Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-11 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Mike Gardiner. Other Commissioners present were Chris Hearn, Alex Amarotico, Marilyn Briggs, John Fields, Steve Armitage, Kerry KenCairn, and Russ Chapman. Mike Morris was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, and Sue Yates. MINUTES & FINDINGS - The minutes of the March 14, 2000 Hearings Board were approved. The Regular Meeting minutes were not available. PUBLIC FORUM - A presentation was made and words of appreciation and gratitude spoken for the retiring Commissioner, Steve Armitage. Armitage served on the Commission for eight years. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2000-026 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A TEN-LOT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF SUNNYVIEW STREET AND EAST OF WESTWOOD STREET. APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD/HAL DRESNER STAFF REPORT Molnar explained this action is being continued from last month to explore specifically the location of pathway systems in the development. Off the cul-de-sac between Lots 3 and 4 there is a proposed pathway system that connects the new development with the City owned open space east of the project. There is another public pathway system between Lots 8 and 9, again connecting the cul-de-sac to Westwood Street, crossing over Wright’s Creek and connecting the neighborhoods, both west, south and northwest of the project. This would not only connect the development but would allow another access up into the open space area. At last month’s meeting it also came up about a walkway at the very southern portion of the property which would possibly link the two open space areas. However, there would be no way to an improved connection at this time because there are different property owners in that area. The other item of concern pertains to an alternate building envelope location for Lot 5, however, there was no information on how to get to the alternate location, therefore, the continuance has allowed the applicant to provide some additional information. There was a site visit yesterday and the applicant had the project surveyor flag off the routes of the two pedestrian pathways. Additional information was placed in the record, which shows that the proposed pathway between Lots 3 and 4 has an approximate grade of 18 percent. The applicant is proposing to construct a stair system up to the property consisting of railroad ties or comparable material. The pathway between Lots 8 and 9 has an approximate grade of 12 percent. Again, a stair system is proposed not only down to the creek area, but some kind of system would be required to traverse the channel banks to get over to Westwood. Molnar said additional driveway information has been provided for Lot 6 showing the driveway meets city grade standards. Given the cross slope, the driveway could have some cut and fill slopes probably in the area of three feet to extend the driveway 250 feet. Molnar, McLaughlin and Mickelson (Parks Director) toured the site last week to show Mickelson where some of the pathway systems were being considered. Mickelson did not have a problem with any of the locations but felt it would add to the overall trail system and provide some convenient access not only to this development but for other area residents west of the site as well. Mickelson’s primary concern is that any pathway put in place and ultimately dedicated to the City of Ashland as part of the overall subdivision improvements should be constructed to a fairly high standard which would result in minimal maintenance over the years and also to encourage people to use it. A Condition has been added requiring a constructed stair system made from pressure treated lumber or comparable material, similar to the granite quarry site—something with handrails that would make it convenient for people to use. Molnar said it seemed from the last meeting like the Commission was debating whether or not to require or implement the trail systems between Lots 3 & 4 and 8 & 9 as an immediate system that would be constructed as part of this subdivision, or to consider the one at the very southerly section of the project. Staff has not made any new recommendations other than they felt there was still merit to the pathways off the cul-de-sac because those would be constructed immediately as part of the subdivision and be put into use immediately. At a site visit, Staff felt the grades for the two proposed trails and the Condition for the stair construction would make a reasonable trail system and the grade was not excessive. Staff is recommending approval of the application with the added Condition 22, that engineered pathway construction specifications be provided at the time of final plan approval. All pathways to be constructed using all-weather materials such as pressure treated lumber, asphalt, or concrete, and that the final pathway design be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Parks Director prior to signing the final survey plat. Condition 9 should read as follows: That the proposed alternate building envelope location for Lot 6 be eliminated from the project design. Molnar said that by providing just the one envelope location that it would not necessitate a turnaround area. Staff has left Condition 21 unchanged. Hearn disclosed he had a conversation with the surveyor after last month’s meeting. The surveyor thought the Donovan lot might not be developing in the foreseeable future because he thought it might be under a family trust dedicated perpetually for open space. Molnar discussed this with the applicant. Molnar researched the tax records and noted the property is being taxed and valued at full market value. It is Staff’s impression that it has not been included in some type of open space trust. Briggs wondered about adding a Condition dealing with a great deal of metal debris at the bottom of the creek. Molnar said the