloer seconded the motion and all favored. PUBLIC FORUM BRENT THOMPSON, P.O. Box 201, read from City Comforts (page 131) and handed out a portion about making blocks short, reinforcing the point that if trip generation is to be reduced, short blocks are needed along with pathways. Secondly, there is a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council on January 30th dealing with annexations. The affordability portion has to be permanent and perpetual. He has attempted a survey of small lots. He distributed an upgraded table of small lots and assessed valuations. As we try to hold in our city we have to come up with a way to provide more lots and affordable housing. The smaller the lot, the more restrictions on what could be there. (For example, a 4,000 square foot lot could have 1500 square feet lot coverage. At least 2500 square feet should be landscaped.) TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 95-027 REQUEST TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 541 FORDYCE STREET. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO CREATE A LOT WITH A WIDTH GREATER THAN ITS DEPTH. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INVOLVES THE DEDICATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF- WAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ClTY'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP, TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONNECTION OF ROMEO DRIVE AND MILLPOND ROAD. APPLICANT: CARALYN ElDMAN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by everyone except Armitage and Carr who had previous site visits. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported that the issues connected with the action stem from the area being primarily rural about five years ago and now it has been more developed. The property owner wants some minimal development at this time. It is the planners responsibility to make sure incremental partitioning does not close off future division of the property. The proposal is to divide a lot into three lots. Access to parcel I will be from Fordyce Street, access to parcel 2 will be from either the proposed right-of-way dedication between Romeo Drive and Millpond Road. Also there is an existing driveway easement across parcel 1 currently serving the home on parcel 2. Parcel 3 can be accessed from either Millpond Road which it fronts or the proposed right-of-way dedication. As part of this application, the applicant is proposing a right-of-way dedication connecting the cul-de-sac to Millpond Road. No improvement would be required as part of this application. The improvement would most likely occur when parcels 2 and 3 were further subdivided. There was a request for a variance to create a lot with a width greater than its depth (parcel 1). Circumstances have changed and Staff was concerned that access to the rear parcels would have been limited or almost landlocked. With the introduction of the street dedication, those concerns have been mitigated and would allow for parcel I to be split into two properties at a future date of approximately 7500 with frontage on Fordyce Street. Staff has recommended approval of the application with the five attached Conditions. Specifically on Condition 5, that if access is proposed from the street to parcels 2 and 3, access meet minimum Fire Department requirements. PUBLIC HEARING CARALYN ElDMAN, 541 Fordyce, said if she had presented this application any other way would she could lose irrigation on the entire parcel and she cannot lose that. Eldman asked if she has the right to have a house and an accessory unit on the lots. McLaughlin explained that an accessory unit requires a Conditional Use Permit, however, given the size of the lots, approval would appear likely. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe moved to approve PA95-027 with the attached Conditions. Armitage seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 96-008 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FROM 55 TO 61 LOTS DUE TO THE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE. ALSO INCLUDES FINAL PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: DONOVAN GILLILAND STAFF REPORT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 2 The applicant is adding six new units to the project. Since Outline Plan approval, the applicant has reached agreement with Mahar to develop a road jointly. Mahar would dedicate the additional right-of- way. The applicant is proposing to only do a half street and a 20 foot wide paved improvement. The remainder would be done when Mahar develops his property. A landscaping plan has been submitted for improvements to the drainage area. The applicant has received a grant from the state to incorporate a series of ponds and sediments ponds to enhance the quality of water of urban storm drains. Staff's main concern is a request by the applicant to remove a large oak right in the center of the proposed. There is no way at this point to reconfigure the road design. There is another tree in the large open space area that the applicant would like to remove. As more detailed engineering got under way, the applicant realized the grade changes around the oak tree would be in excess of six feet. They have suggested it is possible to retain through a retaining wall, however, they are requesting removal at this time. Given the degree of information received at this time, Staff has suggested the oak tree be retained and specific plans for construction of retaining be submitted for review. This was reviewed by the Tree Commission and they had a similar recommendation based on not seeing other information. A condition was added regarding replacement of the tree if it should not survive. Staff has recommended approval of the overall application with the attached conditions. Molnar showed a video of the area showing the oak tree locations. Finkle wondered if Staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of incorporating the tree as a center divider in the roadway, thereby retaining the tree. Molnar said they never got to that point at Outline Plan. It wasn't until Final Plan that it was identified as being in the road. They never had an opportunity to look at alternatives. Bingham liked Finkle's idea but was afraid the tree would not survive. PUBLIC HEARING DONOVAN GILLILAND, 777 N. E. 7th, Suite 219, Grants Pass, OR SCO'I-r ENGLISH, Northwest Biological Consulting, 324 Terrace, Ashland Gilliland said the