Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-10 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Cloer, Powell, Medinger, Thompson, Carr and Hibbert. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar and Slocum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Carr moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the July 13, 1993 meeting. Powell seconded the motion and it unanimously carried. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 93-094 IS A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 24-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS TO BE LOCATED AT 604 AND 606 OAK STREET (ACROSS FROM POPLAR PLACE SUBDIVISION ON PATTERSON STREET), COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 4CD; TAX LOT: 100 & 200. APPLICANT: POPLAR PLACE ASSOC. & ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Medinger stepped down. Cloer and Carr visited site last week. Jarvis also had another site visit. STAFF REPORT This planning action was continued from last month. This month's testimony was limited to the redesign of the Crispin Street entrance to Oak, the use of the driveway off Crispin Street to serve Lot 13 and to modify Condition 12 (using common driveway off Crispin to access Lot 14 and 15 rather than Lot 15 having its own entrance off Oak). Revised outline plan addresses all concerns. First, Crispin Street has been moved 13' south and slightly angled at Oak to minimize the impact of headlights on 603 Oak. The use of driveway off Crispin and common driveway for Lots 14 and 15 had also been shown. This revision closed the curb opening on Oak to funnel traffic onto Crispin. One opening at Oak would serve to make traffic more predictable. While changes were not optimal for 603 Oak, it was a compromise and staff recommended approval with the 13 conditions. The August 10th letter from Mr. Bajuk (603 Oak) goes beyond limited testimony and, although he can speak to them, the commissioners must only consider the noted three issues in their deliberations. PUBLIC HEARING LARRY MEDINGER did not have anything to add to his letter to the commissioners. He had no time to read the letter from Mr. Bajuk, but it seemed that it discussed issues from last month. In response to concern about Oak St. intersection, he noted no ordinance that addressed placement of intersections and the effect on surrounding homes, but he had moved street. Stated problem was not unusual. DANA BAJUK, 603 Oak St., provided written testimony at July 10th meeting. The length of that testimony prevented people from taken concerns into account. He reiterated concerns in this letter as he had not received response from applicant. His major concern is the location of Crispin/Oak Street intersection. He does not oppose application, just location of intersection directly across from his house. Site visit showed other option of two large vacant lots on either side of his house. The revised plan shows intersection has been shifted slightly south and has been angled. Stated belief that headlights coming from north will still pan directly in front of his house. Mr. Bajuk did not agree with applicant that traffic will be equally distributed on Patterson and Oak Streets. Believes that, besides the people in the Sturve development, people from Poplar Place and Patterson will also use Crispin Street to access Oak. Also concerned about noise and activity during and after construction. Applicant has stated that redesign of intersection and heavy vegetation would minimize headlights. The vegetation referred to is in Bayuk's yard and should be used as a basis for placement of the intersection. Believes that revised plan would have a negative impact on his living situation. Feels applicant has not looked at alternatives Bajuk suggested (extending Patterson St. to Oak St.) in a July 12th letter. Wishes applicant would clarify comments regarding cutting lot size to make project more affordable, answer questions regarding rerouting of storm runoff to Jessica Creek and speak on plans to build two story houses along Oak which would block his view to the East. He opposes plan. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 19, 1993 A representative of the Community Development Corporation explained that the corporation has attempted to buy down price of 10 units for working, minimum income Ashland residents. They had received many grants to help reduce the cost of the proposed homes and supports the opportunity this proposal would provide. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION McLaughlin clarified ordinance dealing with the approval of streets [18.80.030 (A)(1)]. Section 1 states, "The creation of a street shall be in conformance with requirements for subdivisions." When applicant is allowed to create a street for a subdivision, they must be in conformance with requirements except, one does not have to meet all the requirements if two other conditions exists. In this case, applicant is creating the street specifically for the development and is required to be in conformance with subdivision ordinance. Bajuk stated questions regarding 18.80.020. He believes Patterson is existing street and the alignment of Patterson should be utilized to provide the Patterson/Oak intersection. Molnar's interpretation was that if you have a through-going intersection, the centerline extends across the street or must be 125' offset. McLaughin agrees. If developing land across from a developed street, the streets must align. The sections that apply to this application are Street and Greenway, Patterson Street is shown on the city street dedication map may extend to Oak. This map can be modified as long as the general intent of getting from point to point is met. The ordinance on alignment states "all streets as far as is practical." The decision is up to the commission. Hibbert stated that there is a street dedication on the parcel south of Lots 15, 16 and 17. Asks if this was given up by the property owner. McLaughlin stated that it had as part of the Poplar Place subdivision. Jarvis asked about a lot that is less than 25'. McLaughlin said that the lot width issues are in the Performance Standards and are allowed to be variable. REBUTTAL MEDINGER refuted testimony that the intersection is directly in front of Bayuk's house. Commented