Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-10 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Mike Gardiner at 7:10 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Marilyn Briggs, John Fields, Mike Morris, Russ Chapman, Kerry KenCairn, Alex Amarotico, Chris Hearn and Ray Kistler. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Maria Harris and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The minutes of the September 12, 2000 Regular Meeting were approved. The minutes of the September 26, 2000 Study Session were approved. The Findings of PA2000-081 (Wilcox) were approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2000-091 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 1.32 ACRE PARCEL, TWO-LOT LAND PARTITION AND A SITE REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 3,000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED AT THE END OF CLOVER LANE. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES THE EXTENSION OF THE CLOVER LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY. APPLICANT: WILLIAM H. THOMPSON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar explained this request involves an annexation (18.108), partition (18.76), and site review (18.72) and that all applicable criteria were mailed with the notice to surrounding property owners. The property is located at the end of Clover Lane and abuts the city limits. The property slopes to the east and fill has been placed on it. The applicant is asking to bring this parcel into the city. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Employment (E-1). The applicant is also asking to divide the lot into two parcels and locating a KFC and A&W restaurants on Parcel 1 and leave Parcel 2 vacant. This would include the extension of Clover Lane to the south. The applicants have provided information on extending Clover Lane and ultimately connecting to Spring Creek Drive. They are suggesting a possible interim measure where Clover Lane is extended to the south and terminates in a hammerhead turnaround, dedicating the right-of-way to the eastern property but deferring development of the remaining portion of the street either until Parcel 2 is developed or a determination is made by the City that this connection should occur. The Greensprings Subdivision Phase III was approved in 1989. It included eight lots that necessitated the extension of Spring Creek Drive. Prior to receiving subdivision approval for the final eight lots, the developer requested from the City Council vacation of the right-of-way and terminating the street in a cul-de-sac. The Council approved vacating the wings of the right-of-way but maintained the right-of-way all the way to the west property line. They felt the decision as to whether to vacate it should be looked at when there was a development proposed on Clover Lane. One of the concerns was that Spring Creek Drive far exceeded the City’s maximum 500 foot length of a street. One of the Conditions placed on Phase III of the Greensprings Subdivision was that it be noted in the CC&R’s for these eight lots, that if it is decided this street will be extended, the cost of constructing the remaining 125 foot portion of the unimproved area may be assessed to those eight lots. Staff’s primary issues deal with this connection. Staff has some very significant reservations about connecting this road based on the engineered drawings submitted by the applicant. There is no information about how driveway access to two properties on Spring Creek will be affected due to the rise in street elevation. Without having this information and also not knowing how drainage will be handled, Staff feels they need more information on the engineering than has been submitted. Other issues raised in the Staff Report concern long-range transportation system needs in the area. Prior to making a decision on annexation, the applicants need to address how the parcels to the north will ultimately be served. If the connection does not occur and Clover Lane turns into one long dead-end street, the Oregon Department of Transportation is also raising concerns. They would like to know the effects on the level of service at Clover Lane and Highway 66. As the commercial properties develop on Clover, especially that are fast food related, they are uses that generate a fairly significant level of traffic. ODOT is concerned with the left hand turning movements off of Clover Lane onto Highway 66, especially with the cross traffic that is occurring right now. It is obvious from the letters submitted and the testimony that will be heard tonight, one of the concerns of the neighbors is whether some of the commercial traffic will filter down through Spring Creek Drive, placing further demands on the intersection at Oak Knoll and Highway 66. There are already problems due to speeds and site distance. Staff feels addressing the issues raised by ODOT, evaluating the intersections, and analyzing traffic patterns are prudent steps to take before approving this application for annexation. The Staff Report refers to further analysis of traffic in this area. If it is deemed that this Spring Creek connection for automobiles has too great an impact, the city street standard policy would require that a multi-path system be evaluated instead. A walkway system would be provided between the streets, allowing individuals in the neighborhood to use the path. The site review and annexation requires a finding of adequate transportation. Staff does not feel there is enough information in the record to make that finding. They are in concurrence with ODOT that a traffic impact study be submitted prior to the City pursuing annexing for commercial development in this area. If the connection does not occur to Spring Creek, then the City is placed in a position of having streets well in excess of 500 feet (Clover Lane at 1300 feet, Spring