HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-14 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other
Commissioners present were Carr, Cloer, Hibbert, Medinger, Armitage, Powell, and
Bingham. Thompson arrived at the meeting before Planning Action 93-109 (Avery).
Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, and Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Carr moved to approve with editorial amendments. The motion was seconded and
the Minutes were approved. Jarvis will provide Staff with the changes and they will be
made on the original Minutes.
Carr moved to approve the Findings for Poplar Place and Quality Housing
Environment. Powell seconded the motion and the Findings were approved with
Medinger abstaining.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 93-095
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 12-LOT SUBDIVISION ON 7.6
ACRES UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 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.
APPLICANT: JOHN BARTON/BRUCE AND POKII ROBERTS
Medinger abstained.
---Bingham and Armitage were not present at the last hearing, however, they listened
to the tapes of the previous meeting, read both packets of information and had a site
visits. Bingham received a phone call from Cici Brown asking if he would be at the
meeting. There was not discussion of the meeting or the action.
-->Powell has had no further site visits since last month.
-,Hibbert had no further site visits since last month and no ex parte contacts.
---Carr had an additional site visit but had no ex parte contacts.
-,Cloer had no ex parte contacts. He had another superficial site visit.
-,Jarvis had a superficial site visit, looking particularly at the traffic.
This action is a continuation of PA 93-095 from last month. There were a number if
issues raised and both the applicant and opponents were adequately apprised of
issues that need to be addressed.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar reviewed the issues raised at the August 10, 1993 meeting. These issues are
discussed in detail in the September 14, 1993 Staff Report Addendum. The
topographic map was incomplete and since then, the applicants have submitted a map
showing five foot contour intervals and filled in blank areas that Staff believes meets
the requirements.
The applicant's project engineer has looked at the vision clearance at the intersection
of the new City street and Scenic Drive and believe the vision clearance can be met by
either moving the right-of-way line adjacent to the street or moving the street itself to
north, closer to the existing house. Staff asks if this is approved tonight, that
additional evidence be provided at final plan that specifically shows the finished grade
of the street and actual grades and elevations within the vision clearance areas.
A question was raised at last month's meeting regarding flag lots. It is Staff's opinion
that the flag lot criteria does not apply to the Performance Standard criteria. The
reasoning behind this is detailed in the Staff Report Addendum dated Spetember 14,
1993.
Concerning off-street parking, Staff said the intent is to have guest parking within 200
feet of a house and to have that space either in public ownership or owned in
common by the homeowner's association so those in the subdivision do not confuse it
as private parking, but guest parking. It appears that three spaces would not meet
that standard and would need to be relocated.
It is evident that the property falls into two different zoning districts (R-1-10 and RR-.5).
The applicant has submitted findings for the Physical and Environmental Constraints
permit and have submitted a map identifying areas as Erosive and Slope Failure
Lands.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
Since the last meeting, the City has reached a tentative agreement with the property
owner at the corner of Church and Scenic Drive for the purchase of additional right-of-
way, allowing for improvement of that intersection.
Molnar stated that Staff has recommended approval with the attached Conditions with
the addition Condition 13.
Cloer questioned Staff about the intent of a street being "at capacity". Moinar
explained that Church Street, by Resolution, is at capacity because it exceeds the
grade of 18 percent. Church Street is approximately 23 percent grade. The
subdivision would funnel to Scenic Drive with a capacity of 3,000 vehicle trips per day
and Scenic is the street that will serve the site. Statistics show that Scenic is well
below that count now. The Resolution uses the word capacity, which is more an
environmental capacity. It is clear there will be traffic going down Church Street. If
there was only one way to access a subdivision and the street was at capacity (steep,
unpaved), it would limit further development. But, the Council has interpreted if there
is are alternate routes to access a site, there can be adequate public facilities. Cloer
asked if capacity had anything to do with measured traffic hazards. McLaughlin said
the Resolution attempted to set limits that are realistic on how many trips would be
allowed on certain streets in the community.
Jarvis, in reviewing this application, wondered about restricting building within 25 feet
of the irrigation ditch. Staff said that should be added. Jarvis thought it would be
clearer to add a Condition to waive access to the Ditch Road and Staff agreed.
Powell noticed that the pumping station on Ditch Road could block access to the Fire
Department. It appeared to Bingham that the construction around the pumping station
is not complete and there would be plans to continue the road around it.
