Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-010 Findings - HoughtonBEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 5, 1991 IN THE Fu%TTER OF PLANNING ACTION ~90-218, REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE STREET LOCATION AND LOT LAYOUT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 18-LOT SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION INVOLVES THE RELOCATION OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE PROPOSED LOGAN DRIVE AND SCENIC DRIVE AWAY FROM THE SCENIC/GRANDVIEW INTERSECTION, AND THE ASSOCIATED MODIFICATIONS OF LOT LINES. APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION (AMENDED) SECTION 1. RECITALS 1.1 Tax lot 6900 of 391E08AA is located at or near the intersection of Scenic and Grandview Drives at 185 Scenic Drive and is zoned R-i-10P, Single Family Residential. 1.2 The applicant is requesting modification of a previously approved Final Plan regarding street location for an 18-lot subdivision. 1.3 The criteria for modification of a previously approved final plan are the same as for Final Plan approval which are found in 18.88.030 B. 1.4 The Ashland Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on November 13, 1990 and December 11, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. 1.5 The action was appealed to the City Council in a timely manner by Steve and Chrissy Barnett, 182 Scenic Drive Ashland, OR, following the procedures in 18.108 of the~Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal was filed on their behalf by their attorney, Mr. Thomas C. Nowser, of the firm Howser & Munsell, Ashland, OR. 1.6 The Ashland City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on February 5, 1991 at which time testimony was received and exhibits presented. The City Council approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. 1 SECTION 2. CRITERIA 2.1 The criteria for modification of a previously approved final plan are the same as for Final Plan approval for a subdivision under the Performance Standards Option, which are found in section 18.88.030 B. 2.2 The criteria relating to street grade for a new city street developed as part of a subdivision under the Performance Standards Option are found in 18.88.050 B. 2.3 The Planning Commission attached as a condition of approval for outline plan specific requirements regarding street grade and landing area, and listed as Condition 2 of that approval. Condition 2 of PA88- 013, Outline Plan approval, is as follows: That the street grade not exceed 15% for any portion of the improved city Street, and that the cul-de-sac portion not exceed 10%. Also, that the grade be limited to 6% for a distance of 35' from Scenic Drive. The criteria for the above is whether the proposed modification is in substantial conformance therewith. SECTION 3. RECORD 1%ND EXHIBITS 3.1 Ail matters of record in the previous applications and hearings are incorporated herein by reference. For purposes of these Findings, the attached index refers to exhibits, data, and testimony incorporated into the record and considered by the Council in its decision. Staff Exhibits are lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits are lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits are lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits are lettered with an "M" SECTION 4. TESTIMONY /%ND EVIDENCE 4.1 Duane Schultz, attorney for the applicant, stated during the City Council hearing that he requested that all documents from previous hearings and applications be included as part of the record for this action. He said that the applicant had presented two plausible locations for the intersection during the previous application, and that the city Council had sent the issue back to the Planning Commission, via a denial, for a decision. He stated that two public hearings were held before the Planning Commission and the Commission did establish the location of the intersection and determined that the location presented by the applicant was in substantial conformance with the outline plan. 2 4.2 Evidence was submitted by Professional Engineer Robert S. Blanton regarding street grades, and stating that the design did not meet requirements. Additional engineering information regarding street grades and design was submitted by Professional Engineer Roger Kauble for the applicant, indicating that all grade and design requirements of the City of Ashland would be met. This information of both engineers was reviewed by Public Works Director Steve Hall, Professional Engineer, who stated in the memo dated December 5, 1990 that he recommended approval of the street design proposal presented by Kauble. The information presented by Kauble and Hall was further rebutted by Engineer Blanton in a letter dated December 11, 1990. 4.3 Engineer Kauble presented additional information to the city, further explaining the slopes associated with the street construction. This information was received by the City of Ashland January 25, 1991. 4.4 Engineer Blanton presented testimony during the public hearing on February 5, 1991, concluding that after review of the submitted information presented by Kauble, that the street grade on the inside radius of the proposed street would be greater than 15%, approaching a maximum of 17.99%. He also stated that the plans indicated that the landing area before entrance onto Scenic Drive was not 6% for 35' as required but 6.6% for the last 5'. He submitted further testimony regarding location and safety. 4.5 Engineer Kauble presented oral testimony during the public hearing on February 5, 1991, stating that the design was based on a centerline grade for the street being 15%. Kauble testified that his calculations provide a centerline grade of no more than 15% for the entire street. He stated that if the criteria require all portions of the street, including inside curves, to not exceed 15%, then he has made an error in his calculations. 4.6 Planning Director John Fregonese presented information during the public hearing stating that the intent of the ordinance regarding street grades was to measure those grades from the centerline and that that had been the historic interpretation by both the Planning Department and Public Works. He also stated that the area that is indicated as 6.6% for the landing area actually only results in a difference of a few inches in grade and is not substantially different from 6%. 4.7 Fregonese also presented testimony regarding the criteria for approval of a Final Plan, in that issues of safety are not a part of these criteria, but rather were discussed during the Outline Plan approval and considered safe at that time. Therefore, the safety issues raised by the appellants in their appeal letter dated December 24, 1990 are not germane to this decision. 