Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-14 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Hearn, Gardiner, Howe, Morris, Armitage and Briggs. Ron Bass was absent. Giordano retired. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, Harris and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Gardiner moved to approve the Minutes of the September 9, 1997 Regular Meeting. Morris seconded the motion and everyone approved. Armitage moved to approve the Minutes of the September 9, 1997 Hearings Board. Morris seconded the motion and both approved. The Findings (Johnston and Heller) will be adopted later in the meeting after members have had an opportunity to review. RECONSlDERATION OF PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 97-091 REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO EMPLOYMENT (E-l) AT B STREET AND MOUNTAIN AVENUE. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Jarvis said this action can only be reconsidered by a Commissioner that voted to deny this action originally. Briggs moved to reconsider PA97-091. Morris seconded the motion. McLaughlin said this would be scheduled for a public hearing at the regular meeting in November. Briggs, Jarvis, Morris, and Gardiner voted in favor. Hearn and Armitage abstained as they were not present during the original hearing. (Howe joined the meeting.) PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Cathy Golden explained that Tom Giordano would be stepping down from his position on the Planning Commission. She thanked Giordano for his involvement, also stating that he has served on a number of committees and commissions during the past several years. Jarvis also commended Giordano for her service and expertise while on the Commission. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 97-077 REQUEST FOR A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE (735 S. MOUNTAIN) AND PROSPECT STREET. APPLICATION INVOLVES A VARIANCE TO CREATE A LOT HAVING A WIDTH GREATER THAN ITS DEPTH, AND A VARIANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO EXISTING STREET RIGHT-OF- WAY/IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: RAD WELLES Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts -*All Commissioners had a site visit. -*Armitage said the stump on Lot 3 was 110 years old when it was cut down about five years ago so the other trees on the property are probably of similar age. He reviewed all the notes and tapes from the previous meetings and will be participating in the hearing this evening. --,Hearn said he will step down because his firm represents the applicant in other unrelated matters and there could be a possible conflict of interest. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin stated the criteria is the same as the past two months and since the last meeting, the issues have been narrowed down. Staff believes the sidewalk proposed by the applicant is a workable option. It provides pedestrian refuge at the corner of Prospect and South Mountain by having a curbside sidewalk. It appears only one or possibly two trees will be removed but they are in the corner in the vision clearance area already. The Variance that has been requested to not provide a sidewalk in front of the existing house is the area of steepest grade and it may be best not to have a sidewalk for that section and continue it on further down, behind the trees that are in the right-of-way area. Resume the sidewalk again at the driveway that enters Lot 2 and continue to the north property line. The applicant has done a survey of the trees which has clarified which trees will be saved and removed. There is a concern about a couple of the large trees as to whether or not they will be saved. One is indicated as a 25 inch diameter tree on the north edge of the building envelope on Lot 1. Also, the building envelope for Lot 3 through adjustments and redesign has been moved six feet from the right-of-way line along South Mountain. The ordinance requires it be ten feet but that can be handled through a Condition. The sidewalk solution provides protection at the corner, is a place for pedestrians to be off the street with a limited area to negotiate the street, and it meets the intent of the comprehensive plan for access with the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the terrain and allow for the development. Staff has recommended approval of the application with 14 conditions. Jarvis said in Welles letter of October 3rd he indicated two trees on Lot 6, south of the building envelope, were going to be changed from preserved to removed. McLaughlin explained while those trees are outside the building envelope and they may be preserved, they may be damaged by construction in that area and may need to be removed. Jarvis asked for Staff's comments on Welles request for a Variance from the additional five foot right-of- way beyond the existing ten foot right-of-way. McLaughlin said the only area it is necessary is where the sidewalk goes behind the trees on Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 and that can be handled through an extension of the right-of-way or granting an easement for public pedestrian access. Briggs expressed concern that the Lot 3 building envelope is still in the same place with possibly a blind corner. McLaughlin said that portion of the envelope has-not changed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING RAD WELLES thought the only impediment to vision at the corner for anyone, except for someone coming down Prospect, was the trees which are subject to removal. Welles tried to address the safety issues with sidewalks and designating the potential for removing all the trees on the corner to make a clearer view. With regard to removing the trees on Lot 6, if he cannot get 15 feet of clearance to a tree, then they cannot