Armitage asked Staff the difference between a private drive, a lane, and a dead end
road. McLaughlin stated the ordinance limits the length of public streets to 500 feet.
Only lanes may be dead end roads (limit 500 feet). There is no limitation on the length
of a flag drive. It was the City Attorney's intrepretation that the 500 foot length applied
to the public right-of-way portion but the length requirements did not apply to the
private drive or flag drive.
Cloer wondered about asking if a Condition could be added to limit the percentage of
the lot disturbed during construction. Molnar was not certain if it could be legally
applied as a Condition unless the applicant was agreeable.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
Jarvis stated that there were letters in the packets from Allen Drescher, three petitions
with eight names, a letter from Isabel Sickels with an attachment, a letter from Jim
Doerter, and a letter from Friends of Ashland, signed by John Fields.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rebuttal from August 10, 1993 Hearing
DAN HARRIS, 2101 Dead Indian Memorial Road, representing the applicants, reviewed
the new information submitted since the last meeting. An amendment has been
submitted to the Physical and Environmental permit application. A map has been
included also.
After reviewing the Staff Report, the applicants concur and are willing to abide by the
13 Conditions and will abide by the Condition to address drainage in Final Plan and
specifically spell out the 25 foot tree conservation easement along the irrigation ditch,
and include language to waive access off Ditch Road.
In addressing street capacity, the applicants submitted a map which shows the street
grades accessing Scenic Drive. There are about seven alternative routes to Scenic,
other than Church Street. This should be in keeping with the City Council Resolution
regarding capacity.
With regard to Erosive and Slope Failure Lands, the applicants have submitted
information showing three areas that meet the definition of a slope and those are
addressed in the applicant's criteria and will not adversely impact adjacent properties.
Harris asked the Commission to read the on-street parking ordinance in context with
the other language in terms of providing parking within 200 feet of the homes. To
satisfy the requirement, as Staff has defined, the application has been amended so all
the private drives will be owned by the homeowner's association.
In reviewing the alternatives for street length, one reason the applicant chose to have
a long private drive, is because there would be less impact on the hillside. The other
alternatives would impact the terrain more. This is in keeping with the Performance
Standards Options.
Harris has asked the operator of the bulldozer to explain how the TID line was
damaged on the neighboring property.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
JOE TOBIASSON stated he was operating a bulldozer while clearing an enormous
amount of brush and debris when he noticed a two inch pipe and smaller pipe that
looked old and broken. He was instructed to clear the property for a survey.
HARRIS said there were no reported easements across the applicant's property.
If the property is split zoned (R-1-10 and RR-.5), there would still be a base density of
17 to 24 lots.
The applicants approached the City regarding the Church Street intersection. There is
an agreement for the City to acquire the corner and it will be rounded out. This
rounding out will happen when Scenic has been paved. The applicant will pay the City
what it costs to acquire the corner.
Harris noted that 25 percent of the property will be put in a conservation easement
and open space. The standards require five percent. The tree management plan is
comprehensive. Each tree has been surveyed on the property.
A Fire Prevention and Control Plan has been developed to ensure the safety of the
hillside from fire. The Fire Department is viewing the long private dirve as a fire break.
There is a six percent landing into the project which has been added, but not required,
to improve the safety of ingress and egress to the property.
The applicants are imposing design standards for their homes in the CC&R's.
Bingham noticed a defacto stream and wondered if Harris knew anything about it.
Harris said the TID ditch has a small outlet where it bends. The small spiget that
comes out was connected to the line that went under the property. He did not notice
a valve. It was the only outlet Harris could see along this property.
Powell asked if Harris knew what the Parks and Recreation specifications are for the
proposed trail. Harris responded that the Parks and Recreation proposed a small path
dressed up with decomposed granite that would stabilize the path.
BRUCE ROBERTS, 131 Church Street, said Ken Mickelson would recommend a
walking trail with stairs leading to the main trail and it would be roughly three feet wide
and wind through the open space.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
New Hearing
RON THURNER, 1170 Bellview, stated that the comments he made at the previous
hearing and the issues raised are still applicable. He believes the entrance to the
development must MEET vision clearance, not just an assurance that it can be met. It
is impossible to know what other impacts will come with the changes suggested by
the applicant. The remainder of Thumer's remarks have been entered into the record.
Thurner asked for denial of the application and he also would like to see more
neighborhood meetings.
