Loading...
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