that Hersey is main alternative to town and people use Mountain Ave. to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 travel to southside of town. He believes traffic will go both directions. Alternative suggestion to extend Patterson will force cul-de-sacs. Believes only other alternative is a Iccp which would lose lots and create two major crossings of creek. Storm water goes into Jessica creek from Poplar Place, Jessica Lane, etc. and have discussed this with all concerned including wetlands people. He addressed concern about two story houses on Oak stating that Oak was moved 13' to the south creating a smaller building envelope therefore Lot 14 will probably be two stories. Hibbert asked if new map showed that south property line had a house directly across from it. Medinger answers yes, it is down the embankment. Hibbert comments that if Patterson Street was extended and Lots 14 -17 moved to the north (now Crispin) this would force cul-de-sacs or would come across the creek. He suggests a "U" shape road. Medinger stresses the efficiency of design and would have to drop the project if more lots were removed. A cul-de-sac would work, but a Iccp would not. Jarvis remembered going through criteria last month. The development meets ordinance requirements. The issues left open are: redesign of Crispin Street, using the driveway of Crispin to access Lot 13 and the modification to include that driveways for Lot 14 and 15 be shared with egret, ingress and egress and completion of Condition 11. Main concern is the redesign of Crispin Street. Thompson likes compromise on redesign. Powell wondered about Condition 15, track-out during construction. Hibbert stated that it was discussed last month and applicant agreed to pave before construction. Powell agreed with Thompson. Hibbert listened to Bayuk's concerns. He feels that revised angle is a good compromise. Jarvis also acknowledges Bayuk's concern and reminds him that cul-de-sac are discouraged. The commission did address concerns and had Crispin redesigned. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 4 Hibbert moves that approval with the 14 conditions. Powell seconds. Motion carried unanimously. Thompson stated that he would have liked Condition 11 (shortcut from common area to the closest point on Crispin to get to town) left in. Jarvis called Bayuk out of order. PLANNING ACTION 93-096 IS A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 27-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS TO BE LOCATED AT 133 ORANGE STREET (BETWEEN LAUREL AND HELMAN STREETS). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 4CB; TAX LOT: 600. APPLICANT: QUALITY HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Hibbert was not at last months meeting. He had a site visit in July and reviewed packets. No contention from commissioners. Carr visited site after rain to check drainage. Jarvis had another site visit. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported the primary concern from last month was the street design and layout of vacant properties adjoining this project. Hayes property (to the west) had since submitted a proposal relating to this proposal. That applicant had previously submitted a similar design. The street stub to the Reynolds' property remains the same. Applicant nor the staff has meet with Reynolds. The street design proposed and the staff proposal were similar in the inclusion of a loop system and amount of asphalt. A benefit to the applicants proposal would be a longer street providing vistas to Mount Ashland and Grizzly Peak area. Applicant had stated his desire for proposed plan to be the one considered for meeting the criteria, not the proposal recommended by the staff. The development of the adjacent properties was staff's primary concern. The property to the west was addressed, but the future development of Reynolds property was unknown. There were better options for the location of the stub and this could be modified in the final plan of phase II. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 Other issues raised last month involved conservation housing. Applicant presented some options. McLaughlin met with Wandersheld, Conservation Manager, who concurred that proposal complies and his department will enforce compliance. A letter from John Jensen, a professional engineer, addressed concerns about site drainage. Jensen would be responsible. Within the criteria, these concerns should be addressed during final plan. Concerning the fence and covenants to protect the Reynolds property as an agricultural use, applicant has agreed to provide a solid wood fence and provide covenants to prohibit farm related complaints based on standard farm practices. Litter issue is addressed by city on a case to case basis, but applicant had decided that primary contractor would be responsible for maintenance of the site. Street placement and paving of Orange will be under the direction of city engineering division. They will attempt to address all concerns in final design. Applicant has little input into design of Orange Street. Have attached condition that before Phase III can be developed along Orange, the street must be improved. Pesticide issue is beyond planning commission jurisdiction. Map provided shows how setbacks fit into building envelope. Design is appropriate and meets criteria. Staff recommends approval with 18 conditions. Applicants modified conditions 2 and 3 on their outline plan. Condition 2 assumed they will work in cooperation with property owners to the west in developing open space. Planning commission could not work with this assumption, therefore, applicant must provide all open space required. Applicant had provided for open space in outline plan #3. Powell asked about alignment of street stub with Eastbrook. The centerlines did not appear aligned and were setback 125'. McLaughlin stated that from centerline to centerline is about 100'. The requirement for 125' works as traffic calming. Purpose is to get cars through and not make awkward intersections. In low flow areas, as this, slight jogs make for a better pattern, but according to our ordinance, the jog is required. Medinger stated that his experience with minor streets infills were problem. McLaughlin informed the commission that subdivision code (referring to the 125') has ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 the flexibility saying "where practical." Carr wondered if Condition 18 implied that the homeowner is responsible for stub. McLaughlin stated the abutting lots owners could be made responsible, it could be spread between all lots, or it could be approved at the time the subdivision is done. Options were to developer, but must be addressed. Carr believed cost should be the developer's responsibility. Cloer asks about conservation credit package. Applicant proposal stated that package is decided when house plan is submitted for permit. McLaughlin stated that is most practical. Homebuyer wants to chose package, but is must be in compliance with the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING DARRYL BONIN, 359 Kearney St., read a statement addressing concerns. First, the Reynolds' property considerations: Quality Home Environment will build a 6' high fence along the eastern property line (Reynolds family farm) to be completed before any houses are occupied. This solid fence would adequately prevent any trespass on property. As this property will ultimately be developed into a residential development, excessively tall fences or setback buffers would impose expense and inadequate use of the property at 133 Orange. The street stub towards Reynolds' property is to allow the potential improvement of their property and will provide a vehicle and pedestrian connection between the three future neighborhoods. He previously provided a map to commissioners showing this connection and met with Mike Reynolds to physically show him how stub lines up. Applicant would try not to aim stub directly at existing house, but more northerly location would be too close to Mountain View. Applicant proposed a clause within C, C & R's of Ashland Audubon Homeowners Association stating that no complaints of normal sights, sounds and smells of the farm operation shall be tolerated or endorsed. Addressing conservation and energy efficiency measures, applicant reiterated the methods and measures used to satisfy the 15 point total required to qualify for the density bonus requirement. He met with city departments and obtained agreement to work together towards compliance. Applicant researched various combinations available to allow combination best suited to each building lot. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 7 Orange Ave. street improvements: a condition of approval would be to sign in favor of a LID formed to pave Orange, which would not be needed until Phase III. QHE agreed that if the LID had not been created for half street improvement, they would be responsible for cost. Since last month's meeting, the land adjacent to the western property boundary has been under contract of sale. The minor land partition would require LID signatures bringing those in favor to 64% making full improvement more likely. Neighbors testifying July 13 stated desire for improvement of Orange at Phase I. QHE agreed to help. The ground water issue was addressed in a letter from John Jenson, Civil Engineer, and would be further addressed at final plan. Pointing to a map showing the street configuration outline plan, applicant believed this showed optimum design to achieve the best use for property and vacant property to the west. It also showed a suitable street stub to the eastern property. Current street plan used the least amount of paved surface to improve property and conform with Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive plan. Developer of property to west agreed with submitted street configuration provided that Phase I included the northern street stub-out and utility connection to his property. Applicant stated that this request would fit in with construction schedules. The north/south layout of Park Dr. took advantage of view potential for this property and the property to the west. The 4' sidewalk and planting strip added further street appeal. They received the request from Tree Commission to increase the planting strip to 6'. Applicant preferred 4' suggested by staff and will chose compatible approved street trees. Difference between the two plans are 7' of open space. The northern most street stub use to be open space. The lost space was made up by shortening three lots by 7' causing a large impact to those lots. The purpose of open space has not been detracted from and approval of this street plan would automatically create 4300 sq. ft. of open space on neighboring property. Asked commission to approve the 90' Lots at 10, 11 and 13 shown in Outline Plan 2. The open space on applicant's property reduced the open space required to 9900 sq. ft. Inclusion of open space on neighboring property would bring the total open space to over 14,000. Hibbert commented that applicant is predicating some open space to adjoining property owner. McLaughlin said that agreement with adjoining neighbor is likely, but not absolute. Thompson wondered if a transportation plan for the neighborhood could be finalized. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 McLaughlin stated that it would have to be adopted by council. Bonin stated that to insure cooperation with adjoining property developer, the water rights from applicant's property could be used to maintain that open space. Purpose of open space is to provide a buffer and pedestrian connection between neighborhoods. Medinger wanted applicant to discuss the alignment of Orange St. with street stub on his property. Bonin agreed to go with the majority of neighbors. He stated he had no jurisdiction over design. He showed an example of a single story floor plan in one building envelopes described, it showed adequate backyard. STEVE JANNUSCH, 1657 Old Stage Rd, Central Point, spoke on behalf of applicant, agreed that no contractual agreement existed with neighbor to the west. He suggested to leave the question of open space open for future agreement with them and amend the final plan to go with longer lots lengths. On page 3 of staff report, addressing the covenants issue and fence, he wondered if the requirement was for fence to be constructed on perimeter of property or just adjacent to Reynolds' farm. Stated problems erecting fence prior to street construction. Suggested establishing final grade for