Creek Drive at 1100 feet), and that would necessitate a variance to the street standards even in lieu of some type of walkway system. Staff is recommending additional information as described above. Kistler asked about the zoning of the triangular wedge. Molnar said it is zoned residential. Molnar noted that Best Western Motel is approved for a 26 unit expansion, there are plans to build a 60 unit motel on Clover Lane and there are two other vacant parcels next to Denny’s. The portion of Clover Lane that is in the city is at 50 percent built-out and there is an additional four to five acres within the Urban Growth Boundary. PUBLIC HEARING BOB ROBERTSON, Pacific Western LLC, 101 S. Grape, Medford, OR, owns the property on Clover Lane. BILL THOMPSON, 946 Merchant Court, owns the KFC and A&W. DAVE RICHARDSON, 1105 Siskiyou Boulevard, is the architect. Robertson’s plan would be to do a hammerhead at the end of Clover Lane and eventually, if the City sees fit, to extend Clover Lane to Spring Creek Drive, even though he believes this is a mistake. Because it is part of the transportation plan, he is required to show a connection to Spring Creek Drive. There is little traffic on Clover Lane at this time. When he first submitted this plan, Staff liked the annexation. He has put a lot of money out and has had difficulty getting information from the city and all he has is 1.3 acres. He met with ODOT last Friday. No traffic study was required and now ODOT is requiring a traffic study for a one acre development. He is proposing the Planning Commission approve the application and he will do a traffic study. He could add a covenant that he is willing to pay his share of a local improvement district. He is asking the Commission to approve the application with a hammerhead turnaround. DAVE THOMPSON said he would like to also move a real estate business to this area. He said his company has said they would expect between 500 and 700 persons per day at their eating establishment. He does not see how Clover Lane can connect with Spring Creek Drive. It would be an engineering nightmare. AL BERONE, said he is with the Masonic Lodge. Their lodge meets on Thursday night. He is sort of inclined to agree with Robertson’s proposal. Denny’s Restaurant has had little impact on Clover Lane. They do have a problem with the semi trucks. They pull in, swing around and then pull up over the curb in trying to turn around. He ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 is not against Spring Creek Drive extending if that is the consensus. The Commissioners passed a letter around from MRS. VORIS. ANA MARIE HUTSON, 550 Oak Knoll Drive, said she is concerned with the intersection at Oak Knoll and Highway 66 and the increased traffic. She has noticed an increase in accidents, many not reported. In would be up to the State of Oregon to make any changes to this intersection and it would be based on a certain type of reported accidents. She can envision trucks and cars coming down a steep hill onto Spring Creek Drive and does not want the extension. DANIEL CAMPBELL, 690 Spring Creek Drive, said the residents would like to recommend that the street connection be abandoned. There have been considerable changes in the area since the easement was granted. More houses have been built. It is the resident’s opinion that it will diminish the quality of life in their neighborhood and would be a safety hazard to children. JAQUELINE HARRIS, 854 Twin Pines Circle #7, said her concern is safety. There are no sidewalks on Spring Creek. She would urge the Planning Commission not to connect the road. KATHY KARLOVICH, 618 Spring Creek Drive, said her kids and other kids use the street and the cul-de-sac to play in. She has a sense they are safe there. The street is like a playground or having a park nearby. She agrees with the other speaker’s comments. CAROL INGLE, 581 Spring Creek Drive, stated the connection of Spring Creek and Clover would have a negative impact on their neighborhood. They are already fighting a dangerous intersection at Oak Knoll and Highway 66. There is a proposed 26-unit development on the eight acres near them and this will add more traffic to the area. She estimated an additional 260 vehicle trips per day. She believes it is inappropriate to mix E-1 traffic with residential. There are many children in the neighborhood but no open space. At least the cul-de-sac is a place to play. She would like to see the Planning Commission take a look at the overall area. They don’t know what businesses are going in. The traffic should not be funneled down to their area. She would like the city to vacate this right-of-way. MARK SKILLMAN, 660 Spring Creek Drive, introduced his toddler son, Connor. He stated his son is the reason not to connect Spring Creek to Clover Lane. They enjoy the privacy the street offers. They do not have a level yard for the children to play in so the children have to play in the street. JAMES AND BARBARA L. JOHNSON, 641 Spring Creek Drive, agree with the other speakers. CHRISTINE MEREDITH, 601 Spring Creek Drive, reiterated that she is particularly opposed to merging of the commercial and residential uses. She is concerned with transient crime. There are more people living, playing, driving, and walking in the neighborhood. She is asking for vacation of the easement or converting it to a pedestrian walkway and bike path. DEBBIE MENDOZA, 671 Spring Creek Drive, agrees with the other speaker’s comments. Fast food restaurants contain the word “fast”--they are on a hill and a steep grade and people drive fast. BILL SKILLMAN, 635 Oak Knoll Drive, said it does not make any sense to see Spring Creek Drive made an arterial out of a commercial area. It would be driven by people not familiar with the area. The intersection of Oak Knoll and Highway 66 is a blind corner. This is the only way in and out of the greater Oak Knoll development area. The school bus picks kids up at the corner of Spring Creek Drive and Oak Knoll Drive. There are no sidewalks on Spring Creek. He has noticed drivers not stopping at the I-5 exit STOP sign. These same people would be coming down Spring Creek Drive. He believes the hammerhead turnaround is the logical answer. The following people submitted written comments but did not wish to give oral testimony. They were against the proposal. NELSON HICKLING, 604 Spring Creek Drive. SUE DOUGLAS, 631 Spring Creek Drive. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 DANIEL GROSSBARD, 631 Spring Creek Drive. OSCAR BJORLIE, 1084 Oak Knoll Drive. THELMA BJORLIE, 1084 Oak Knoll Drive. BARBARD AND ELDON BEAUGHAN, 780 Pebble Beach. FRAN EASTMAN, 670 Spring Creek Drive. NICOLE STRYKOWSKI, 861 Twin Pines Circle. JOANNE JOHNS, 650 Spring Creek Drive, stated she is opposed to the annexation request because she does not believe it meets the requirements of the traffic to and through the proposed developed, Section 18.106.030. All the development on Clover Lane is not known at this time. Connectivity does not work here. She cannot think of another situation where commercial traffic is routed into a residential area. If this annexation is approved, additional annexations would follow with their uses unknown at this time. The following submitted written comments but did not wish to give oral testimony. They were against the proposal. BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison, does not believe the application has shown a need for E-1 land in the city. JOHN MILLER, 680 Spring Creek Drive (submitted a letter too). MIKE, TINA, TRAVIS, ZACHARY & ALLISON BINGAMAN, 661 Spring Creek Drive submitted a letter. DAVID GOODWIN, 609 Spring Creek Drive. SANDIE GOODWIN, 609 Spring Creek Drive. ERIC WEISINGER, 861 Twin Pines Circle. Staff Response McLaughlin said that Robertson requested the Commission defer action on the connection part of the application and allow a temporary turnaround and resolve this some time in the future. He cautioned the Commissioners against deferring the action but said there is not enough information to address it tonight. The applicant needs to know the future development potential and he can suggest one access point and address the concerns of ODOT. It is not the City’s responsibility to pull this information together. An annexation is one of the most complex planning actions you will have because there is a very long list of criteria. Ashland is very cautious in expanding our boundaries. It is important in how we look at the remainder of the land beyond this piece. What direction will the traffic go? If we are not going to make the connection and agreements were made, the applicant needs to come up with alternatives and be very, very clear with the alternatives. He does not see how they make a positive annexation decision tonight. Hearn wondered with regard to multi-modal transportation, would that take a new application? McLaughlin said it would or it could be a modification of this proposal. The applicant could say, “We are not going to do the connection, but here is another way of doing it.” They also have to look at the questions raised by ODOT. Chapman asked is there was anything being proposed here tonight that would prevent the other properties in the wedge from developing. McLaughlin said they would have to go through annexation and the same issues would apply to them as applies to Mr. Robertson. KenCairn asked if Spring Creek and Clover do not connect, is there a way to define the uses that can be proposed on Clover Lane? McLaughlin affirmed, if the traffic study showed there could be an “x” number of trips additionally allowed in that intersection. There could only be uses that generate a certain number of trips. Briggs questioned, if the wedge shaped parcels are in the UGB, and they are residential, how will they be accessed? McLaughlin said they would be reached by extending Clover Lane. Gardiner said they would be extending an already non-conforming street. Rebuttal Robertson said their property is unique as opposed to the property to the north. He has done everything he can do. Thompson has a restaurant he is going to develop that will employ 40 people. Why couldn’t the Commission approve the hammerhead? This is the City’s problem, not his. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 Richardson said he does not feel like the road needs to be connected. Delivery people prefer to go back out the way they come in. They have proposed a hammerhead turnaround. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn felt in light of the evidence he has heard tonight, he cannot see traffic going through a residential area down a steep street. He said cars/trucks are not likely to use the trunaround because as Berone stated, trucks are already hitting the curb. Now the question is looking at the legality of a multi-modal connection that would meet the requirement to and through the development. KenCairn did not believe anyone was saying the land cannot be annexed, but they just can’t approve the connectivity of the two streets. There is a variance that is required and it can’t happen by the Planning Commission now. She does not want to approve mixing residential and employment traffic. Briggs said she can only see the three most southerly lots being rezoned commercial and somehow have it all come together in one plan where there might be a way Clover Lane continues and then loops back around. She believes the residential aspect should stay as it is. There could be a connectivity of the bike and pedestrian path. We are just postponing an enormous problem. She does not think we have the right plan before them to meet the guidelines where everything can mesh. Fields said they are looking at extreme grades. The applicant needs to verify the street loads, examine traffic engineering, look