Bingham asked for Thurner's explanation of setbacks. Thurner believes flag lots do
have limitations. Under the Performance Standards Options, there are setback
requirements and any lots occurring on a perimeter fall to the setback requirements of
the parent zone. There are some limitations to flexible and creative design. The flag
drive and flag lot issue needs to be addressed in the design. He does not believe the
intent of the ordinance is to create this type of design. He does not believe the
setbacks have been violated, but he is concerned with Staff's justification for ignoring
the "flag lot".
Thurner further explained that with regard to the on-street parking issue, he believes
the ordinance is referring to improvements to public streets, not private drives.
DAN MAYMAR, 115 Scenic Drive, stated that due to the noise, light, glare, and traffic,
they will be building a fence to minimize these impacts as much as possible.
MARK BROWN, 171 Church Street, said that Lorraine Whitten wanted him to explain
that she did meet with the City regarding the Church and Scenic intersection, however,
no official agreement has yet been signed by Lorraine. Brown said he has still not
seen anything in the Staff Report about drainage adjacent to the slope failure land. It
appears there will be quite a water slide. He would like to see this resolved before the
applicant moves forward. He presented a petition with 86 signatures of neighbors only
who are impacted by the application.
The following were opposed to the application but made written comments only:
MARY MCGEE, 95 Scenic Drive, AMY SHUMAN, 97 Scenic Drive, and MARGARET
MAYMAR, 115 Scenic Drive.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
Applicant's Rebuttal
CHARLES STROM, MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES, 1120 E. Jackson Street, represents
the developer as engineers. The erosive slopes have been super-imposed on the
map. Strom explained the storm drainage system at last month's meeting. There will
be a storm drain system in the new road.
HARRIS responded to the mention of neighborhood meetings. There were two
neighborhood meetings. He said he contacted Thurner on two occasions regarding
meeting and Thurner turned him down both times. They have done everything
possible to minimize the impact to the Maymar's property. The plan the Commission
is reviewing was chosen because it impacts the hillside as little as possible and follows
the contours as much as possible and preserves natural vegetation.
Jarvis asked Harris to respond to the flag lot issue. Harris found nothing in the
ordinance that limits the length of flag drives. The length of the drive was chosen in
order to not disrupt the hillside any more than necessary.
Harris also addressed the on-street parking ordinance. It appears that that ordinance
is in conflict with other ordinances and in meeting with Staff, it was determined that if
the parking spaces are adjacent to association owned land, the ordinance would be
satisfied. The application was amended to make all the spaces association owned.
This would meet the logical intrepretation of that statute.
Cloer asked if the CC&R's are amendable. Harris said the CC&R's are imposed upon
a property and are a restriction. They would be intended to run with the land. They
could be amended or removed by the homeowner's association. Harris said it could
require the CC&R's not be amended until a house has been placed on the project.
Staff Comments
McLaughlin gave a brief explanation of the flag lot issue. Section 18.88.050 A 4 (page
160) refers to a flag drive as a private drive. That is a specific definition under the
Performance Standards subdivision. It is different than a flag drive associated with a
flag lot created by a minor land partition. That does not necessarily mean that a lot
served by a flag drive in a Performance Standards subdivision is a flag lot. It's the
name of a drive, but it does not mean that the lot follows. Section 18.08.390, definition
of a flag lot has two requirements. The first, "any lot not having standard legal access
to a City Street"--in this case it would meet that test. The second, "which is provided
with access by a driveway parallel to the lot line of the lot having standard access"--it
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
does not meet this. Therefore, it is not a flag lot, by definition. What is it? It is a lot
or a unit of land created by a partition or subdivision.
KEITH WOODLEY, Fire Chief, stated that access was in place in August. The Fire
Department will retain the right to access Ditch Road. If the pump station has been
placed in the way, additional access will have to be provided. The Fire Code does not
address length of private drives. The subdivision, as proposed, meets all current
requirements.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION
The Commission reviewed the criteria for a Performance Standards Options
subdivision. The first, is if the development meets all applicable ordinance
requirements of the City of Ashland.
Vision Clearance
Molnar felt vision clearance can be met and it could be deferred to Final Plan. After
discussion, the Commmissioners felt comfortable about waiting until Final Plan to be
certain vision clearance can be met.
Topographi¢ Map - All Commissioners agreed this requirement has been met.
Private drives and flag drives.
Bingham still does not know what this is. He said because of poor planning, there are
a series of dead ends instead of connecting streets. He felt the applicant has done
the best he could.