say for certain it will live. If the envelope is reduced to 40 feet, Welles believes one would end up with a garage with a house attached to it. Welles agreed to do the two sections of the sidewalk moving it back four more feet from where it is shown on the map. Condition 7 concerning the drainage plan is a concern for Welles. Most of the drainage on the lots will be connected with the houses that are being built and to do a drainage plan that will deal with all the drainage problems that will ever exist on the property before the final plat does not work. MIKE THORNTON said they agree with the intent of the Condition. It is their desire to interpret the Condition that the impervious areas, rooftops, driveway drainage, be collected by a drainage system and discarded out to the curb. They did not want to be confined to basins; they may use channel drains and/or take drainage out the driveway. TOM MEYER, certified arborist, stated his recommendation was to stay 15 feet away from any houses with regard to the trees because if the trees are any closer they generally die in the course of construction even when given the best chance possible which involves a lot of fencing and on-the-spot inspecting. Construction processes don't take much consideration for trees. Meyer said it appears the 25 inch tree looks like it is falling right on the building envelope so he would suggest removal. Welles said the CC&R's mandate only trees will be removed that are within the footprint of the house. All the trees designated in "black" may die no matter how much care is taken. Morris wondered the likelihood of the tree in front of the house on Lot 2 surviving if the house were demolished. Meyer said it depends on how the house is removed and the truck operator. He believes it should and can be saved but it will take a concerted effort on the contractor's part to make sure that happens. tt can be saved if it is paid attention to, if not, he can pretty much guarantee it will not survive. Howe wondered on Lot 1, if the 25 inch tree could be saved by notching out the building envelope. Welles said the 12 inch walnut would be lost and that is valuable tree and would also involve moving the garage and driveway. Jarvis read comments from DONNA MARKLE and GREER MARKLE, 681 So. Mountain in opposition to the proposal. Staff Response McLaughlin said concerns about drainage had been raised, thus Condition 7. An easement is going to be required to get the drainage out to the street. An overall plan needs to be submitted showing at least ASHLAND PLANblING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES an approach be defined as to how drainage is going to be directed from each of the b~ilding sites, collected and taken to the street. Remove the second sentence from Condition 7. Add Condition 15 that a public pedestrian access easement be provided for the sidewalk on Lots 1 and 2. McLaughlin said the conditions on a subdivision require an arborist be present during initial site preparation and that temporary fencing be installed around the trees during site preparation and construction. With those type of protection in place, there can probably be construction closer than the 15 feet. Rebuttal Welles noted about 70 trees are being preserved. It states specifically in the CC&R's that any tree outside the building envelope has to be preserved. The building envelopes should be practical, therefore, he believes a 40 foot house is not practical. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Gardiner believes the applicant has clarified the Commissioner's concerns. He has clearly designated building envelopes and which trees will be removed or trees that might have to be removed. Morris would like to see the 25 inch tree saved. He does not think a 40 foot house is impossible. Armitage felt, as did Gardiner that Welles has made an effort to save the trees. It is a difficult situation. The 25 inch tree is an amenity and he doubts a buyer would want to remove it. Briggs suggested the sidewalk going around the corner of Prospect and Mountain be retained as presented by the applicant. However, the way the sidewalk has to curve by Lot 2 and across Lot 1 does not make a lot of sense to her. She believes it should be eliminated altogether. Jarvis asked for clarification: Is there a need for a Variance for a lot wider than it is deep? McLaughlin said there is not. A Variance is needed for the street right-of-way. Howe, Briggs, Gardiner and Armitage agreed the sidewalk in front of Lots 1 and 2 should be eliminated. Morris and Jarvis did not agree. There are presently cars parked on the street which mean one has to walk in the street and compete with parked cars. Also, there will no longer be access through this lot to get down to the park and school. Children will not have a safe haven. Discussion ensued regarding adjustments to the building envelopes to save the trees, specifically the two on Lot 6 and one tree on Lot 1. Gardiner, Armitage and Briggs did not wish to change the envelope. Jarvis, Morris and Howe did not agree. The trees will be left as the applicant has designated on the map. McLaughlin said the Variance needed for the right-of-way is a non-issue. Howe moved to approve PA97-077 with the Variance on lot width removed and an exception to the existing street right-of-way based on existing foliage and slope. Note the changes made by Staff to the drainage plan (Condition 7). Add Condition 15: That the sidewalk shall only be required along the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES Prospect and South Mountain frontages of Lot 3 as indicated on the submitted sidewal~ plan. Briggs seconded the motion and the action was unanimously approved. Hearn again joined the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 97-084 REQUEST FOR A THREE LOT MINOR LAND PARTITION AT 610 ASHLAND STREET. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE THE EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF A PORTION OF FOREST STREET EAST OF WELLER LANE. APPLICANT: STEVE MORJIG Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Briggs spoke to Mr. Werlich and asked him where Forest would be located and he gave her a map showing the street location. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin distributed copies of the information adopted by the Council in 1992 with regard to the Forest Street connection. Molnar noted the applicable criteria. In 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Minor Land Partition to split a very large parcel into two. An amendment to the Transportation Map was done in 1992. The proposed lot is heavily wooded with an existing home served by a 200 foot unimproved driveway off Ashland Street. If the request is granted this evening, the parcel could be further divided which the applicant will ultimately wish to do, for a total of six lots. He has shown a conceptual master plan, as requested. The future intent is to divide parcel 1 into two lots, parcel 2 would stay as one lot, and parcel 3 would be divided into three lots (refer to notice map). The two lots closest to Ashland Street will be served by the existing driveway. Parcel 3 will be served by the extension of Forest Street. Forest Street is on the Transportation Plan map as part of the Weller Lane subdivision. There is a section of right-of-way stubbed out near the cul-de-sac. A paved driveway is located in the right-of-way that serves a home presently. There was a request to locate the driveway and an agreement filed with the City to let the property owner know there was a potential for the street to be ultimately improved to a City standard which might necessitate the driveway be removed and access modified. Part of the proposal will involve the extension of Forest Street which will go down the slope, run along the southern portion of the property and north towards Ashland Street and terminate with a temporary turnaround. The final section of Forest Street which will connect the upper portion of Weller Lane to the lower portion of Morton will not be developed until the property owner desires to develop (owned presently by Wolfe). A preliminary street design has been provided. An attempt was made to design the street as narrow as possible (20 feet wide) while still meeting the City's minimum standards in order to preserve as many trees as possible and because the levels of traffic will be just inter-neighborhood travel. The applicant will improve only half the street and the remainder would be improved upon development of Wolfe's property. About a dozen trees will be removed for street construction. The applicant has identified building envelopes with ample rear and side yards, however, a number of trees will need to be removed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES Staff has recommended approval with the attached 14 Conditions. The application wa~ originally approved administratively but several letters were submitted requesting a public hearing. McLaughlin showed transparencies and explained how adoption of the street connection occurred. PUBLIC HEARING STEVE MORJIG, 610 Chestnut Street, stated he worked the project into the adopted Transportation Plan map as required. He does not believe the Commission can even look at other street alternatives. He said a three foot sidewalk is proposed on the Weller Lane connection. He met with the Tree Commission and has provided a tree preservation plan. He has worked out a tentative agreement with Keevils (Tax Lot 2001) that if Morjig provides sewer, Keevil will abandon his easement. He is in agreement with the conditions except Condition 2. DAVE HAMMOND, 31 Newtown, Medford, explained this was a difficult site with constraints by widths of the existing rights-of-way and there is a significant vertical difference between the street that exists and the lower shelf of the property. They have done profiles and cross sections and they believe they can come up with an acceptable design for the street. There will be final review by the City Engineering staff with which he agrees. Howe asked what the slope is at the first part of the Forest extension. Hammond and Morjig said it was 18 percent, with seven percent at the pad. Briggs inquired how sidewalks would be done on the steepest portion. Morjig said it will be just along the right side. McLaughlin said the steepest sidewalk in town that gets lots of use is along Fork and this is similar. Morjig agreed that some corrugation in the concrete would be advisable. McLaughlin explained Condition 2 refers to timing with regard to bonding. The wording of Condition 2 will can be changed to read: That all public improvements associated with the extension and construction of Forest Street shall be designed prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Forest Street improvements to be bonded in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for parcel 3. Street to be constructed prior to an issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a home on Lot 3 or further partitioning of Lot 3". McLaughlin clarified Condition 8 "That all easements and 'public right-of-way'...". Jarvis read a letter from Patricia Wolfe favoring the application. TOM KEEVIL, 600 Ashland Street, stated he currently has utility and vehicle access from Ashland Street. He would encourage the Commission to keep the Transportation Plan Map as approved. He believes the proposal presented is the best plan for development. He is concerned that he have reasonable access to the driveway rather than minimal legal access. He is also concerned that all of his utilities may go through seven other properties. He wondered if a decision could be made to stub his utilities