Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-12 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY '12, 1998 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Commissioner Chris Hearn. Other Commissioners present were Russ Chapman and Marilyn Briggs. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Maria Harris and Susan Yates. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 98-026 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS. ACCESS TO BOTH LOTS WILL BE FROM THE SPRING HILL DRIVE, A PUBLIC STREET UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 940 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD Ex Parte Contacts or Site Visits All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Harris used an overhead to explain the project. The applicant is proposing to divide a lot into two lots. Access to the lot will be by way of Spring Hill Drive. The applicant is proposing a parking bay on Tolman Creek (two spaces). Staff has recommended approval with the attached conditions. A public hearing was requested in April because of concerns about availability of public facilities, transportation and parking. Staff has suggested the parking bay on Tolman Creek Road be moved away from Tolman Creek which will allow for closer walking distance to both lots. If the bay is left on Tolman, the corner planting strip would need to be moved. Tolman Creek Road is a major collector with heavy automobile and pedestrian traffic (Bellview school children). The planting strip provides a buffer for pedestrians and keeps a visual connection between drivers and pedestrians. Parked cars would interfere. Briggs wondered how the house opposite Spring Hill will be facing. She would like to see a continuity of setbacks on Tolman Creek Road. Hearn noted Shapiro's letter regarding availability of public facilities and parking. The parking was extensively reviewed in the Staff Report. He does not understand though about availability of public facilities. Molnar said in the initial application it was unclear how the applicant would provide sewer and water. There had been some discussions between Shapiro (developer of Spring Hill) about hooking into the new sewer and water mains provided in Spring Hill. That needed to be coordinated between Shapiro and the applicant. The city could not require that until the neighboring subdivision is complete and the survey is signed and the street becomes public right-of-way. The original application made conclusory statements before an agreement had been reached. Staff is comfortable with the issue at this time. The applicant cannot build without proper capacity and permits. PUBLIC HEARING MARK JERNIGAN, 1340 Siskiyou Boulevard, #131, stated he is the contractor for the property owner. Jernigan gave some background on the initiation of the Minor Land Partition. He explained how services will be provided to the property. No one he knew about seemed to have strong objections to parking on Tolman Creek Road.. He stated the plan on the overhead (the plan he submitted) is not a complete overview. Staff comments about parking being away from the one lot are valid, however, he does not see distance as that much of a consideration. Chapman asked if Jernigan objects to moving the parking spaces. Jernigan said he does object because the complete frontage of parcel one will have parking all along it. The cars on Tolman Creek should not travel that fast. Briggs asked if there will be more parking bays on Tolman. Harris said up the street (across Siskiyou) there will be a parking bay. Jernigan noted the street is paved from the centerline all the way to the property line just south of the subject property. The parking would be an extension of pavement south of it on Tolman Creek. Molnar noted that the lot Jernigan is speaking of is a circular driveway and the situation is non-conforming It already does not meet access management standards and to create another point where cars can back out will only add to the conflict on Tolman Creek Road. Jernigan has no problem with the other Conditions of approval. Chapman commented that driving up Tolman Creek Road this morning he saw a whole bunch of school kids walking which made him feel crowded. He is genuinely concerned to put parking bays or parked cars along a street that is already feeling crowded with kids and others who use it heavily. If there is traffic pulling in and out, further adding to the congestion would not be advisable. Jernigan said the road looks really narrow now but once improvements are made the road will be wider. Briggs wondered if the applicant would consider a compromise and put the parking bay in front of the corner parcel (2). Harris said when they suggested to the applicant to move the parking to Spring Hill, Staff left it to the applicant to find different places. At the time it was discussed, she thought there was an issue with the applicant not wanting to put it toward the front lot. She believes it will be acceptable to Staff. Molnar said Shapiro had planned on being at this meeting and would ask the Planning Commission break up the bays. Molnar asked the Commission to remember the right-of-way line is a constant so when they talk about putting a parking lot in front of the house, the setbacks of the house are established from the right-of-way. If you put in parking, it does not mean the parking is closer to the house. The 20 foot setback is established regardless. Molnar said one other option the Commission has is to require two off-street spaces, one, or none. This is not a requirement of the partition but a requirement of a subdivision. However, the property owner calling this up for a hearing has discussed that in the partition's chapter, the Planning Commission does have the authority to require similar requirements as would be required in a subdivision. Jernigan's preference would prefer not to have parking. There is an extra space in the subdivision. Chapman asked what Staffs compelling reason is for requiring parking. Harris said Spring Hill is 20 to 22 feet wide and though there will be ample parking most of the time, there might be spaces needed for guests. Molnar said Shapiro had hoped for two spaces. Harris spoke of two spaces in the Staff Report but one space could be an option. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY 12, '1998 MINUTES Harris said the driveway proposed to access the two lots is 16 feet. Jernigan asked for 18 feet. Hearn said the drawing the applicant provided shows 16 feet. Harris said the standard is 16 feet. Briggs suggested wording of Condition 7: "That one on-street parallel parking bay be installed on the Spring Hill Drive frontage of Parcel 2 (corner lot) or bonded for prior to signature of the final survey plat. The on-street parking bay on Tolman Creek Road shown on the site plan shall not be installed and shall be replaced by an 8 foot wide parkrow". Jernigan still wants the space on Tolman Creek but Briggs' wording would be his second choice. Staff Comments Harris reviewed the wording of Condition 7. (See Brigg's wording.) Harris said in checking the Spring Hill site plan there are seven spaces and for seven lots. She also mentioned the extension of pavement to match the other lot on Tolman Creek (non-conforming) should not occur. The bike lane on Tolman Creek Road is four feet wide. Harris said with regard to the 18 foot versus 16 foot driveway, Harris wanted them to match what is on Spring Hill which is 16 feet. Harris said the applicant could keep the apron at 16 feet and the driveway can be 18 feet. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman moved to approve PA98-026 with changes to Condition 7 as read by Briggs. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 98-034 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR A HEALTH CLINIC. THE REMAINDER OF THE STRUCTURE UTILIZED AS A PRIVATE LIVING SPACE. APPLICANT: MARGUERITE J. AND STEPHEN W. SMITH This action was approved. Briggs would like to see the applicant provide a turnaround so cars can exit going forward. Molnar thought there would be room to do so if the applicant is amenable PLANNING ACTION 98-037 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE AND RESIDENCE. 2300 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: ROBIN ROSE, MD This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 98-037 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A WAREHOUSE BUILDING 3175 EAST MAIN STREET APPLICANT: FRANK AND JUNE PAPEN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY 12, 1998 MINUTES This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 98-028 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING (OFFICE/LIGHT MANUFACTURING) TO BE USED FOR THE DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF COPPER AND BRASS HOME AND GARDEN DECORATIONS. APPLEGATE WAY (PARCEL 2) APPLICANT: RON BERTOCCHI This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY 12, 1998 MINUTES