property line tends to go back and forth around the creek. Some debris might be on the other property. Fields asked if Staff feels Condition 22 is adequate. Molnar said the design submitted by the applicant, with the exception of handrails is acceptable. There will be a stair system and on each landing with some type of weed control mesh or mat or decomposed granite. There is an expectation for a more full stairway system in the area traversing the bank with a small pedestrian bridge and stair system to daylight at the top of the curve at Westwood. Fields wondered if this area ends up being deeded to the City in perpetuity would the Parks Dept. maintain it? Molnar said the intent is to deed it to the City either through easement or dedication. Once the path is inspected and constructed to City standards, the City takes over the maintenance. McLaughlin said there have been situations where an area has been under the care of a homeowner’s association. Gardiner asked if it is deeded to the City, would it be up to the City to maintain it? McLaughlin said, not necessarily. He said this issue can be discussed at Final Plan and finalized at that time. The Commissioners discussed the alternative trail. Fields is concerned that it may not satisfy the Site Review Standards requiring natural resources be part of the open space. It appears the trail is appropriate around a canyon situation. Is the parcel large enough for future developments. Should the path go along Lots 7 and 6 and connect to the open space at the other end. Does it serve anyone if it goes another 100 feet? Molnar said Parks Dept. still plans on constructing a trail system through the 20 acres to make it more accessible. McLaughlin said the paths off the cul-de-sacs would work out fine. th Gardiner mentioned the majority of the Commissioners were at the site visit on Monday, April 11 at 4:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES APRIL 11, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD said it is their intention to fully clean up the creek bed. The previous owner, Kneebone, will help financially with the cleanup as he has taken responsibility for some of the debris in the creek. The conservation easement in private ownership on Lots 6 and 7 was voted on at the last meeting. The vote was on the plan as it was revised to show the open space along Lots 9, 10, and 8, ending just a little beyond where the path will now cross the creek. According to the draft minutes, this was agreed upon by the majority of Commissioners. It will not be difficult to get a driveway back to Lot 6. The slope is less than 15 percent and will require very little cut and fill. It is his intention to protect any trees six inches in diameter in the area of the driveway. The exact location of the driveway and trees will be shown at Final Plan. Archerd would hate see asphalt and concrete written in the condition with regard to the paths between 3, 4, 8, and 9. Some concrete is going to be necessary to get across the creek, but he believes pressure treated lumber and decomposed granite are more eco-friendly materials for the portion of the site that will be within the subdivision. He would like to work out those specifics at Final Plan. It has always been their intent those areas would be dedicated to the City. Whether or not the homeowner’s association maintains the area or the City, Archerd believes this can be worked out. McLaughlin said if they go to a lesser standard for path materials, it may mean the homeowners would assume responsibility for maintenance. By going to the higher standard, it would be easier to maintain and therefore might become part of the City’s responsibility. Armitage said the emphasis should be made that decomposed granite is acceptable and vegetative barrier accepted on a good deal of the pathway. Condition 22 should say: “including”…asphalt or concrete. Archerd said that regard to Condition 21, it needs to be reworded to reflect the decision that was made at the March meeting. That is the area dedicated as open space on the plan will be for the use of all the residents and the rest of it is a conservation easement/natural drainageway easement to be maintained in its natural state. The draft minutes indicated there was a motion for a continuance. He reviewed the tapes and the motion that Armitage reiterated was that if the meeting was continued, it was continued based on the understanding we are choosing one or the other accesses but not both. If they were going to choose both, the meeting would not have been continued at all. Briggs asked again about an easement at the east end of Lots 5 and 6 so that someday there could optimum linkage between the City owned property (20 acres) and the smaller City owned property to the south. She asked if Archerd would be willing to give an easement that one day would be linked to the park. She feels even more strongly about this after walking the site. Archerd believes the easement would be better received from Hwoschinsky. Archerd believes, too, that they are providing an excellent access to the park system and an excellent linkage across Westwood and through the drainage to the street which will provide much better access for the predominant population in the area. He feels strongly that the additional linkage that is wanted should come from the adjacent property owners. He is doing his part. KenCairn asked Archerd why it feels like a hardship to do a ten foot easement at the far boundary? Archerd said because it does not provide you with what you want. Even if an easement was provided, it still has to get back across to Hwoschinsky’s property or through another person’s property in order to get out to Westwood Street. Gardiner took a straw vote on the applicant’s revised proposals. Armitage is satisfied with the information provided by the applicant as well as the Conditions relating to pedestrian access. Hearn agreed, saying that we can ask Archerd about the other access but he has already provided an access. Chapman, Amarotico, Gardiner and KenCairn also agreed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES APRIL 11, 2000 Fields said the issue is when all this land gets developed, do we have alleys and pathways that interconnect all the neighborhoods? Briggs thought down the road, the City might wish they had some access across the south end of Lots 5 and 6. Gardiner reviewed the Conditions. McLaughlin’s wording added to Condition 23 is: The junk, garbage, refuse located within the drainage area on the applicant’s property be completely removed prior to signature of the final survey plat. Re-word Condition 22 by inserting a sentence after …”concrete”…Decomposed granite or other compactible material with weed barriers may be acceptable for portions of the pathway with approval of the City. Modify Condition 9 by removing “Lot 6”. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage moved to approve PA2000-026 with the amendments as discussed to Conditions 9, 17, and 22. Hearn seconded the motion. Fields commented that as we suburbanize this area, do we make a mistake by not guaranteeing that at some time in the future when all this is developed and the potential for creating access is gone, will we be sorry? He just thinks it is prudent for the City to get these accesses when they can. Do we want to allow a lot more privatization? Fields would like further discussion over this change from rural to more urban form. There might be issues the Commission is not addressing. Chapman said the ordinance said the area has to be protected. It doesn’t say it has to become public property. He thought, as Planning Commissioners, we are charged with defending the ordinances. He believes they have correctly intrepreted that this development, as proposed, as met the ordinances. Maybe the Council needs to revisit the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried with Hearn, Armitage, Gardiner, Chapman and KenCairn voting “yes” and Fields, Briggs and Amarotico voting “no”. PLANNING ACTION 2000-037 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-LOT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FORDYCE STREET AND SOUTH INTERSECTION OF MILLPOND ROAD AND EVAN LANE. APPLICANT: TOM FRANTZ Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All Commissioners except Fields had a site visit. KenCairn has done some study of the area. STAFF REPORT The property is just over an acre with a residence up close to Fordyce. The intent is to maintain the residence and remove the outbuildings. The request is for a five lot subdivision to be accessed from a new street, Evan Lane. Evan Lane was dedicated when Clear Creek Subdivision was approved and the right-of-way exists. The City amended their Transportation Plan in 1994 and indicated this should be a connection at the time that these properties develop. The proposal will connect Mill Pond to Fordyce. Evan Lane will service all five of the lots. There is a short public alley proposed at the southern location on Lot 4. The City of Ashland Public Works Dept. is interested in purchasing Lot 5 to incorporate it as part of the City’s Roca Creek drainage improvements that have occurred throughout that area over the last two to three years. The Parks Dept. is also looking at acquiring some of the property south of Lot 5 to construct a pond to remove sediment from Roca Creek and Lot 5 would be a wetland area to remove other contaminants or by-products from the storm drainage from that area. A lot of the improvements that have been done have been done to reduce the effects of peak run-off from rainfall. While there is no open space proposed because it is less than ten units, the overall intent of the City’s acquisition of Lot 5 and the southerly area south of Lot 5 is to create a wetland area with a trail system and access will be provided to area residents. The City would like to create a linear walk along Roca that ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES APRIL 11, 2000 would take you from the north end of the city limits all the way to East Main Street and provide an amenity for that neighborhood. The project meets the base density. Evan Lane will allow for additional lots to be partitioned south of it (separate piece of property). There is no Physical Constraints Review Permit being proposed at this time because there is a development plan on how the improvements along Roca Creek will occur or any crossings designed. Staff has recommended approval of this application with the attached 9 Conditions. PUBLIC HEARING TOM FRANTZ, 1314 Seena Lane, said he likes how his project fits into the Transportation Plan. He is excited about the accessibility of pedestrian use and accessibility to the creek. Fields said it is interesting we have private flags that go to 25 feet wide and subdivisions that are accessed by 20 foot alleys. Molnar said the 20 foot alley width will be wide enough to provide rear access to homes that have frontage on East Main. Frantz said there will be parking one side. BRAN JONES, 1340 Millpond Road, said she favors the development because it is now overgrown with blackberries that are beginning to encroach on her property. She backs Lot 4. Jones wondered if the creek frontage will be Frantz’s responsibility. Jones would rather see one-story homes, not two. Frantz said he would clear the blackberries. Frantz understood if the City takes it over, they will take care of it as well. Staff Response – A more exact location of the channel will be determined at Final Plan. It might restrict how far back the house on Lot 4 can go. Rebuttal - None COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs moved to approve PA2000-037 as submitted. KenCairn seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER The Commissioners decided to have a Study Session dinner on April 25, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. to 10 p.m.. Staff will notify of the time and place. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES APRIL 11, 2000