off Forest Street. MARK AND JINI DANIS, 620 Weller Lane, showed a video of their property and the surrounding area. J. Danis questioned the wording of the proposal itself. Ordinance 18.08.560 states a minor land partition does not create a road or street. Is it a minor land partition or a major land partition? With the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES proposed future development, it is a subdivision versus a minor land partition. She un(~erstands the need for access to the proposed lots, but what is the long-term use of this road? She would propose access by a private way (18.76.180). There currently exists an easement off Ashland Street that is 20 feet wide that would be adequate. M. Danis said the City did not discourage them from putting in the road in. He knew there was a risk but he did not think it was likely at the time that the neighbors would develop. He showed a transparency of the area and asked the Commission to consider using Forest Street as a pedestrian and bikeway and a cul-de-sac from Forest over to the Keevils. JEFF WERLICH, 610 Weller Lane, presented a petition signed by residents to be entered into the record. He was aware there was a potential of a road being punched through. He has a problem with the steep grade exceeding what the City now allows. He cannot imagine someone going up the icy grade on Forest, stopping and getting started again. Molnar read the petition. RANDY VORIS, 630 Weller Lane, believes this is similar to the intersection of Church and Scenic. Weller Lane is a very narrow street and does not support this type of intersection. It will only service one house and will take out 18 trees in the making. Voris believes there will be a danger to children who now play in the street. He would propose the existing easement going through to Keevil's property would be a better solution for a road as it is fiat, straight and already established. Later on, tie in Forest and make a cul-de-sac. PETER DODD, 640 Weller Lane, said the steep part of Forest reminds him of Morton Street. He has seen cars skid down Morton when it is icy and bouncy off the curb to keep from going through the STOP sign. He believes this will be the same kind of situation. Cars coming from the cul-de-sac will not be able to see cars coming from Forest. He agrees a better solution would be using the gravel road from Ashland. ED HOUGHTON, 219 Logan Drive, felt cutting through Forest would make a hazardous condition and will effect the ambience and livability of the existing neighborhood. He signed an agreement favoring future street improvements for that area, but he felt he was forced to do so in order develop. Staff Response McLaughlin said the City Council adopted the street design. The connection was already part of the Street Dedication Map. In 1992, the Council deleted the part that connected past Badger's (existing house in proposed project). The Land Use Ordinance requires that dedication of future right-of-way be done with the partition and to not do it is a variance. To not follow the Comprehensive Plan requirements is beyond the Commission's discretion. While there has been a lot of testimony regarding the street, the Commission's actions are limited. The Commission has to follow the adopted plan. Requests can be made to the Council to change the plan. It can be initiated by an application filed by neighbors or property owners. Both the Comprehensive Plan Map and requirement of dedication of right-of-way are in place at this time. Jarvis explained when the map was adopted there were a number of public hearings so this is not something that came up suddenly. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES Howe asked if the minor land partition is an appropriate vehicle for this action. McLaughlin said State law has changed with regard to the major/minor land partitions. State statute does not allow cities to recognize a difference. A partition is a partition. The Commission has the right to impose conditions as though it were a subdivision. However, the applicant is choosing to develop only a few lots in the first phase. The City's ordinance refers to major and minor land partitions. State law supersedes it at this time with some new legislation. That part of the ordinance needs to be changed. RebuEal Morjig only envisions four residents travelling up Forest to Weller and they will probably not use the 18 percent grade when it is icy. Hammond agreed that the discussion of grade is valid. It is steep but they will stay within the design standards established by the City. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs understands the road didn't just show up and the neighbors on Weller Lane were aware this was going to happen. Howe agrees the small extension of Forest will not be used once the extension across the Wolfe property goes through and the main exit will be more directly toward Ashland Street. She was in the Bay area during the Oakland fires. Without the adopted Forest Street connection, it would leave the cul- de-sac on Weller in a wooded area, highly vulnerable to forest fire with only one way to getting out. She saw the remnants of what was left after people were stuck and couldn't get out during a fire. It'is frightening. The idea of having connections in the forest zone is so important. People have to be able to get out. Hearn said this already part of the plan and the Commission has no jurisdiction to anything about any of this. He moved to approve PA97-084 with conditions as set forth. Howe seconded the motion. The motion carried with Gardiner voting "no". Howe moved to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and carried. PLANNING ACTION REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR A SEVEN-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON TOLMAN CREEK ROAD ACROSS FROM