Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-10 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Chris Hearn. Other Commissioners present were Alex Amarotico and Ray Kistler. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris, and Sue Yates. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2000-095 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 180 ALIDA STREET. THE REQUEST ALSO INVOLVES A SIDE YARD VARIANCE FROM SIX FEET (REQUIRED) TO THREE FEET, ONE INCH. APPLICANT: ILENE BUYS This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-098 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 2,840 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING QWEST COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING LOCATED AT 50 SIXTH STREET APPLICANT: QWEST COMMUNICATIONS This action was approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – The minutes of the September 12, 2000 meeting were approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2000-090 REQUEST FOR LAND PARTITIONS TO DIVIDE THREE LOTS INTO SEVEN PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 556 FORDYCE STREET. THIS PROPOSAL ULTIMATELY INCLUDES THE IMPROVEMENTS OF ROMEO DRIVE SOUTH TO MILL POND ROAD. APPLICANT: SCOTT KURTZ STAFF REPORT Knox reported this project is a Minor Land Partition to divide three parcels into seven. The history of this application is outlined in the Staff Report. In 1995, the City officially recognized the piece of land and adopted it on the City’s Transportation Map as a street connection from Romeo Drive. In 1996, this area was dedicated for the street. The first parcel will be divided down the middle. The second parcel will be split into three. Parcels 3 and 4 will be accessed by the flag drive. The third parcel would be divided in two. The plans show a parkrow along the east side of the Romeo Drive extension. Parking will be allowed on the west side. Zoning for this area is R-1-5. All of the lots are over 5,000 sq. ft.; most are 7,300 sq. ft. or more. The Roca Creek drainage area cuts through the property. An easement is shown for that. One of the neighbors has asked the City to look at the drainage area as public space and wonders if there is really a need for the connection. Staff, after several discussions, believes the drainage area is private and owned by the homeowner’s association and that it would be asking a lot of the applicant to dedicate it as public space as it is on private property. The street connection has been noted on the plans since 1990 as well as the Council adopting the street in 1995. There are true benefits of multi-modal transportation for the neighborhood. Any change to the Transportation Plan Map needs to be made by the City Council. This application does not involve the design of the public right-of-way. Staff recommends approval of this application. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. PUBLIC HEARING SCOTT KURTZ, 676 Liberty Street, referred to Melodie Mindlin’s letter. She is requesting the City look at the option of making a portion of Roca Creek running through this area public. Kurtz said he is not required to have open space and does not support having public access to the open space. Allowing a public easement would unfairly burden the private homeowners. The second issue is regarding the extension of Romeo Drive. His understanding when he purchased this property is the road was a done deal. He went forward to improve the road. When Mindlin suggested we look at this, he had a couple of neighborhood meetings and found there was considerable neighborhood opposition to extending Romeo Drive. He would like to ask since there is such a sizable neighborhood opposition, that the Planning Commission looks at opening this issue again. He is willing to continue his planning action to take the time to look at it. In discussions with neighbors, they came up with an alternative plan. He passed out the plan to the Hearings Board. He does support the alternative. His opinion is that this street thoroughfare does not really serve the neighborhood in any way but it does serve the neighborhood to have a sidewalk/bike path connection and would allow significantly more open space than a road would allow. It would give the area a traditional neighborhood square kind of feel. He is willing to accept the street design also, if the Planning Commission feels that is the best way to go. Hearn asked when the applicant proposes an alternate plan and indicates there is discussion going on, what does Staff recommend as far a proceeding? Molnar said the extension is on the Transportation Plan map as a connection. It would take another application to amend that map. A separate application would have to be filed. If the applicant is willing to hold off for this to be evaluated, he may do so. Whose responsibility is it to file the application? Molnar is not certain the Council would be interested because they just reviewed it in 1995, unless they would direct Staff to review it. The application could be