Powell is not comfortable with this issue, but it is not a major issue. It would seem
there is something wrong with the way the ordinance is written or how the project is
designed.
Armitage believes a variance request should have been requested since it appears this
is a dead end street and does not believe the way it has been presented meets the
intent of the ordinance.
Hibbert felt this is a subdivision, not a minor land partition. The rules governing this
application fall under the Performance Standards Options. He said the applicants have
met the requirements.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
Cloer did not hear any testimony that would make him believe the application is
inadequate.
Jarvis disagrees with Thurner, however, she feels the ordinance is ambiguous.
Jarvis counted five Commissioners that agreed the applicant had met the requirement
for streets and one Commissioner did not.
On-street parking
Carr said in order to comply with 18.88.060, a Condition should be added to identify
from the parking bay up the hill as association owned land and specifically identify lots
1, 2, 3,4and12.
Cloer reminded the Commission that Staff requested two additional spaces. Molnar
said they would like the applicant to consider on lots 1 and 2, in addition to a two-car
garage, to provide an additional area. Cloer wanted to impose that Condition.
Hibbert thought a Condition was advisable for an additional parking space for each lot.
Armitage, Powell and Bingham felt the on-street parking requirements had been met.
Key City Facilities
All Commissioners felt fire protection has been met.
Storm Drains
Powell wanted further information about how the water will be handled on lots 1 and 2
and what will happen to the drainage from the road.
Carr would like to see at Final Plan a drainage plan provided which will identify natural
drainage features and indicate future drainage patterns and facilities. This would
include building envelopes.
Armitage wanted stronger wording because he is concerned as soon as grading on
the road begins above lot 2, there are no curbs and he wondered how the excess
water will drain.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
Jarvis suggested a storm drainage development program, approved by the City
Engineer. As part of that, add that the storm drainage for the private drive be
collected and directed to the City's storm drain system. Armitage approved, however,
he was also concerned with the roof drainage on lot 3.
Traffic & Transportation
After physically viewing traffic at Church and Scenic, Bingham did not believe just
rounding the corner (Whitten's property_ would be enought to make the area safe.
Nob Hill is completely unprotected with no stops in either direction. If more
subdivisions keep getting approved, do we put up another stop sign? He does not
know how to deal with the City Council saying a street is at capacity and still allowing
a subdivision. He cannot figure out how to fix the problem.
McLaughlin said the standard traffic generation of a single family home is 10 trips per
day. The 11 homes would add 110 trips per day onto Scenic Drive, with a percentage
of those going to Medford and percentage going to downtown Ashland. During peak
hours, from 11 homes, there are an average 11 peak hour trips. Jarvis pointed out
that the Commissioners needed to decide if the applicants have shown there is
adequate street capacity and whether or not the testimony has contradicted that
testimony to show that there is not adequate street capacity.
Powell did not believe there was adequate street capacity because 70 percent of the
traffic is going to go downtown and the two streets going toward downtown are
Church Street and Nob Hill and both streets are at capacity.
Armitage agreed with the opponents who say that the City Engineer has stated that
the most direct route to town is by way of Church and there had to be some reason
Church Street is at capacity as well as Nob Hill.
Hibbert said there a number of ways to get off the hill and Scenic carries the traffic.
Church Street is at capacity because of its grade, not because of its volume.
Carr also said there are many routes to downtown and too many alternatives to
Church Street and Nob Hill to stop the development.
Cloer cannot ignore the accidents in the record submitted by Doerter. There is a
perceptible rate of traffic accidents on Church Street. He would like to have a
standard of safety to know at what point a street is overloaded. He does not believe
evidence has been presented that says there is a lack of capacity.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
10
After reading and considering the evidence submitted by Doerter and all testimony,
Jarvis felt the applicants had met the criteria and the opponents did not show clearly
to the contrary.
Cloer was bothered by the the fact that it is very difficult to measure capacity when
there are no standards for traffic hazards.
The Commissioners all agreed that the applicant has met the criteria for the above-
mentioned items.
Existing natural features have been included in open space.
Development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.
Provisions for maintainanoe of open space and common areas.
Proposed density meets the standards.
The following Conditions have been generated from Commissioners Discussion:
2.
3.
4.
5.
o
That there be a clarification of association owned land.
That a drainage plan be submitted at final plan approval.
That there be a minimum 25 foot easement on Ditch Road.
That the applicant would waive access to Ditch Road.
