Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-11 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD Minutes March 11, 2008 Hearings Board Members: Mindlin, Stromberg, Fields I.CALL TO ORDER:1:30 P.M., Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Hearings Board Minutes of February 12, 2008 III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-02151 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1964 Mae Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Steven and Peggy Case DESCRIPTION : A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a 780 square foot Accessory Residential Unit. The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove an approximately 24-inch in diameter at breast height (DBH) deciduous tree for the property located at 1964 Mae Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 15AA; TAX LOT: 2700 IV. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00035 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 938 Oak St. APPLICANT: Cleo Smith DESCRIPTION: Request for a Minor Land Partition to create two lots for a property located at 938 Oak Street. Exception to Street Standards to match new sidewalk to COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: existing sidewalk. Single-Family ZONING:ASSESSOR’S MAP #:TAX LOT: Residential; R-1-5-; 391E04BD; 1000 Commissioner Fields read the introductory statement regarding public hearing procedure, ex-parte contact, and bias and stated that she made a site visit. Barry provided the staff report detailing the request and familiarizing the Hearings Board with the property layout. Commissioner Stromberg asked about the 40-foot irrevocable consent and that there is no point since there isn’t an agreement with the property owner to the north to have a future development. Cleo Smith, 938 Oak Street, stated that the narrow lot along the south property line was a mistake by the county and that is the locat5ion of her driveway and that that access is not large enough to access additional driveways. Commissioner Fields attempted to explain the issues raised by staff to the applicants and that staff is attempting to meet the criteria while at the same time addressing the solar condition, the …………………………………….Commissioner Stomberg added that staff is taking care to preserve the applicants financial interest. Rob Sweeny, 92 Emerick but owns property on Oak. Supports applicants position and is concerned about the future development of the steep slopes at the rear of the parcel. That the existing neighborhood is very pastoral and that he would like to see that preserved. The property he owns is two flag lots to the north. Commissioners proceeded to ask questions of the applicant about how they see future access to the large portion of the parcel. Ms. Smith responded that there is an existing road that could be used that goes to the rear of the property. Ms. Smith stated that she didn’t think that how the lot is accessed in the future is her problem. Commissioner Stormberg explained to Ms. Smith that is the point of the criteria regarding the preserving future development potential of the parcel. The Commissioners were looking to how the future access could be preserved and that possibly it could be conditioned that the applicant add additional irrevocable consent and could a condition be added that adds a 20 X 50 easement. Ms. Smith’s rebuttal was that if a curbcut is denied that will end the application and that she will not pursue the partition. The nature of Oak Street has changed and to the circulation of the city and that the addition of more curbcuts adds more conflicts for cars, bicycles and pedestrians. The Public hearing and record closed at 2:47 p.m. The Commissioners deliberated. Derek asked if they commission was working towards requiring the irrevocable consent. Commissioner Stromberg asked if the requirements they level would affect the develop ability of the neighbors property. Commissioner fields asked what the distance is between the existing curbcuts. Angela explained that there is nothing to scale showing the driveways and the distance between those, but it appears there is a couple hundred feet of frontage. Commissioner Fields asked what the required distance between curbcuts on collector streets. Derek stated that the ordinance requirement is 75 feet between driveways. Commissioner Stromberg clarified that the issue is not only the spacing of the driveway curbcuts but also minimizing the access points and that if it’s possible to access the parcel from the rear saving the driveway then we should look at the access points. Commissioner Stromberg stated that maybe now is the time to bite the bullet and require all access across the back of the parcels off of the shared driveway access on the north. Commissioner Fields Commissioner Stromberg said that if we don’t deal with it now we are just pushing off the issue to the next property owner and the next Planning Commission. Fields stated that they have the distance for driveways addressed and that it seems reasonable that it meets the street standards and that they can provide access to the back of the parcel for future development. Motion: Move that we approve PA 2008-00202 subject to one additional condition. And to remove the condition prohibiting (4) the curb cut. Mindlin seconded the motion. . Condition: Extend the irrevocable offer to dedicate property so that the easement extends as far to the north as the existing dedication on the lot to the north. Voice vote all in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – Adoption of Findings, Orders & Conclusions 1. Adoption of Findings – PA2007-02104, 1725 & 1729 Siskiyou Bv., Behnam Mehmanpazir Staff advised the Hearings Board that the findings for 1725/1729 Siskiyou will be available at the evening meeting to review and adopt. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:07.