property and requested fence be required prior to occupancy. Jarvis stated concern about farm animals not being protected from trash. Hibbert suggested that when the stub is being constructed part of fence be removed, then put back. Jannusch was concerned with future installation of utility lines and constant care of fence. He wanted to see fence requirement tied in with occupancy. GEORGE KRAMER, 386 North Laurel, against proposal with reservations. His concerns were addressed by staff, however, still concerned with the density of the proposed development and aesthetics. His neighborhood consists of owner-occupied houses each built at different time by different contractor. This would be the first subdivision. Felt the diversity of the neighborhood and Ashland would be overwhelmed by nature of it being a subdivision (27 lots all built within 3 years of each other). KEN LARSON, 126 Orange St., had his written testimony read into the record. He was against the proposal as described. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 KINDLER STOUT, 130 Orange St., commented that if LID was initiated for paving instead of waiting, maybe the cost would be less. His neighbors would like to see two diving lanes paved with the remaining right-of-way maintained by homeowners. The most visionary proposal would include islands and curbs to slow down traffic, provide recycling areas and act as a buffer from sound. JIM DEAN, 395 Helman St., previously submitted letter that was read into record. McLaughlin commented on neighbors willingness to consider narrower streets, islands, etc. Medinger asked about the paving requirement for Orange and street design at Final Plan. McLaughlin stated this would be addressed during Phase III which will be proposed in about three years. Dr. John Reynolds, 505 Helman St., wanted street stub design left flexible until Phase II. He also wanted fence erected right away and would be in favor of a temporary fence. He was concerned about the dumping of trash. McLaughlin stated the stub could be finalized at Phase II and preferred the flexibility of design. Hibbert asked if open space irrigation (of property to the west) be made a condition. McLaughlin answered no. Staff is working property owners. Jarvis wondered about the width of parking row (4' vs. 6') and staff's position. McLaughlin said that 6' is ideal. In this particular right-of-way it is hard to have 6' park rows and adequate front yard areas. The 4' width is minimum and appropriate. Medinger chose 6' parkrows in his Clearcreek project because their arborist recommended for growth of trees. Carr asked that full engineered construction drawings be required for drainage (Condition 4). REBUTFAL ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 10 Bonin reiterates that the wood fence erected before construction of the streets, was not practical, but agreed to mesh safety-net fence. He would consider options to street stub to Reynolds property, although stub would not be finalized until Phase II, Lot 9 would be impacted by a stub redesign. He agreed with staff that 6' parkrow shortens front yard. Hibbert asked applicant if changing Lot 9 and moving the corner to another lot would be a problem. Bonin answered that proposed street stub was optimum location, open space, pedestrian path, and logical placement of the Reynolds' street. He tried to avoid aiming stub south to avoid existing house. Bonin would consider alternatives, but hadn't heard any. Medinger suggested resolution of issue by final plan (approx 3 mo.). McLaughlin reminded applicant that Condition 5 (sidewalks), applied to both sides of street. Medinger agreed that on a 28' wide street with a 41' right-of-way there was room for parkrows on both sides. Bonin thought that stepping directly from a parked car to a sidewalk was preferable to walking on a planted area. Cloer suggested that applicant's C, C, and R's in regards to complaints about neighboring farm be written by an attorney. Bonin stated that it would. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Medinger felt that a permanent wood fence should not be required during construction phase. ^ construction mesh fence would be adequate. He commented that parkrows move sidewalk away from traffic and provide shade for parked cars. Powell commented that church on Second and B has a parkrow designed so that you stepped from car to about one foot of pavement, then grass, then sidewalk. She suggested this as another option of a parkrow design. Carr suggested the wording on Condition 7 be changed to: "Prior to the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 11 commencement of street construction for each phase, a standard mesh construction fence be constructed on the perimeter. Property lines to be replaced by six foot solid wood fence on the perimeter adjacent prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy." Powell remembered from last meeting that Dr. Reynolds requested an eight foot wood fence. Medinger reminded Powell that maximum fence height allowed is 6 1/2' and that 6' would be acceptable. He wondered if Condition 5 needs to be revised. McLaughlin stated that planting of parkrows is individual and diverse. The historic district generally uses grass. Powell wondered if a condition needed to be added to allow for open space flexibility. McLaughlin stated that the applicant still had the option to change open space. Carr moved to approve Planning Action 93-096 as per the revisions in the 18 attached conditions. Hibbert seconded motion. Medinger asked if Orange Street design final plan would go before the Planning Commission. McLaughlin answered yes but the applicant would be required to sign in favor as part of Phase I. The property to the west would also be required to sign before the survey and sale to divide the house from remainder of developable property. When that happens, that frontage would be required to sign bringing total to over 60% of frontage and the LID can be formed independent of this subdivision approval. The Orange Street design will be through Public Works and will not come before the Commission. Planning Commission may have input. Medinger asked staff to let Commission know when design goes before City Council to allow for input. Motion carried unanimously. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 12 PLANNING ACTION 93-095 IS A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 12-LOT SUBDIVISION ON 7.6 ACRES UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD OPTIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN THE DITCH ROAD AND SCENIC DRIVE, AND BETWEEN NUTLEY STREET AND LOGAN DRIVE. PROPOSAL INVOLVES A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AN AREA IDENTIFIED AS EROSIVE AND SLOPE FAILURE LAND. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-lO-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 8AD; TAX LOT: 4300; AND ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 8AA; TAX LOT: 7000 and 7001. APPLICANT: JOHN BARTON/BRUCE AND POKII ROBERTS Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Medinger acted as a consultant with some of the parties involved and abstained. Cloer had a site visit and noticed the buffering of Lot 1 and the corner of Church and Scenic. Carr had site visit. Powell visited site accompanied by applicant's engineer. Lived in neighborhood and felt she could be unbiased. Has not discussed application with neighbors. Dr. Barton did phone her, but it was a misunderstanding involving a previous conversation with Allen Dresher and a different Susan. Jarvis had a site visit and remembered property from a year and a half ago. Between time she was contacted by applicant as a possible mediator. The discussion at that time regarded the issue of payment. She did not mediate and did not form any opinion. STAFF REPORT Molnar stated the criteria for outline plan approval was found in 18.88 and involved a development within erosive and slope failure lands found in 18.62. Parcel is 7.6 acre piece for a 12 lot subdivision. The project involves the construction of a new public street which extends from Scenic Drive up the hill approximately 250', and then runs to the south and continues on until it terminates at a cul-de-sac turnaround. Six lots (4,5,6,7,11 and 12) will have access directly onto the new public street, while the remaining six lots will be served by two separate private roads. Building envelopes are shown in this R-1-10 zone with maximum lot coverage of 40%. 1.7 acres of open space would be dedicated to the city. In addition, the narrow area between private ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 13 road and Ditch Road would be a conservation easement owned privately, but protected in a natural state. Erosion control for project and cuts & fill for street construction are shown in applicant's profiles of cross sections of street cuts. Fill slopes are proposed hydromulching procedure or revegetating the slopes with an ivy or periwinkle combination. A final landscaping plan would be proposed at Final Plan. Cut banks are proposed to be retained using a stair-stepped retaining wall method which would be a five foot cut using a retaining wall, stair-stepped back at 4 feet, another retaining wall and stair-stepped again. Access to the subdivision and street capacity is a anticipated concern. Street capacity is defined by a 1991 resolution. It defines standards for determining capacity using grade, width and number of vehicle trips permitted. Previous applications showed that a route with adequate capacity existed to the subdivision. Applicants' findings stated that a number of routes exist that meet resolution. They involve Scenic (as a collector) and connecting streets such as Nutley, Wimer, Manzanita and Coolidge. Upcoming testimony will focus on Church Street which is at capacity for grade and angle. This parcel is in Wildfire Lands and the applicant was required to submit a Fire Prevention & Control Plan in conjunction with fire department. Plan was made part of the record and showed various areas on the site and how treated (removal of dead and dying trees, seedings, trimming and thinning of entwined trees). The dedication of open space involves the construction of pathway leaving the private drive, through the open space and ending up at the Ditch Road. Applicants have met with Parks Department and have agreed if applicant installed path and carry out the Fire Prevention and Control Plan. The anticipated issues involve hillside development and preservation of same. Testimony may raise questions regarding the adequacy of the city's hillside ordinance. Back in 1984, as part of the southwest hills rezoning study, this area was downzoned slightly from R-1-7.5 to R-1-10. Application is within the base density (18 lots vs. applicants' proposed 12) of one lot per 2/3 acre. Application is complete and addressed criteria for Outline Plan Approval and Wildfire Lands and Erosive Slope Failure Lands. Staff recommends approval with 12 proposed conditions. Criteria was read into the record. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 14 PUBLIC HEARING DAN HARRIS, 2101 Dead Indian Memorial Road, agent for the applicants, set up three objectives for application: involve neighborhood by having two meetings, work with staff and applicable city agencies and design a model hillside development using San Rafael's Hillside Guidelines. In 1982 an 8 lot, 4.6 acre subdivision was approved. In 1991 a 6 lot subdivision was approved. Both applications had a variance granted for access which have now expired. Applicants now had only the Ditch Road as access, but Comprehensive Plan targeted this for future pedestrian path. The applicants have purchased Annie Pops property and that is proposed access. Submitted three initial designs into record. The final proposal shows fewer lots, moved many lots from behind Scenic Drive houses and minimized paved service for private drives. CHUCK STRUM, Civil Engineer, Marquess & Associates, 1120 E. Jackson, Medford, applicant requested him to a design a project which conformed to code without using variances. Did field survey to place building envelopes at slopes less than 40%. Provided slope at intersection at 6% grade for safety and to comply with visibility code. Drainage goes down Scenic and upper end of Church. New storm drainage system from Church, Scenic and new street. Natural drainage already in place for open space area. Erosion control would be two phase: during construction with cut off trenches, straw bails, silt fences and steeper slopes using stair-step terracing. Private drives for Lots 