That there be a non-amendable provision in the CC&R's
regarding construction of dwellings.
That two on-site parking parking spaces be provided for lots I and 2.
Hibbert moved to approve PA93-095 with the attached Conditions and the above six
Conditions. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Powell moved to deny PA93-095. Bingham seconded the motion and it failed with
Powell, Bingham, and Armitage voting "yes" and Carr, Hibbert, Jarvis, and Cloer voting
"no".
Carr moved to approve PA93-095 with the attached Conditions and the above six
Conditions. Cloer seconded the motion and the motion carried with Hibbert, Carr,
Jarvis, and Cloer voting "yes" and Armitage, Bingham, and Powell voting "no".
Thompson joined the meeting.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
11
PLANNING ACTION 93-109
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 25-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER
THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST MAIN ON FORDYCE STREET.
APPLICANT: KEITH AVERY/BEAR CREK CONSTRUCTION
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
-*Bingham, Powell, Armitage, Hibbert, Carr, and Medinger had site visits.
-*Cloer had a site visit and was interested in the swale and wondered about the
drainage situation.
-,Thompson had nothing to report.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar reported that this proposal involves the modification of
subdivision approval. The the cul-de-sac design would be eliminated with Amy Street
running east to west, terminating at the western boundary. Eventually Amy Street
could be extended to serve the vacant property to the west. The proposal is for 25
lots and the applicant's findings indicate the density bonus will be achieved through
affordable housing, open space and conservation bonus points. After measuring, the
on-street parking for Lots 10 and 11 and checking the applicant's additional
submittals, the parking does comply with the 200 foot requirements. With regard to
open space, the applicant has indicated there will be 6400 square feet of open space
which would fall short of the required five percent. It appears the applicant excluded
public streets in the calculation. the open space is proposed to be met in two areas --
1) an open area at Amy and Melanie Streets, and 2) a linear type of open space
along the railroad tracks to be improved with asphalt for walking or biking that would
dead end at the end of the development. The City's bike plan shows a bike path on
the other side of the railroad tracks. Staff instead suggested that the applicant
incorporate the open space into one location. Also, Staff is not clear what measures
will be chosen from the conservation density bonus to meet the 15 percent density
bonus for conservation housing. Overall, Staff would like to commend the applicant
for a thorough application and his willingness to work with the City Staff to eliminate a
cul-de-sac and redesign the subdivision to meet the City's thru street policy. Staff has
recommended approval of the application with the attached 10 Conditions.
The letter from Talent Irrigation District regarding this application has been entered into
the record.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
-12
PUBLIC HEARING
KEITH AVERY, 1049 Tolman Creek Road, said that in order to meet the 15 percent
density bonus for conservation, they will use high efficiency furnaces or heat pumps,
lighting, water heaters, etc. Avery said the only addition that may take place, if the
lighting is not possible, is an attempt at water conservation, however, he is not certain
how landscaping is enforced. Avery felt the open space buffered incompatible lands
as directed in the Comp Plan. They intend to have a 10 foot wide walkway and fence
along the railroad track.
Hibbert wondered how the walkway could be useful as it doesn't go anyplace. He
asked if Avery considered parkrows between the houses and Melanie Street.
Medinger did not think it would be difficult to move Melanie 10 feet closer to the
railroad tracks and move the open space up along Melanie. McLaughlin said they
could be flexible with the setback and could have less than a 20 foot setback.
THOMPSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. CARR
SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED.
EVAN ARCHERD, 120 N. Second Street, owns an interest in the lot to the east. He
wants to make sure the Commission understands the parking is being moved from the
north side of Amy to the south and will not prevent him from developing his property.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Medinger wanted to see something written in the CC&R's about the amount to be
assessed for the homeowner's association. Also, nothing was included for parkrows.
Thompson moved to continue the hearing until October 12, 1993. Carr seconded the
motion. Avery agreed to a 30 day extension. Thompson amended his motion to
continue the hearing and allowing for Final Plan approval of Phase I. Carr seconded
the motion. The Commissioners suggested the applicant place a parkrow on one or
both sides of the street with the garages located further back on the lot. Thompson
thought consolidated open space would be workable with the removal of the open
space along the railroad track. The motion carried unanimously.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
13
PLANNING ACTION 93-117
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 9-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER
THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
BEHIND 408 N. LAUREL STREET.