BARBARA STREET. APPLICANT: ANDREA SHAPIRO Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar stated the applicant proposed to extend a new street in from Tolman Creek Road going directly into the property, turn right and stub out against the property to the south. The Commissioners had a site visit a couple of months ago. He noted there is a vacant five acre parcel to the south and an eight- ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14,1997 MINUTES unit subdivision last year that has a road stubbing out in a northerly direction. The Cibj's plan is to link the road. There is a 20 foot right-of-way allowing driveway access to the garage on Lot 4. It will also serve as pedestrian/bike access as well as serving the large vacant structure. On-street parking will be provided in perpendicular parking bays. There is a parkrow design with a sidewalk. The building envelopes include extensions to allow for porch construction and a home design where the garage will be stepped back from the front facade. The building envelopes at the back of the property are required to be out of the floodplain, Each will have some private property that will extend into the floodplain, There will be a conservation easement dedicated for that area. Staff has recommended approval. Briggs noted three big cottonwoods and some smaller. Molnar thought all but one of the cottonwoods is to proposed to be retained. The Tree Commission has had some concerns that cottonwoods are not the safest trees; they tend to lose limbs and have a shallow root zone. PUBLIC HEARING TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, is in agreement with the Staff Report. With regard to Conditions 2 and 3, he believes it should be one or the other but not both. Under Condition 19, he did not realize there was a second story setback for a side yard. Molnar responded that the Staff's concern is the yard area opposite Tolman Creek Road which is also a side yard. If one is a side yard, it would make it a rear yard. ANDREA SHAPIRO, 186 Morninglight Drive, explained there is an inaccuracy on the drawing. Lot 4 is larger than stated. Giordano explained the driveway on Lot 7 is not opposite Lot 3 because it would make a much narrower envelope. They would like to have flexibility to put in a wider house. Molnar said Condition 2 could be deleted. Staff recommended the frontage improvements be installed as part of the subdivision. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe moved to approve PA97-093 with deletion of Condition 2 and the amendments specified by Staff. Gardiner seconded the motion and the action was unanimously approved. PLANNING ACTION 97-087 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED NEAR THE GRANITE STREET/WlNBURN WAY JUNCTION (SOUTH OF 247 GRANITE STREET). A DRIVEWAY GRADE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A 17 PERCENT GRADE RATHER THAN 15 PERCENT AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. A SECOND VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 40 PERCENT. APPLICANT: ROB CAIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Jarvis was overwhelmed by the height of the hill. STAFF REPORT All applicable criteria was mailed to the property owners. Molnar reported the development is confined to one-third of the property. Two-thirds of the property is five acres, forested and will remain as such. There are three proposed lots along Granite Street and a private driveway up to the quarry to access two other building sites. The construction of the driveway and other improvements associated with home construction are quite extensive and will involve a series of terraces and retaining walls to improve slope stability, home construction, and for aesthetic purposes. The applicant has given a summary of the reclamation improvements. A more detailed reclamation plan for the quarry area will be submitted at final plan. Staff's concerns relate to the Variance requests. Lots D through E have areas in excess of 40 percent. The Staff Report shows a table indicating the amount of each lot area that contain areas of less than 40 percent. It seems each lot has a suitable area to construct a home without having to encroach into areas that exceed the City's slope standard. The slopes are not natural but created through quarry activity. There is a report filed by Amrhein Engineering which came out after the initial submittal. While the report concludes the development of the project would improve the overall stability of this area, Staff would like to hear if that report evaluated the impact of the stability of the site if home construction actually goes into the steep areas of 50 to 80 percent. The other Variance is for the driveway grade. In Staff's opinion, there is little discussion in the application as to the negative impact of constructing the driveway at the required 15 percent. Staff concurs that the site as seen from a distance is a scar on the hillside and could use some upgrading. They assume the result of constructing a driveway at 15 percent would increase the degree of cuts and fill on the property but the justification needs to be made. There needs to be more evidence provided to support the Variances. Staff feels this is a unique site and that issues of safety of the residents has to be adequately addressed. They recommend denial of the Variance requests unless information can be provided to show the development would result in slope stability, would not cause harm to future inhabitants and would be a benefit to the community because of the total reclamation of the property. Conditions have been added if testimony is provided. Armitage moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Gardiner seconded and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING TOM GIORDANO said because of the complexity of the project, they produced