3 4.8 City Attorney Salter stated during the meeting that Final Plan criteria does not state "strict conformance" but "substantial conformance" with the outline plan approval, therefore allowing the Council latitude in its acceptance of engineering information. SECTION 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The city Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the entire record herein, including the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 5.2 The City Council finds that the proposal for modification of a previously approved Final Plan, allowing for the modification of the street location and modifications of lot lines, meets all criteria outlined in 18.88.030 B., 18.88.050 B., and Condition 2 of PA88-013 Outline Plan approval. 5.3 The City Council makes the following findings addressing the criteria for approval of a modification to a previously approved Final Plan: Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a) The n~mber of dwelling units vary no more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the n~mber of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. No change in the number of dwelling units has been proposed by the applicant as part of this application, and the submitted plans of the applicant do not indicate any changes in the number of dwelling units. The Council finds that the number of dwelling units has not varied more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan. b) The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials have not modified the yard depths and distances between main buildings. The Council finds that this criterion has been met. 4 c) The open spaces vary no more than 10% of that provided on the outline plan. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials indicate that the proposed open spaces areas have not varied more than 10% from that provided on the outline plan. d) The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than 10%. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials indicate that the proposed building sizes will not be modified by this action. e) The building elevations and exterior material are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. The modifications proposed and indicated on the submitted materials indicate that no changes have been proposed regarding this criterion and from the approval granted during Outline Plan. f) That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. Ail standards included with the previous outline and final plan approvals shall remain in effect, and the applicant has not requested any changes to these previous approvals as part of this modification. The Council finds that this criterion has been met. g) Any amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. Any future amendments to this subdivision shall be processed under this procedure. 5.4 The Council finds that the intersection location presented by the applicant, and indicated on the submitted materials, is in substantial conformance with the original location as submitted on the Outline Plan. The centerline location of Logan Drive, 90.00' southeast down Scenic Drive from an existing street monument, as proposed on the applicant's submitted materials, provides the intersection location farthest away from the Scenic/Grandview intersection while maintaining the allowable grades established by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5.5 The Council finds that items 2,3,4,5,6 and 10 of the appellants appeal letter dated December 24, 1990 related to safety issues which were fully addressed during outline plan for this 5 development and do not relate to the criteria for approval of a Final Plan. 5.6 The Council finds that item 1 of the appeal letter has been remedied through the de novo evidentiary hearing held before the city Council on February 5, 1991. 5.7 The Council finds that item 7 of the appeal letter involves a completely separate planning action which has not reached final approval of the Planning Commission and is therefore not an issue to be addressed as part of this action 5.8 The Council finds that items 8 and 9 of the appeal letter were not raised with sufficient specificity to allow the Council an opportunity to respond and was therefore not an issue addressed during the hearing. 5.9 The Council finds that based on the evidence submitted by Kauble and its recommended approval by City Engineer Hall, that the differences between the plans and requirements of the ordinance and Condition 2 of Outline Plan approval as they relate to 15% at centerline versus 17.99% at inside curve are de minimus, and that the street grades are in substanti&l conformance with the conditions of approval of Outline Plan for the construction of the Logan Drive/Scenic Drive intersection. 5.10 The Council finds that the area indicated as 6.6% on the landing area prior to Scenic Drive is only a few inches different in grade from the 6% required, and is therefore not substantially different from the 6% requirement of Condition 2 of Outline Plan approval. The Council finds that the landing area is therefore in substantial conformance with the Outline Plan approval. SECTION 6. DECISION 6.1 Based on the entire record and testimony received on this matter, the city Council hereby decides that the request for modification of a previously approved Final Plan for an 18-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option; including street grades, location, and landing, is supported by substantial evidence contained in the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #90-218. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are not complied with by the applicant, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action ~90-218 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 6 2) That all relevant conditions of PA88-0133 and PA88-070 shall remain in effect. 3) That the landscape plan for the filled open area of the former street location include trees (8'-10' ht.) on 30' center spacing, ground cover to provide 50% coverage in one year, trees (8'-10' ht.) in drilled planters on the terraced area of the cut slope with additional ground cover, and a full irrigation plan for all planted areas. The remaining area of this larger cut slope area to have a dry rock masonry wall on the upper slope. All other cut and fill banks associated with the street construction to be treated as indicated on the previous street construction plans, with rock wall facing on street cuts and erosion control netting and appropriate plantings on fill slopes, with adequate irrigation. All plans to be reviewed by the Tree Commission and approved under the Type I procedure, with notice to surrounding property owners. Attest ~- city Recorder Date 7