1,2,3 have been redesigned to save trees and rock outcroppings. Fills on existing drive will be conventional 2 to 1 slope. Primary fills would be shielded by existing trees and planted vegetation. Plan to make rock outcroppings visible from pathway. DAN HARRIS, applicants have addressed criteria, satisfied city staff and worked with neighbors. Fire department had approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan and the long private drive. Public Works approved condition of adequate water, sewer, street dimensions and traffic capacity. Tree commission approved Tree Management Plan. Open space and conservation easement involves 22% of project and includes pedestrian path. The density was scaled down to 12 lots from ideal of 22. Proposal has gone beyond basic criteria. C, C, and R's restrict height, size and color of structures to blend into hillside and be enforced by homeowners assoc. Only 20% of traffic capacity on Scenic will reached due to this application. Jarvis wondered if viewscapes would be included in C, C, and R's. Harris stated that it could be included. Carr wondered if C, C, and R's were binding. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 15 Harris answered that C, C, and R's pass with the land and were permanent. Cloer asked for comments on staff recommendations for two additional guest parking for Lots I & 2. Harris agreed with staff report and its conditions. Powell wondered what type of vegetation is allowed in a 40' fuel break and if that would create large bare spots on hillside. Harris stated that lots of vegetation options exist for secondary fuelbreaks. Powell wanted to know slopes for each lot. Strum indicated that slopes vary from 25 - 38%. Powell wanted to be shown erosive and slope failure lands and its relationship to the private drives. Harris stated that no development would occur in that zone. Molnar checked this and one road bend may be within this area. McLaughlin noted ordinance states that to be classified as Erosive and Slope Failure Lands, the area must be shown on the map and be over 40% slope. Harris stated maximum grade on all roads is 15%. Cloer wanted applicant to address concerns about the Ditch Road trail and Lot 1 not being buffered from trail. Harris stated that applicants will be living in Lot 1 and plan to fill in with vegetation for privacy. DON PAUL, Assistant Fire Chief, stated applicant asked for help with city standards and they had been satisfied. Slope grade has been met (15% maximum). Long driveway was not concern because fire department also had the Ditch Road as secondary access. Ditch Road use will be restricted. Hydrant requirements had been met. Radius of turns were duplicated by fire dept and found to be adequate. Primary fuelbrake eliminate overhanging limbs. Secondary fuelbrake consists of basic vegetation and would eliminate dead and dying vegetation and ladder fuels. Fire ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 16 Department also looks for exposed underside of decks and heavy vegetation on upslope direction. Carr questioned if any houses would require sprinkler systems. Paul recommended all houses have them. Would require sprinklers for Lot 3. Fire Department would waive paved turnaround for Lot I and 2 in leu of using connection of the Ditch Road as turnaround if they were equipped with residential sprinkler system. However, they would like to see restriction as to parking RV's etc. on turnaround. Saw connection with Ditch Road as preferable. Carr asked about the requirement of paths in similar type development. Paul stated that path requirements were for buildings over 24' in height and would not be applicable to this proposal. Cloer asked the response time for this area. Paul stated that according to recent study, 3 minute range. Access would be from Church Street. ALl ROSS, 734 Cambridge Street, knew area and liked idea of fire department access to this area. Felt the problem of Church and Scenic intersection should have been addressed long ago. Understands neighbors reluctance to have backyard developed, but felt this minimum impact subdivision would be ideal. Ashland is a hillside development. MARY LOU GROSS, 240 W. Hersey, looks up at hillside, believed this proposal met criteria and felt living near neglected hillside is worse that a hillside with access for fire department. She drove from Scenic to Nutley to Plaza (.5 mile); then drove back to Church down N. Main to Plaza (.4 mile). Felt longer route was less frustrating. Did not share neighbor's concern about traffic. Troubled by letters to the editor about greed. EVAN ARCHARD, 1256 Eagle Mill Road, Certified Real Estate Appraiser, talked about statistics (1975 average selling price of a home in Ashland $75,054, in 1993, $133,806). Believes increase due to restrictions on development. Felt proposal goes beyond Comprehensive Plan and urged commission's support. JOANNE HOUGHTON, 219 Logan Drive, felt opponents of developments were opponents of change. Hoped testimony is limited to criteria. Urged opponents to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 17 speak at future review of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan. Believed application met criteria and therefore should be approved. ED HOUGHTON, 219 Logan Drive, agreed that applicants have complied with criteria. Felt commission should insist on full zoning density because there would be less urban sprawl, greater tax base and less park and recreation expense. Erosion on his subdivision was limited to about two yards of dirt in three years. The TID ditch created a natural buffer for fire. LLOYD HAINES, 1109 Siskiyou Bv., as a developer felt this proposal was one of the best design he has seen. It fit criteria and should be approved. MICHAEL DOYLE, 356 Glenn, felt that traffic was a problem everywhere in town. Seemed to be plenty of access to this development and have met every requirement. Asks for approval. ALEX CHISHOLM, 128 Strawberry Lane, supported plan because have met or exceeded ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. He had similar situation of a subdivision next to his house and he had adapted to it. Would not ask someone to give up property rights. Carr moved to continue meeting until 11:30, Thompson second and motion carried. BOB SULLIVAN, 525 Sheridan Street, commented that if applicants could not rely on the commission approving proposals that met criteria, then the Comprehensive Plan should be changed. TOM FRANTZ, 88 Emerick Street, as a mountain bike rider, he supported plan. Read from "Pattern Language." Liked the applicants' use of a restricted access path from Scenic to the Ditch Road. Powell commented that the public road in this proposal did not guarantee access to the Ditch Road. Jarvis read comments from SABRA HOFFMAN, 345 Scenic, CICI BROWN, 171 Church St., PHILIP WALDEN, 144 Nutley St., LORRAYNE WHI'!