a team of experts to work on the project. Many of the design choices were made to stabilize the site. The letter from the adjacent neighbor welcomes this development. They plan to do a hazards plan, fire prevention and control plan, preservation enhancement of the existing plan, and they will be connecting Granite Street ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES 10 through the site through the existing vegetative portions. The property owner has had ~liscussions with Parks Department about donating the upper five acres to the City as park land. Giordano thought enough information had been provided for the Variances. The way in which the houses are going to be designed will make the site more stable. The additional cuts and fills for the driveway could stabilize the site. ROB CAIN, 901 Carol Lane, Lafayette, CA, said he is convinced Lot A is safe and that is where he plans to build his own home. He desires giving something back to the community by reclaiming this site and donating five acres to the City. MARK AMRHEIN, 804 Roca, project engineer, read and submitted written testimony as part of the record. In summary, he believes the site is generally stable and would be even more stable with building, especially in regard to surface erosion. The stability can be improved through the use of structural retaining walls incorporated into the house and by cutting houses into the hillside. He recommended the use of rockeries, terracing, catchment walls which would not disturb the natural vegetation on the site. KERRY KINCAIRN, 147 Central, landscape designer, said the slope exceeds 15 percent and there is no way to get a driveway to the second terrace level without exceeding 15 percent. The drive follows the path of least resistance, the natural contour of the land. They tried to design something at 15 percent. The driveway will help provide stabilization in the terraces. It provides an opportunity to get into the upper site to do reclamation work. Howe asked for a definition of rockery. Amrhein said it is stacked rock. The lines on the map are the proposed location of rockeries. Howe said she was unclear how a building can stabilize a slope. Amrhein said by building a retaining wall within a house, the area behind the house can be filled, decreasing the slope angle, and using the house itself as a structural retaining wall. Armitage asked why the building envelope goes so far back. It would appear there would be a large cut into the slope. Giordano said each home will be custom designed. The purpose of putting the building envelope as far into the 40 percent slope as they did, is to stabilize the slope. Howe speculated if they were to go all the way to the back of the proposed building envelope C, what would be the height of the retaining wall? Giordano said they would step up the site. It would be similar to creating stairs. (Refer to proposed Hillsides Standards.) The'second story would be stepped back thus creating a second story elevation. Armitage questioned Kincairn as to what she would envision for revegetation. Kincairn envisions native vegetation. In terraced areas, the use of trees and shrubs. She would go with what is growing there already. Some soil will have to be brought in as far as reclamation. Armitage suggested a Planning Commission site visit. Briggs asked Giordano to look for an article in Fine Homebuilding about building on slopes and give examples to the Commission. The Commissioners will have a site visit on Sunday, October 19, 1997 from 9 to 10 a.m. They will meet at the quarry site. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES 11 The public hearing testimony will be kept open at the next meeting. Giordano agreed t~3 waive the 120 day time limit and to continue the action. Howe moved to continue, Hearn seconded and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS The Findings for the September 9, 1997 Hearings Board were approved. OTHER The November meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 12th. Jarvis will be absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1997 MINUTES 12 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 CALLTO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Steve Armitage at 1:40 p.m.. Other Commissioners present were Barbara Jarvis and Marilyn Briggs. Staff present were Knox, Harris and Yates. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 97-073 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT (TOTAL OF FIVE) TO THE ALREADY EXISTING FOUR UNIT PLUS OWNER'S QUARTERS TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION. 570 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: LAURA SHREWSBURY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Knox gave the history of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The addition of the fifth unit appears to be minimal when compared to the R-2 target use. The target use would allow four rental units with an average trip generation of about 26 vehicle trips per day. Considering the proposal, the site, and close proximity to downtown, Staff believes the proposal would not be an impact to the neighborhood. Even though Staff does not have a problem with the expansion proposal, Staff does have a problem with the way the applicant intends to operate the facility. Through written and verbal exchanges with the applicant and Knox, Bill Molnar and the Historic Commission, it is Staff's contention the applicant will not meet the standards for on-site residency. This will not be the applicant's primary residence as required by ordinance. The applicant stated that she and her husband put this property up for sale, purchased a residence on North Main Street and has moved her husband and two children into that residence. She has stated she will reside only on the property during nights of guest occupancy and she