at the failure rate of that intersection, and street lighting. They have an in-between proposal. If we are looking at a variance of extending the cul-de-sac, then we need to see a plan to support that. Gardiner noted all the problems heard tonight were about the Oak Knoll and Highway 66 intersection. The intersection of Clover Lane and Highway 66 is a greater problem already. Automobiles are constantly pulling into the gas station by mistake. If we abandon the connection and look at a hammerhead, there are a lot of problems with that design. Chapman referred to the letter from ODOT. He believes that is a very learned opinion. There are potential problems here that need to be addressed. If we are going to approve this application with an extension of the cul- de-sac, a variance needs to be requested and an overall plan submitted. Kistler said it depends on the type of E-1 businesses that are going in. Freeway interchange commercial, fast food, mixed with commercial would not be good. Clover Lane may be a quiet street right now, but when the Windsor Inn is built out and the hotel across the street is built, it will look quite different. He does not feel comfortable with semi’s coming down Clover Lane and turning around at a hammerhead. He believes we have a big problem on Clover Lane and at the intersection. McLaughlin said the multi-modal path would be a minimum connection but this does not address the other problems on Clover Lane. Fields does not believe the Commission has enough information to judge the capacity and weigh the impact of the proposed development. It would be easier to make a case for an office building because of less capacity. Hearn said if the applicant requests a continuation, that he understand the Commission is asking for a traffic study and addressing the concerns vocalized tonight. Gardiner asked Robertson if he wished to continue the hearing. Robertson said he wants to keep the proposal alive and would come back with a traffic study and multi-use path. He would favor a continuance. He agreed to waive the 120 rule. He cannot do anything about the access. McLaughlin said in not making the connection, it is not a major concern of a longer dead end on Clover Lane. Kistler wondered if a traffic study would have a way for a set of doubles to come in and turn around. Gardiner wondered if the road could be posted “No Truck Traffic”. McLaughlin said they could check with Public Works. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 The hearing will be continued. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2000-036 RQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARCEL 6, ADJOINING THE NEWLY CREATED CLEAR CREEK DRIVE AND SITUATION NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. APPLICANT: JAMES LEWIS Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Harris reported this is a proposal for a six-lot subdivision of a property that was created in October of 1999. The property gently slopes from the railroad tracks down toward Clear Creek Drive. There are no trees or significant features on the property. All the public utilities will be in place when Clear Creek Drive is improved. There is an alley that wraps around the south and west boundary of Lot 6 and will provide all the vehicular access to the proposed lot. There is a ten foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement that follows the outside of the alley. That was dedicated as part of the Clear Creek partition. The applicant has proposed a bike and pedestrian path easement between Lots 2 and 3 and also between Lots 4 and 5. This is a good connection that will serve future development well. One issue that has come up is the parking and how parking is going to work in the future when the lots are developed. The applicant submitted a conceptual parking plan that has been distributed to the Commissioners. Staff’s main concern is how the parking will be handled on the two end parcels. The applicant is attempting to conceptually show how more parking will fit with a shared arrangement at the back of these two lots. Staff has added a Condition 6 that the off-street parking for these two lots will be shared unless lot six is reconfigured either through partitioning or a boundary line adjustment. It is Harris’ understanding the applicant is comfortable with this and Staff believes it can work. Another issue is the bike and pedestrian path going along the property. It is dedicated but not improved. Staff has recommended a Condition that the pedestrian and bicycle easement be improved along the full back of the property. When Clear Creek Drive was proposed, it looked like it was going to need bike lanes. However, the developers opted to do a separate bike and pedestrian path instead of widening the right-of-way on Clear Creek Drive. Harris suggested a Condition 10 stating: That the pedestrian and bicycle path shall be improved along the entire length adjacent to Parcel 6, prior to signature of the final survey plat. The improvement shall be to the ten foot wide multi-use path standard as required by the City of Ashland street standards. Hearn wondered if the pedestrian easement between Lots 2 and 3 accommodate bikes. Harris said physically it will be wide enough, but they don’t require a full ten feet so it is oriented to pedestrians. Hearn asked about the DEQ site clean-up. Harris said the clean-up will go to the east. Fields wondered about deferring the bike path improvement because it could be ten years before there is a connection to the bike path and it will degrade before it connects. Is there an option to bond or sign a non- remonstrance agreement? Harris said the difficulty in the past is how the financing works five to ten years in the future. If the improvement is in now, then it is taken care of. We might be better served to see how the path connects all the way through and look at the