-I'EN, 195 Church St., AMY SHUMAN, 97 Scenic Dr., AL ROBINS, 225 Nutley St., BEHR GOULET, 171 Church St., all against the proposal. RON TURNER, stated that planning action should be denied because it did not meet ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 18 criteria a, b, e and f. (Entered exhibits into record.) Felt application for a Physical Constraints Permit is not sufficient as found in AMC 18.62.040 (e) because applicants failed to sufficiently meet 18.62.040 (d(1)k) (the topo map). Applicants stated that area had not undergone a field survey and did not show a 5' interval contour map as required by criteria. Applicants stated in their Physical Constraints Permit, "based upon our rough estimate." Also felt the map was not accurate enough. Stated the intersection at Scenic Drive (relates to Exhibit 0, photograph of adjoining property proposal) showed some slope that exceeds the 30" maximum height at edge of that road. Ordinance states the maximum vision clearance is 30" along 25". Additionally, there would be an additional cut to provide a 6% landing and the possibility of reducing the sweeping of headlights. The neighbor could elect to erect a fence thereby exasperating the problem. Mr. Thurner disagreed with staff with regards to the 700' or 1000' flag drives. His review of project revealed the terms, private drive, private road, private way and flag drive. Seemed difficult to apply a definition to Land Use Ordinance. Felt definition of flag drive fit for Lot 1, but Lots 2 and 3 did not meet the second portion of that standard because access parallels a lot that did not have legal access. Secondly, AMC 18.88.050(A)(6), Street Standards, states only lanes may be dead end roads and dead end roads shall not exceed 500' in length. 18.88.060 (B) calls for one on street parking space per unit and spaces shall be immediately to the public right-of-way. Believed if on-street parking occurs along the private drive as shown, there were only eight lots provide for. So he stated private drive is a public right-of-way, therefore a street with a required maximum length of 500'. Felt the cul-de-sac created that 500' and the private drive cannot exist. Regarding zoning allowances for this property, stated that using the applicants' zoning map and overlaying the city's zoning map of the same scale, it showed that the R-1-10 zone comprises bulk of project. The rest of project showed a zoning of RR-.5. (The scale is 1" = 100'.) Mr. Thurner's calculation showed approximately 80,000 square feet total in RR-.5 or 1.84 acres zoned at half the density allowed in R-1-10. Applicants had not done a sufficient job in creating base density. AMC 18.12.040, District Boundaries, states that if a boundary divides a lot into two districts, the entire lot shall be placed in the district that accounts for the greater area of the lot, provided the boundary adjustment does not exceed 20'. Stated this adjustment is for 100', therefore, two distinct zones are applicable to this project. Indicated that application stated on page 3 of amendment that if the city did not want the proposed open space, they attended to go back to original proposal to create a common area owned by a homeowner's association. Felt stipulation was unteindable ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 19 unless commission was willing to accept this lesser design not shown. Stated stipulation was representative of applicants antagonistic approach with neighbors (eg. tearing out TID water service to a couple of neighboring properties, failure to provide for replacement and not providing for it in this plan). Thurner felt many C, C, and R's could be modified by a majority of the members and were not enforced by the city. Powell asked for clarification of the discussion of public vs. private streets. Thurner explained that land use ordinance provided for one on-street parking space per unit which needed to occur immediately adjacent to public right-of-way. This plan only showed eight parking spaces; eleven spaces are needed. Shown were parking bays and parallel parking bays occurring on private drive area. If the three needed spaces occur on the "private way," they would be made public by definition of on- street parking. Since the applicants had not asked for a variance for this stipulations, he assumed that it was considered a public right-of-way. John McLaughlin read the ordinance, "On-street parking spaces shall be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets." "On-street parking spaces shall be located within 200' of the dwelling which it is intended to serve." If that dwelling was on an association-owned access, then we have created conflicts with this wording. Carr moved that meeting be continued until midnight, Hibbert seconded the motion. Anonymously passed. JIM DOERTER, 80 Scenic Drive, earlier submitted a 22 page traffic report on Scenic and Church intersection. Lived on Church for 26 years and had been working on traffic problem there for 10 years. Had meet with Steve Hall, Engineering, Planning, Police. Had questions for McLaughlin. Did McLaughlin believe that Church/Scenic intersection is a normal intersection? McLaughlin answered no. Doerter asked if this intersection fell within the ten most dangerous intersections in Ashland? McLaughlin answered yes. Doerter asked that, as stated in Report 88.103, if 500-700 cars per hour is capacity for ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 street, did he believe a car could pass through intersection every 5.5 seconds. McLaughlin said under laboratory conditions yes, but realistically, no. Doerter stated that in the information he obtained, no traffic accidents were reported for that intersection. Two different reports stated