Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-14 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Armitage at 7:05 p.m. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, and Mark Knox. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS It was moved and seconded to approve the Minutes of the February 8, 2000 meeting. PUBLIC FORUM – No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2000-002 ROGUE VALLEY GROWERS AND CRAFTERS MARKET This action was postponed. 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 Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – All Commissioners had a site visit. KenCairn had a discussion with the landscape architect. STAFF REPORT Molnar gave the Staff Report and explained the criteria. Past actions on the property included a three-lot partition with a street improvement. Past uses involved agriculture, specifically an orchard. The current proposal involves 10.5 acres. There is native vegetation in the creek drainage. The proposal involves extending the street 400 feet into the site with a cul-de-sac terminus. The private drive extends from the cul-de-sac to serve three home sites with a turnaround. Most of the property is less than 25 percent grade, excluding it from the Hillside Development Standards. Several concerns were raised in the Staff Report and the applicants have made revisions to their plans to address these concerns. Molnar explained how the revisions were made, and they accommodate Staff’s concerns. The sewer line placement was moved up from the creek area. ? Staff recommended pedestrians easements off the end of the cul-de-sac linking the ? Strawberry/Hald open space as well as to other subdivisions within the neighborhood. The applicants provided the easements for the pedestrians as requested by Staff. Staff recommended that the creek drainage be included in the common open space, ? incorporating the open space into the design. The creek drainage area is not publicly owned, but a private common area. The applicants have incorporated a larger area of the creek as part of the project. The applicants proposed alternate building envelope locations for Lots 5 and 6, but did not ? show driveway extensions to the alternate envelopes. Staff was unable to review the alternate envelopes for impacts, etc., therefore, recommends that the envelopes not be approved as part of this application (see Condition 9). The pedestrian easement location across the creek proposed by the applicant is somewhat ? different than the proposal by Staff. Molnar stated that Staff could find merit in both the Staff’s and the applicant’s proposed creek crossing. This will be further addressed at Final Plan. Hearn said he had difficulty locating the building envelopes. Molnar explained that the envelopes take up most of the lot, except for setbacks. The rear portions of the envelopes along the creek are approximately 20 feet from the top of the bank. Briggs questioned the increase in open space along the Wright’s Creek tributary. Staff recommended the entire creek area, and the applicant proposed a smaller area. Concerns were raised about the possibility of trespassing by pedestrians onto property outside the subdivision. Molnar explained that most of the area is protected as a conservation easement. He added there was a good active landscape plan for the flatter open space area, and the extension along the creek where it abuts the right-of-way. Molnar said the question to the Commission is whether the entire creek drainage area complies with the ordinance requirement to protect natural areas by including them in common open space. Armitage questioned the public connections proposed and wondered if the city should require more access points as indicated in Staff exhibit S-2. KenCairn stated that the previous Strawberry development had the entire drainage in common open space, and that it makes sense to include the entire full length in common area. She did not understand the benefit of breaking it. She understood it was a private open space with private trails. KenCairn stated that it was very steep and difficult for trail development. Briggs followed up that she thought there should be “visual” connectivity as well as trail connectivity, and that it was only logical to extend the open space the full length of the creek. Briggs brought up the option of not requiring the open space behind the Kneebone residence in exchange for getting all the entire creek. Molnar discussed the merits of each idea. Armitage asked Molnar if staff still recommended strongly for a continuance, or of it could be approved tonight. Molnar said Staff had ample time to review the revisions, but that Commission discussion of open space versus easement may need further discussion by the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD explained that the proposal for the pedestrian connection works well as they have proposed. He stated that all of the drainage area is protected as a drainageway easement, and they agree to encumber the area as a conservation easement in the CC&R’s. It will essentially be open space in perpetuity. There is no need make it common. GREG COVEY, landscape architect, explained the plans proposed for open space behind the Kneebone house and for the planting strip along the street. Low water use is proposed for ground cover. Covey further explained the details of the planting plans. Archerd explained the “park area” of the proposed open space—neighborhood pocket park. Archerd addressed the two main issues: (1) where should the open space end along the creek, (2) and where should the creek crossing for the pedestrian path go. He did not think it was in everyone’s interest to extend the open space down the full length of the creek. With regard to the alternate building envelopes, Archerd believes the alternate sites were better development locations than the original even if they did not show the driveways. Armitage thought that the plan profile for the driveways and access would be necessary for the Commission to review the alternate envelopes. Molnar said if the alternate envelopes were not approved at Outline Plan, they could not be re-instituted at Final Plan because it would result in a greater than ten percent change. The applicant’s surveyor, Russ Braughton, stated the driveways would be less than 15 percent grade on the driving surface, but the exact locations have not been determined because of unknown building site locations. Driveways will be passing through areas greater than 25 percent, triggering Hillside Standards. Briggs is fascinated with the farm implements and wondered if they would be included as sculptures in the open space. Archerd said he would talk to Kneebone, the owner. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 Gardiner asked what the driveway length would be on the alternate envelopes for Lots 5 and 6. Braughton said they would be 250 to 320 feet in length. Archerd explained that one lot would likely use the alternate envelope, while the other would use the envelope nearest the cul-de-sac. Hearn questioned is if the trail is too close to the riparian area and could cause erosion. Would it be more ecologically friendly to cross the creek perpendicular rather than lengthwise? Tom Ferraro, engineering geologist for the applicant, stated that the perpendicular crossing would have less erosion potential. Covey raised concerns on slope stabilization. Armitage asked if there will be a bridge crossing of the creek. Archerd explained that the crossing could be as proposed in photos by staff, or there could be a culvert. Molnar stated that whatever the design, it would have to pass a 100 year storm. Hearn said the creek is culverted several places downstream. Archerd stated that the crossing would be engineered. Fields asked which pedestrian plan would the applicant use. Staff proposed plan S-1. He was hoping for greater pedestrian connection, for example, between Westwood and the potential Strawberry/Hald park. He discussed access from the cul-de-sac and said he would like to see the private drive be as short as possible to reduce asphalt and impacts. He was hoping to have greater pedestrian connection. There could be other pedestrian connections. Commissioner discussion ensued regarding the best pedestrian access to the City’s natural area and what best serves the public interest. Armitage stated that the contours could be better accommodated with a different trail system. He was not certain the trail system would be usable and would need additional research and information to ensure that it works. The financial improvement may be too great. Fields would like the opportunity to walk potential trails. Briggs explained the concerns she raised about connecting open spaces. Archerd did not have a problem with connecting a trail at the southern end of the property, but had concerns with running along the creek drainage. Briggs did not feel prepared to make a decision on this matter with the revised trail system. Gardiner wondered if the Commission had ever approved an alternate building envelope in the past? Molnar said this has not been done before. Molnar stated that driveways to the alternate envelopes will cross lands in excess of 25 percent slope, triggering a Hillside Standards review and that has not been noticed as part of this application. Hearn had a public easement question. In referring to the Granite Street/pit easement and engineering improvements, what would the standards be for this development? Molnar stated that construction details would be required at the time of Final Plan. Armitage said Condition 11 has to do with the sidewalk in front of 444 Orchard. Archerd questioned whether this had been done before. Is it a common occurrence in other applications? Molnar explained that it had been done before. McLaughlin explained about a similar example on Bellview and Siskiyou. Fields could see approving the application tonight without alternate envelopes, and that the pedestrian access between Lots 3 and 4 be engineered with the ability to accommodate pedestrians, and to also require access along the south end of Lot 5 and 6. Impacts are minimal with benefits high. MARIE DONOVAN expressed her concerns about the trail. Rebuttal – Armitage asked the applicant about options. They could avoid a continuance by agreeing to not use the alternate envelopes, and by agreeing to provide more engineering detail for pedestrian accesses. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 Archerd said the lot lines could be modified to make pedestrian access between Lots 3 and 4 and 8 and 9 to ensure good pedestrian grade. Archerd thinks that alternate envelopes provide best locations, but maybe in the future the applicant could come back in to request a change in envelopes. Molnar said it would be possible, and it would require another planning action involving revised envelopes and possible hillside standard issues. Armitage asked the Commissioners to vote for one or two accesses. Gardiner discussed if there are any advantages between the two proposals. Each one may have benefits. Fields stated that the south end is the most accessible grade for pedestrian access. Chapman would like more information from Parks. Armitage stated that it is likely there would be only one access, but that it needs to be the best one. Archerd would like to do the right thing and take the necessary time to make sure it’s right. He may propose other items for change in the next two weeks. Archerd agreed to a continuance and agreed to a 30-day extension of the 120-day limit. Hearn wanted information from parks for the best route. Hearn moved to continue the action, the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER Election of Officers – Mike Gardiner was elected Chair, Chris Hearn was elected Vice-Chair, and Russ Chapman was elected Second Vice Chair. Gardiner thanked the Commissioners for electing him and asked for their help in the coming meetings. Hearn thanked Armitage for his efforts as Chair. Chapman brought up an issue raised at the Hearings Board regarding tree plans and thinks new wording could be included in all applications involving trees. It would involve tagging and inspection of trees by Staff prior to removal. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000