reason he did not think he would have to remove the oak tree in the open space area is most of the preliminary engineering had been done on the roads. It has been determined by the engineer, that about six to eight feet of fill would be needed at the center of the oak tree. He would prefer to plant several trees instead of installing a high retaining wall. He is concerned someone could fall over the wall into a hole in the ground besides the cost of the wall. The tree in the roadway is located on Mahar's property. There is not a lot of room to incorporate the tree in the street design. Jarvis asked about the tree in the roadway. Gilliland explained the tree is eight feet from his property line on Mahar's property. Jarvis wondered how Gilliland could take it down if it is not on his property. Gilliland said Mahar has no problem with the tree being removed. The Commissioners agreed it would be nice to incorporate the tree in the road design and want to see the applicant make a good faith attempt to retain the tree. Gilliland said he would rather plant more trees than save that one tree. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 JOHN FIELDS, 845 Oak Street, said he is seeing the Commission struggling with design by committee. He noticed from previous discussion there was talk about drainage and was surprised that the last rain didn't follow the natural drainage. He is visualizing the solar access and can see units marching up the hill. How does the whole drainage work?. Can it be captured within this project? There was about 100 foot width of water down by the proposed townhouses after the rain. He also cannot imagine the scale and density of the project. Staff Response In response to Fields question, a Condition was imposed at Outline Plan that engineered drawings be provided for modification to the drainageway and shall be designed to accommodate storm run off. As part of the Final Plan review, the drainage plan for the wetland and storm run off filtration system required to be engineered in conjunction with our Engineering Division. This would include water quality treatment on storm run off that will accommodate the anticipated flows discussed in the City's storm water master plan. There won't be an opportunity for water to sheet flow after the area is contoured. Final Plan approval could be granted for the original 55 lots with the six remaining lots and the remaining portion of the new street be continued until next month to look at a way to incorporate the tree in the street design. In this way, the majority of the development could be platted. Molnar thought the retaining of the tree in the open space would create a large retaining wall. In grading, the hydrology of the tree might be stressed and might die anyway. Carr asked about replacement trees and McLaughlin responded replacements would have to be large stature trees. Gilliland said it would be acceptable to approve all except the property from the alley to the street. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Finkle moved to approve Final Plan for PA96-008 and in addition hold off approval of lots 56-61 (Outline Plan) and Lots 34-37 so the applicant can work with both Staff and his engineer to try and save the existing oak tree (in the roadway area). Howe seconded the motion. Finkle amended the motion to change Condition 2: "That if the existing tree in the open space is removed, it be replaced by at least three specimen trees, minimum of four inches in caliper". The motion carried unanimously. On January 30th, at 6:30 p.m., the hearing will be continued to review the incorporation of the tree in the roadway and approval of the final six lots only. Carr so moved, Bass seconded and the motion carried. No additional notice will be mailed. PLANNING ACTION 96-010 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AT NORTH MAIN AND MAPLE STREETS (ASHLAND RETIREMENT RESIDENCE). THE MODIFICATION INCLUDES THE LOCATION OF A 15 SPACE PARKING AREA ADJACENT TO THE ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY, WITH THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED COTTAGE SITUATED BEHIND THE PARKING AREA. APPLICANT: CLIFF CURRY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 All Commissioners had a site visit. In addition, Howe spoke to Jim Robertson about the lumber on the property. STAFF REPORT During the break, McLaughlin was handed a redesign of the project and would recommend the applicant withdraw his action. The modification is now within the allowable limits. The change brings the cottage up near the street but rotates 90 degrees with parking as originally approved. Staff's concerns about parking location and screening have been addressed. PUBLIC HEARING JIM ROBERTSON, Colson and Colson Construction represents Cliff Curry. He would like to submit the redesign. Carr moved to withdraw the action. Cloer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Bingham moved to approve the Findings for PA95-131 (Patricia Murphy) and PA95-136 (Harlan DeGroodt). Bass seconded the motion and all approved. OTHER Hearings Board Assignment Finkle will take the month of April Jarvis will take the month of August. Saturday Study Session January 27th Place and times to be announced McLaughlin said some citizens are asking that outline plan would require accurate location of natural features. He would like the Commissioners to think about whether the ordinance needs to be amended to ask for accurate locations. Armitage asked if McLaughlin could come up with how many times this has come up and if it is really a problem and have that information for the meeting on the 30th. Armitage had a concern that the Commission is growing into micro-designing. Could they come up with some type of agreement as to how much the Commission does before an application is continued or denied? Bass commented that if the Commission had greater information at the beginning, it would not require micro-designing. McLaughlin said he will ask Paul Nolte to discuss this at the Saturday Study Session. Howe would like further explanation about the concept of affordable housing. Hagen asked the Commission to think about options for infill and the meeting on the 30th. If the city limits were never to move again, how would we accommodate growth within the city?. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 Peter asked if them were any topics for Study Sessions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996