grade. Molnar said that might be an option to defer improvement and set the funds aside. Kistler said when he looks at the overall plan, there seems to be a lot of paving to serve the amount of parking. The alley is not being used for back-up on two-thirds of the project. Harris thinks the applicant wanted to show that ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 more parking than head-in off the alley could be accommodated. McLaughlin said Fields needs to clarify his knowledge of the site as an ex parte contact. If there is any relationships with the applicants, it needs to be made clear for the record. Fields said he has a personal relationship with the applicant. He is the contractor building the road and infrastructure. He has had numerous discussions with Jerome White, architect. He does not have any financial relationship with this property or any of the applicants. Fields said he has a partnership with Paul Comstock and they own property together. Hearn said he represented Mr. Comstock in something totally unrelated to this. PUBLIC HEARING JIM LEWIS, 640 A Street, said this should be a great addition to the City’s overall infill. They might want to take advantage of the E-1 and residential component. With regard to the parking plan, he tried to show a potential for adequate parking for different uses. The odd-shaped lines of Parcel 6 have made it trickier. He would rather postpone paving of the bike path unless there is some avenue to access this bike path. He asked if the Commissioners and property owners could possibly have a study session to talk about the directions of development. Lewis said with regard to Condition 10, he would prefer grading now and paving later. Harris would suggest the bike path be designed now and engineered before signing of the final survey plat as well as putting the money down for the improvements. Re-wording of Condition 10 should read: That the pedestrian and bike path improvement plan shall be completed prior to signature of the final survey plat and the improvement paid for prior to signature. Molnar said the design needs to be done up front and set the money aside. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn moved to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and approved. Hearn moved to approve with the attached 10 Conditions (including the last wording given on Condition 10). PLANNING ACTION 2000-097 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 13-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION FOR THE 3.8 ACRE VACANT PARCEL OF LAND ADJOINING WASHINGTON STREET AND SITUATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 66. APPLICANT: DAVID LAYER STAFF REPORT Molnar reported this is outline plan to subdivide the property into 13 commercial tax lots. There is some Commercial zoning on Ashland Street and the remainder is Employment zoning. The goal is to develop a dental plaza. Seven of the potential tax lots are interested in doing second floor residential. It is unique--using outline plan to create individual tax lots where property owners can buy a piece of property, construct a commercial/medical building, with the parking and landscaped areas that are owned in common. There are two access points, one on Washington and one on Jefferson. This will require final plan. This property is in the Detailed Site Review Zone so as each of the buildings develop, a separate site review will be required. Staff is excited about seeing a larger medical park development. Molnar anticipates the development will be done in phases. Staff has two issues mentioned in the Staff Report. Total build-out will be about 58,000 square feet and that will trigger large scale development and will require a transit shelter. The timing needs to be discussed. Prior to the building of 15,000 square feet of building, the shelter needs to be in place. The cost should be disbursed among the property owners. Another issue is storm drainage. When you compute the impervious surface at build-out, there will be about 1.5 acres of hardscape. Staff is requesting that at final plan, some type of retention system is considered to slow the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 water down before entering the city system. Staff is recommending approval with the 12 attached conditions. Chapman asked about the traffic impacts with this project. Molnar said they have made two provisions in the Conditions. The intersection be designed so it allows for a right hand turn movement as well as a left-hand turn movement. Prior to signature of the final survey plat, each of the property owners agree to participate in a traffic signal at a future date. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. Hearn disclosed that Dr. Rothfus is his dentist. PUBLIC HEARING DAVE RICHARDSON, 1105 Siskiyou Boulevard, architect representing the applicants, said he is trying to meet the floor area ratio by creating second floor areas. All the parking is on the interior and is adequately landscaped. DAVID LAYER, 993 Siskiyou Boulevard, responded to a question from Fields regarding the maximum gross square footage in the Detailed Site Review zone of 45,000 square feet. He wondered how a 57,000 square foot gross floor area would work. McLaughlin said the massing is broken up because the buildings will be separated. Hearn asked if all the parking lot will be done at one time. Richardson said it is possible it will be done in phases. Briggs noted in Richard Stevens’ findings, he states “that the project will ‘not’ include residential development. It should be changed to “… ‘will’ include residential development”. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Kistler moved to approve PA2000-097, Hearn seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. OTHER There will be a study session on Tuesday, October 24th at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000