filed by the applicant or the neighborhood. It is a Type III application and the filing fee before November is $1300 and after November $2000. Molnar thought the Council would probably ask the neighbors or applicant to file the application. Knox noted that because the application is so different, it would have to be re-noticed and it would be like starting over. Molnar said the applicant would have to ask for a postponement of this action and then ask for a different application. Hearn felt this application would appear to be a candidate for a full Commission review. Molnar said they’d have to look at the timeline. Kurtz does not believe there is anyone against the proposal, just the road connection. Does the applicant have to submit one design for the road improvement? Can he submit both? Molnar said, technically, no. They are required to give notification on a specific application. On the Transportation Plan map it shows an automobile connection. Kurtz wants to see it go forward but he wants to work with neighbors. From an environmental standpoint, he likes the alternative. Knox suggested Kurtz request the Planning Commission postpone and then he can come back and then amend the Transportation Plan map and go with the alternative. The Hearings Board decided to go forward with public testimony. The following had written comments but did not wish to give oral testimony. MURIEL MORRISON, 139 N. Wightman Street. ED MCGUIGAN, 489 Euclid Street. LIZ BURT, 1355 Romeo Drive. STEPHANIE COOK, 1389 Mill Pond. CORRINE MAGARIAN, 1315 Romeo Drive. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 PATTY RICHARDS, 1345 Romeo Drive, said she can’t in good faith say she is in favor of the road because she does not see the need for it. Why does a road need to be there? She has standing water under her house already. She is concerned if a road goes in, they will be flooded. She is against the proposal as it is. PAUL RICHARDS, 1345 Romeo Drive, said he is speaking for a number of his neighbors. He has compiled their thoughts on this application and submitted them. They cannot support the application with the present street configuration for environmental reasons, water management, safety and aesthetics. The neighbors felt the alternative would work well for a bike and pedestrian path. They are asking this body for help to give their vision a fair shot and asked what the procedure would be to accomplish this. BETTE KINSELLA, 1320 Romeo Drive, explained that they were told the big reason for the road is to connect roads. She cannot see where driving a car can connect people as much as people walking. DON SEVER, 540 Fordyce Street, seconded Richards’ comments. LINDA SMITH, 1310 Romeo Drive, said it was never brought to her attention that Romeo Drive would ever be anything but a cul-de-sac. There is not enough room to park on the street as it is. JEFF BENSON, 1315 Romeo Drive, seconded Richards’ comments. He is most concerned about safety. SCOTT TURRELL, 1335 Romeo Drive, said his thoughts follow Richards’. He would like to at least examine the possibility of not having vehicles. ANDY BURT, 1355 Romeo Drive, found that almost no one talked about any benefit to a through road. KURTZ, after thanking the neighbors who came, would like to move forward with this planning application. This is an unusual situation. He would like to encourage the city to look at this. Hearn explained to the neighbors that they can look to Staff and meet with them about some creative ways of addressing this connection. Richards said it is important they (he and the neighbors) go on record as opposing this application. He would like to see Kurtz have his development, however, if there has to be a road, they do not want it. Amarotico asked if the Full Commission has a right to ask the Council to look the whole issue. Molnar said the Commission could ask the Council to initiate a planning action. The issue is timing and when it would happen because it could be placed lower on the list and not happen for ten to twelve months. Kurtz asked if the Planning Commission petitioned the Council to initiate a planning action, would that circumvent the fee? Molnar said if the City is the applicant, there would be no fee. The City would be taking on the effort. Kurtz wondered if Molnar thought the City would look at this. Molnar felt it was a timing issue. Kurtz would be willing to waive the 120-day time limit. Kurtz said he would like to proceed and is asking for a 60- day extension of time limits. Molnar suggested Kurtz write a short letter asking the Planning Commission to initiate a review of the alternative street idea presented today. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION The hearing will be continued until November or December. It is the Commission’s understanding that a request will be made by Mr. Kurtz to the full Planning Commission to amend the City’s street dedication map and ask to amend it to have a bike/pedestrian connection, not a street. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000