will be leaving weekday mornings to get her children ready for school and weekday afternoons and evenings to be with her family. The applicant is proposing a situation that not only skirts the ordinance requirements but also diminishes the tangible and intangible qualities of a residence. Staff believes it is imperative for the business owner to reside on-site and the site be the owner's primary residence. A primary residence is one in which the occupant resides/sleeps on-site at all times during the operation of the accommodation regardless if the rental units are occupied on a particular night or not. Staff has met with the City Attorney who confirmed the proposal would not meet the definition of a primary residence and, therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the application. After review, Jarvis said it appears the applicant is already violating the law. She is upset that Shrewsbury has decided to live in another house. Of course she would not live in a house where her kids are not living. This is the worst violation Jarvis has seen of the traveller's accommodation ordinance. Knox agreed a code enforcement issue exists even before the expansion. Briggs thought it was small and she could not see it would be appropriate for a family residence. Armitage is concerned that by making the fifth unit so small that it could become a future problem but it meets the criteria for a fifth unit. He feels issues are being mixed. Why is staff bringing in the issue of conformance? Shrewsbury brought attention to the fact she is in violation. Knox said the impacts associated with a fifth unit (trip generation, noise level) would be comparable to a four-unit rental. The fifth unit does NOT meet the criteria. The application does not meet the standards established or the criteria as outlined under 18.104 (Conditional Use Permit) A. and C.(g). PUBLIC HEARING LAURA SHREWSBURY, 570 Siskiyou Boulevard, referenced Nolte's opinion in the Staff Report and believes it is critical. It contained the chronology of the application. Nolte raised the same issue Armitage did on the Staff denial as he felt Staff was not denying the fifth room just because she is not in conformance. The timelines on her alleged violation on residency is of major concern to Shrewsbury. She told Nolte that Staff's interpretation relative to her is harsher than the real world. She listed all of the innkeepers who have occupations or residences outside of Ashland. Shrewsbury is first and foremost an innkeeper and now functioning somewhat like a baby-sitter with her children. She has worked outside the inn on other jobs similar to what she is doing now. She resides at the inn out of necessity. She first spoke about her intentions on July 18th to Knox (floor plan). Knox said it didn't matter what she intended to do with the family and as long as the inn was for sale it just needed to be explained. She wrote a response on July 22nd. Her children wanted to be near their school. They own six other residences in town at the same time they have owned the inn. The issue was raised after they moved. She cannot put a business owner in the traveller's accommodation. This is an action about a fifth room. If she was in violation it should have been dealt with on July 22nd. Jarvis believes it is very clear in the ordinance (read aloud) that accommodation be business owner occupied and be the primary residence of the owner. She knows Shrewsbury knew that. When one takes up an occupation, one needs to be aware of what the rules are. Shrewsbury has to live on-site. Shrewsbury said she does live there. Jarvis said she could lease it to someone. Shrewsbury said she cannot because she does not have the income. Jarvis said to approve expansion to five units when Shrewsbury is not presently in conformance is something the Hearings Board needs to take into consideration. Shrewsbury said it is not reasonable she has to be there at ALL times. Armitage thought if people feel the ordinance is not written correctly, then those in the bed and breakfast industry need to get together and fine-tune for clarification and for their own protection of the ordinance. Staff Response Knox said there was no evidence Shrewsbury was going to move. If she said she was going to move she should have received her approval, sold the property, transferred ownership and then moved. He believes the applicant was well aware of that condition. He was only aware of one traveller's accommodation referenced by Shrewsbury to Nolte and that was Oak Hill B&B at the time owned by and Tracy Bass. Tracy resided on-site at all times while Ron did do business in Sacramento and other places. He does not see how in Shrewsbury's case, the traveller's accommodation can possibly be her primary residence when her family lives in another residence in town. If the property is leased, the business owner is wholly responsible for the residence and business. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 Rebuttal Shrewsbury thoroughly understands the business owner language in the ordinance. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs thought when she looked at the floor plan that the space left for family living did not meet the criteria for a family owning a traveller's accommodation. On that basis, she would not approve. She felt it violated the spirit of the ordinance. Armitage said the traveller's accommodation could be owned by one 'person. He does not know how to address this if there is or isn't enough room for someone to live there. Jarvis agreed with Briggs. The Commission has more flexibility in granting a Conditional Use Permit. If there were a different situation that would be another matter, but it is apparent this is not the primary residence. The letters make it clear the primary residence is where Shrewsbury lives with her children. If this standard gets changed, Ashland will end up with small hotels around town; a whole different business. She believes that is not what is desired but instead older houses being used and rehabilitated and lived in by owners and being used as traveller's accommodations. Owners can use that money to pay for any rehabilitation they have done on the house. That is why the rules are so strict. Under the relevant criteria (g) she also finds all the requirements have not been met. Armitage finds this to be a code enforcement issue. He does not have a letter from Nolte saying it is or is not in compliance. The applicant is telling him she is in compliance. Staff is saying the fifth unit is acceptable as per the ordinance and it is an issue that they do not think she is in compliance. He would like an opinion from Nolte or an enforcement officer about whether she is or is not in compliance. Harris, in trying to clarify the issue, said this revolves around the definition of a primary residence. The applicant can say she is in compliance but that may be because she has a different definition of a primary residence. Staff is saying the application does not meet the criteria because it does not meet the definition of a primary residence through information Shrewsbury has shared in her letter. Jarvis moved to deny the PA97-073 based on it not being a primary residence. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried with Armitage voting "no". PLANNING ACTION 97-089 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 374 HELMAN STREET. THE REAR LOT TO BE ACCESSED BY WAY OF A FLAG DRIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT. APPLICANT: RICK LANDT Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Harris reviewed the details of the application as outlined in the Staff Report. The proposal locates the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 building envelope outside the floodplain. There is a mature walnut tree on the property. The applicant originally agreed to preserving the tree. She was contacted today by the applicant and she understands he has concerns with the Conditions and will discuss an alternative proposal. The lots are long and narrow and further division would be difficult. This action was approved administratively but called up for a public hearing by a neighbor who withdrew their request, but too late to be put on the September agenda. PUBLIC HEARING RICK LANDT, 487 Rock Street, said he agrees with the Staff Report that the criteria for a Minor Land Partition have been met. He agrees with the Conditions of approval with the exception of those relating to the tree. He asked the Commissioners to review the drawing he handed out. If the tree were fenced off before construction begins and the front lot were already developed, there would be no way to access the lot. His alternative would be to provide for fencing around the tree, but allow access to the property but do it in a way to protect the tree by protecting the dripline. The dripline is irregular and in some places it encroaches into the building envelope. He would propose the building envelope supersede the dripline. He provided suggested re-wording for Condition 9. He showed slides of the site. With regard to Condition 11, he does not see any reason to place fill and if the Commissioners would agree to be less restrictive with fencing, he would agree to no fencing in the dripline with the exception of the driveway. Because of "a.", "c." becomes irrelevant because if you cannot put any fill within the dripline, you will not be putting any fill around the trunk. Briggs wondered with cars going back and forth once a residence is there, will they be going across bark? Landt said the bark will be temporary and then prior to driveway construction (Condition 10), the driveway design construction drawings shall be approved by the Staff Advisor to ensure a minimization of the impacts to the walnut from impervious surfaces. Jarvis wondered if Landt was suggesting the turnaround be around the tree. Landt said the idea was to keep parking outside the building envelope and he should have showed it in inside the building envelope. Staff Response The words will be removed regarding going around the tree. Staff would agree with using Landt's wording for Conditions 9 and 11. Armitage suggested adding to 10 that there be no parking spaces or turnaround under the tree canopy. Harris asked to add at the end of Condition 5 "...prior to certificate of occupancy". COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs moved to approve PA97-089 with the changes noted above. Jarvis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 97-098 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS (THREE EXISTING) FOR A HOTEL/MOTEL USE. 474 1/2 NORTH MAIN STREET APPLICANT: BRAD ROUPP ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 97-100 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 7800 SQUARE FOOT CITY OFFICE BUILDING 1175 E MAIN STREET APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 97-101 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 2,625 SQUARE FOOT , ONE STORY, METAL STORAGE BUILDING AT THE ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE FACILITY 212 WALKER AVENUE APPLICANT: ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Briggs is concerned this is a metal, throw-away building. She wondered if there were plans for any other buildings. Staff said they did not believe there would be a place for more buildings and the space left is for trucks backing up and turning around. The building is permanent. Briggs is not certain the building is architecturally compatible with the impact area. Armitage disagreed because it is located back off the street, it is a maintenance facility and compatible. This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997