the Scenic/Church intersection had listed "reported accidents" and recently they were listed as "apparent accidents." He had neighbors give accounts of accidents there and had members of the audience stand if they had been in or seen an accident. He was curious as to who in the city can prevent growth in this area until the traffic problem is solved. He counted up the number of new homes in the Houghton, Yondoff, Strawberry Lane and Barton developments and asked city to look at the total effect of traffic to area and not one development at time. DAN HARRIS noted that Thurner and Doerter exceeded time limitations. SUSAN HUNT, 220 Nutley, shared Thurner's concern about traffic, environmental constraints and zoning. Concerned about length of long private drive and its obvious appearance right below Ditch Road. Felt even with trees planted, the lower trunks are unclad. Stated trees are Oaks and during six months of year road site would be visible. Traffic at Church and Nob Hill are at capacity because of steepness. Staff stated "the current criteria appears only to require that the applicant demonstrate that Scenic Drive has adequate capacity and there exists a route to and from Scenic Drive to North Main with a variable capacity." Felt staff did not seem certain. Had heard the Ditch Road access did not absolutely belong to applicants that access was part of the previous 6 units application that lapsed. Wanted commission to weigh carefully whether donation of mostly unbuildable land and closure of the northern portion of Ditch Road is payment enough for impacts of proposal on the safety of surrounding area. DANIEL MAYMAR, 115 Scenic Drive, lives just adjacent to proposed public street. Agreed with Thurner on topo map, Environmental Constraints Permit, zoning, long private drive and Doerter on flow of traffic. Felt proposal did not meet criteria as long private road at southwest corner was in environmental constraints area. The amended plan showed more road construction in that area. Concerned where drainage water would go. Wondered if paving over fill slopes would break up. Questioned whether 25' conservation easement was adequate next to a ditch. Lot 1 was along easement and felt the ditch could fail. Witnessed during clearing of area, a tractor came within this easement and opened a leak. He submitted photos showing ditch line and tractor tracks. He lost his right to use irrigation water and limited his right to develop his property. The applicants had offered to help, but would not put anything in writing. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 21 MARK BROWN, 171 Church Street, questioned criteria involving storm drains. Applicants stated drains would be provided on public cul-de-sac and relied on natural drainage on two other areas. Plan did not address storm drainage or collection on private road. He felt firebreaks lose soil and created erosion problem. Wondered if Lorrayne Whitten would loose access to her garage considering potential traffic flow problems at Scenic intersection. ANDRE ALLEN, 96 Scenic Drive, agreed with Thurner, Hunt, Doerter. Believed applicants did not meet criteria B. Felt proposed development would cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity (additional auto traffic on Church and Nob Hill Streets). Applicants stated the traffic at Scenic and Church are outside of their control and did not effect criteria. Adequate capacity existed for traffic from Scenic Drive to North Main. Comprehensive Plan assumed traffic from Scenic/Grandview, PUD 25% goes to Medford and 75% goes to downtown Ashland. Felt alternatives did exist from proposed development to Medford via North Main, but have not shown that routes exist from development to downtown Ashland. Believed any developments in area should be postponed until Scenic/Church and Church/Nob Hill capacity problems are solved. ED BRUBAKER, 197 Nutley, was concerned about fire on hillside property. He fought fires on that hillside in 1970. Comprehensive Plan does not address this concern adequately. DAVID KIRKPATRICK, 101 Scenic Drive, corner of Church and Scenic, had improved uphill side of his property and Lot 5 would look down at him. He was concerned that a two story house with a 10' setback will. Considering size of the proposed property, he wondered why the three houses close to him could not be moved back or deleted. JOHN FIELDS, 845 Oak St., empathizes with neighbors concern with impact on neighborhood. Rather than egress to and from neighborhood, he was concerned about length of private drive. He felt it was not practical for homeowners at end of drive to have guests park on Scenic and walk or park parallel on street and block emergency vehicles. Believed criteria dealing with hillside development should be strengthened. AMY SHUMAN, 97 Scenic Drive, was not opposed to entire plan, but placement of cul- de-sac located directly above her house. Concerned about accidents, etc. and would like it pushed back. Jarvis called Tom Frantz out of order. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 John McLaughlin noted that testimony had been taken and what was left was rebuttal. Commission had the option of closing record or leaving it open for written comments. Dan Harris, for applicant, asked that record be left open because Fire Department did not provide written approval seven days before hearing. He asked to allow written comments on Fire Department's approval of Fire Prevention and Control Plan and Engineering Department's report. Jarvis suggested that entire record be left open for seven days to take any written comments. Thurner requested that hearing be continued because evidence presented did not meet requirements for a 20 day notice and felt he should be allowed 20 days to respond. McLaughlin noted that law states that anyone at a public hearing can request a continuance of hearing, exclusive of 120 day time limit. With Thurner's request, the public hearing and record was left open. Powell moved to allow applicant a few additional minutes for rebuttal due to her error in timekeeping. McLaughlin stated that Planning Action 93-095 would be continued until September 14th meeting and would not be renoticed. Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 am. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 23