APPLICANT: FRED COX
Site visits and Ex Parte Contacts
All Commissioners had a site visit with Cloer noting the drainage problem on the site.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin stated this application is for a 9-lot subdivision. Two issues of concern
noted in the Staff Report were the density calculations and the need for a minor
modification of open space. Phase I is proposed for Lots I and 2 (facing Orange).
Since it is a subdivision, the ordinance requires that the access be paved. Through a
miscommunication with the applicant this point was not made entirely clear. In
discussions with the applicant, he brought up the option to modify the application to a
two-step approach of securing a Minor Land Partition for Lots 1 and 2 and the
remainder of the property being one large lot designed temporarily as a flag lot having
access to either Orange or Laurel. Once it was fully subdivided in the seven remaining
lots, the flag would disappear. This would allow the applicant to develop Lots I and 2
without being wholly responsible for the improvement of Orange Avenue at this time.
Hibbert wondered if the applicant could post a bond instead.
PUBLIC HEARING
FRED COX, 918 Morton Street, wondered if there was a way to waive the road
construction portion since the whole development is designed with the other developer
(Bonin) in mind. Everything else, Cox agrees with. He can wait another month for re-
noticing, but would rather not. McLaughlin thought if the signature could be acquired
by the property owner to the east then a local improvement district could be formed to
pave Oranage at this time.
Cox said the drainage questions will be answered with engineers and the drainage will
tie into the storm drains.
CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 12:00. THE MOTION WAS
SECONDED AND CARRIED.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
14
DON RIST, 260 Joy Drive, would like to see the two lots on Orange allowed to be
developed.
Jarvis read DAVID CHASMAR'S, 468 N. Laurel, favorable comments, with reservations,
into the record.
Medinger did not see any parkrows or parking places designated on the plan. Also,
no CC&R's were submitted with Outline Plan; this is a very sketchy application. Next
month a more complete application could be submitted and these issues could be
addressed more firmly. Cox responded that the CC&R's can be addressed at Final
Plan. He is willing to put the parking on one side and he would like to try one or two
common driveways. The parkrow is made a Condition.
McLaughlin suggested wording Condition 4 as follows: "That the acquisition of
signatures for the improvement of Orange Avenue be obtained representing greater
than 50 percent of street frontage prior to the application for Final Plan for the two lots
in Phase I. Further, should the local improvement district not be formed by the City
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the units, that the applicant fully
bond for the street improvement."
In giving guidance to the applicant, the Commissioners suggested the open space on
one side of the street with parking on the open space side of the street. Thompson
thought the two-story houses were acceptable.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Hibbert moved to approve with the new wording on Condition 4 (above) and the
added guidelines. The parking can be worked out at Final Plan. Powell seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 93-115
REQUEST FOR A SIGN VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A FREEWAY SIGN IN
EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND AREA, AND A GROUND SIGN IN
EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2495
HIGHWAY 66 (TEXACO STATION).
APPLICANT: ROBERT D. GEORGE
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by Bingham, Armitage, Hibbert, Medinger, Cloer, Jarvis, and
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
15
Carr. Powell did not have a site visit and Thompson had nothing to report.
STAFF REPORT
The applicant is requesting a Variance for two signs, the large freeway sign and a
large ground sign. There is little reason to grant a height a Variance for the freeway
sign or for the ground sign. Everyone is under the same rules and there is no need to
waive the rules. Staff has recommended denial of this request. The applicant is
asking for replacement of the sign, lowering it to 75 feet high. The BP sign is visible at
the allowable height.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROBERT GEORGE, 2449 Arrowpoint Court, Medford, stated that the Texaco sign that
is there is in need of repair. There are three signs involved, not two. Their intention is
to clean up the whole property. If George replaces the Texaco sign to Ashland's
ordinance, Texaco Corporation give that allowance to George, as a distributor.
Texaco will allow the tall sign to stay there now. The signs requested are the smallest
signs Texaco makes.
McLaughlin said if the station builds a Star Mart and the property is added onto, they
would be required to go through Site Review which would bring the "grandfathered"
signs into compliance. George said they would only be making interior changes if that
was the case. He does wish to cooperate with the City.
GENE PIAZZA, representing the station owner, Mrs. Hale, said the Commission could
be passing up an opportunity to reduce the non-conformance considerably.
Thompson moved to deny PA93-115 as it does not satisfy the Variance criteria. There
was no second to the motion. Powell moved to continue the hearing until October
12, 1993. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
MINUTES
16