Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-13 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD FEBRUARY 13, 2001 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Russ Chapman. Other Commissioners present were Kerry KenCairn and John Fields. Staff present were Mark Knox, Maria Harris, Brandon Goldman, and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The minutes of the January 9, 2001 meeting were approved. The Findings for PA2000-123, Phil Linsday, were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2001-002 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A QUAKER MEETING HOUSE CONTAINING OFFICE SPACE FOR PEACE HOUSE LOCATED AT 543 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. ONE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE WILL BE PROVIDED ON-SITE AND EIGHT PARKING SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE SOU PARKING FOR SUNDAY MEETINGS OF THE QUAKER MEETING HOUSE LOT THROUGH A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH SOU. APPLICANT: PEACE HOUSE/ROGUE VALLEY FRIENDS MEETING Harris noted Condition 6 should refer to the front door that faces the street (east). This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2001-006 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO PARCELS 762 AND 764A STREET APPLICANT: ABRAHAM RHONE This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2001-008 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 3,000 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE BUILDING WITH MEZZANINE 185 MISTLETOEROAD APPLICANT: ADROIT CONSTRUCTION CO. This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2001-009 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO THREE PARCELS. 1375 E. MAIN STREET APPLICANT: TOM FRANTZ This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2001-010 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS. 678 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD INTO TWO PARCELS APPLICANT: KEN BAKER This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2001-011 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR TWO DETACHED MOTEL UNITS (TRAVELER’S ACCOMMODATIONS) 130 HELMAN STREET. APPLICANT: TALENT PROPERTIES #1, LLC This action was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2001-014 REQUST TO AMEND A REAR AND SIDE YARD BUILDING ENVELOPE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STANDARD REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR LOT 2 (2694 TAKELMA WAY) OF THE CLAY CREEK GARDENS SUBDIVISION. THE ENVELOPE AMENDMENT IS BEING REQUESTED DUE TO THE REMOVAL OF TREES THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED. THE LARGE PONDEROSA PINE IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT IS TO REMAIN. APPLICANT: C. A. COCHRANE CONSTRUCTION STAFF REPORT Knox reported that the criteria are outlined in the packet. The applicant will talk about what happened to a couple of trees in the rear of the property and that there was a misunderstanding where the building envelope was located. When they cut the pad for the house, the tree roots were exposed. The applicant hired an arborist and the arborist recommended removal. With the tree removed, the applicant is asking to adjust the envelope to a standard envelope size. He is proposing a couple of mitigation measures. First, to replant ten trees, one inch caliper minimum. Second, he is proposing to put the porch on piers. Third, he is providing a single car garage that eliminates a significant amount of asphalt anywhere near the tree. Staff wanted to make sure this tree issue was brought to light. Tree loss is extremely unfortunate. Staff believes there were some mistakes made here and they are not trying to be punitive, but at the same time, educating all those involved. Staff is accepting the mitigation measures that have been proposed and recommend approval of the application. PUBLIC HEARING ANDY COCHRANE, Cochrane Construction, 2760 Highway 66, Ashland. Cochrane explained he was one of the original partners in the development. He went to great lengths to preserve the natural features on the site. He cut the trees down in haste. He made a mistake. They were not huge trees and they wanted to save them. At the time he turned in the application for the first lot, they did some damage to the tree roots. The arborist said the trees would probably not make it. He also encouraged them to cut down the other two pines. Cochrane had them cut down. He showed some pictures. He would like to replace the trees and hopefully plant them in a more appropriate place and at the same time retain the tree in front. Knox said one more mitigation measure is through Condition 6, the addition of a deed restriction for the front tree. Staff is concerned that if the tree is not cut down with the developer, it could be cut down by the homeowner. With the deed restriction, if the tree were to be removed, they would have to have approval from the Planning Director and a recommendation as to the tree’s condition from a certified arborist. Cochrane said he is fine with that Condition. He has had another arborist (A to Z Arborist, a certified arborist) come to the site and look at the remaining tree. The tree is forked at the top and the forks can be weak. He recommended to Cochrane to drill it and cable it for safety. KenCairn wondered where the ten trees would be planted. Cochrane said he would plant them wherever the City would like. They are working on Phase II of Clay Creek Gardens and there is an area that is close to the railroad tracks. He would like to plant along that portion of the property as a buffer. Knox mentioned the creek that runs through Phase I and all the open space. Staff would like, in conjunction with the Tree Commission and Robbin Pearce, visit the site and look at the areas along the creek. There might be some opportunities for some tree planting there. KenCairn said the upstream portion could use some more tree cover. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2001 Fields wondered if there was any tree protection required. Knox said tree protection was required. Knox said it is clear from the pictures there was no fencing. Cochrane said there were trees fenced during the course of the development but it was their understanding that the barriers can be removed after construction. Once they started selling homes, they wanted to take the fencing down due to aesthetic reasons. Fields wondered how stringent we want to be so people get the message that we are serious about Conditions. Is there a replacement clause. It seemed that size of the trees was an issue. Harris thought it was something of similar resource value in the hillside ordinance. Cochrane asked when the construction fencing should come down. KenCairn thought it should be after the house is completed. Knox said, at a minimum, the house has to be near completion before the barriers are removed. That way service vehicles aren’t parked there or equipment stored there. Cochrane thought it was more a condition of the subdivision. Fields said it has been suggested at using a barrier other than the construction fencing such as chain link fencing to protect the trees. He wondered about posting a sign mentioning saving the tree. KenCairn said she might rather see larger caliper trees and fewer trees. It depends on where he is going to put them and what they are for. Chapman suggested a Condition 7: That applicant will agree to placement of trees for mitigation and consultation with Staff. Knox thought ten one inch caliper trees within the subdivision’s open space as approved by the Staff Advisor. KenCairn said if they are conifers they should be sized by how tall they are. If they are decidious, they should probably be one and one-half to two inch caliper trees. Knox will work on it and have it in the Findings next month. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSON AND MOTION This action is continued until next month. The new condition will be included in the Findings. PLANNING ACTION 2000-117 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 350 PHELPS STREET. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES INSTALLING A SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PATTERSON STREET FROM THE EXISTING SIDEWALK ENDING AT THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF 343 PATTERSON TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PATTERSON AND PHELPS STREETS. APPLICANT: DOYLE BRIGHTENBURT/DAMI ROELSE STAFF REPORT Harris said this application was originally reviewed at the December Hearings Board which was comprised of a three different Commissioners. She recapped the review from that meeting. At that hearing, some of the neighbors had mapped the sidewalks in the neighborhood. It became apparent that on the north side of Patterson, there was a curbside sidewalk for the block from Ann to Phelps and it might make more sense to fill in the section of sidewalk in front of 343 Patterson across from the applicant’s property. Harris said most of the discussion surrounded the placement of the sidewalk. Harris said the application is to divide the parcel into two lots. The accessory residential unit is proposed within the existing residence. It is less than 500 square feet. The original Staff Report had concerns about off-street parking because it didn’t fit. The applicant has fixed the parking so it should work. A condition has been added that they link that area up from the pedestrian path to the door of the accessory residential unit. The applicant has submitted revised plans showing which trees would come out. It is not clear why the crabappple tree is being removed. The applicant is asking to install a sidewalk across the street. Fields wondered about vision clearance on the corner. Would the City ever require the trees be moved with or without a sidewalk? Harris said, technically, anytime you plant a hedge, it is considered a fence and subject to the height limitations of a fence. PUBLIC HEARNG ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2001 DOYLE BIRGHTENBURG, 350 Phelps Street, showed an overhead of the sidewalks. He has proposed to make a continuous sidewalk on the other side of the street. Some of the neighbors agree with him because of the steepness of the street it would be a safer location to make the sidewalk continuous on the other side. The tree issue is a delicate issue. They are trying to make the design so they will not have to remove the tree from the back. The removal of the one in front is a recommendation from the landscaper. He has not found a way to turn the garage 90 degrees to prevent taking out the crabapple. The latest plan shows a pedestrian path from the front door to the street right-of-way. Fields wondered if there are going to be steps and stairs or a transition from Lot A to the street. His hope would be that with the transportation system across the street, that we garner the equivalent sidewalk we would have gotten if Brightenburg had been required to do the full improvement. It would seem like he might need a landing to enter the house. Do we want to be bringing the sidewalk along the right-of-way. He thinks it makes sense to have a right-of-way on both sides. It seems like we should move toward where we can get a sidewalk in. He is concerned that with all this mature landscaping that one day the City will ask them to remove it so they would be able to install a sidewalk. Fields is looking to see that everything we are doing is working toward future use. BRUCE RYNEAL, 343 Patterson Street, read a letter objecting to the application. He does not like the application but is resigned to seeing the sidewalk installed. They will gain nothing from having the sidewalk on their side of the street. Chapman wondered if Ryneal was under any obligation to agree to provide a sidewalk. Harris said the right-of-way is existing. What is confusing is that there is six feet behind the curb that is public property that is part of the street that has been planted along with with some low retaining walls and a flagstone path that is technically in city property. Those things will need to be removed in order to install a sidewalk. ALWIN TURIEL, 361 Patterson, said she lives next door to Ryneal and across the street from Brightenburg. She favors the application. She believes this infill is an excellent way to preserve the city’s Urban Growth Boundary area and keep it in tact as much as possible. It is good to see some additional affordable housing built in the neighborhood. Because there will be landscaping installed as a result of the drip irrigation required and landscaping to go with the accessory unit, that helps to mitigate the issues of the larger vegetation that will need to be removed. It will be nice that the house will look more like a place where people live instead of looking at just a garage front. Turiel said when the area to the north and east of them develop, it will put more traffic on Patterson. They are concerned about whatever sidewalk is built, that it enhance the connectivity in the neighborhood. It is important when people walk that they do not have to do mid-block crossings. Staff Response Harris added a suggestion to Condition 11 (Staff Report Addendum) towards the end of the Condition: The right-of- way/property line adjacent to the sidewalk shall be staked by a surveyor and inspected by Planning Division Staff prior to construction. Harris said then it will be clear to everyone where the line right-of-way line is located. Fields thought if we were doing a connection of the house to the street, it would be nice to see the five foot cutback. Harris said at the last hearing on this, one of the discussions that took place was the likelihood of a sidewalk being completed on the remainder of the street. Brightenburg said it is understandable but he is looking at the impact on his house because it pushes the porch two and one-half feet because he has an eight foot setback from the property line. Harris noted that each infill situation is different. This one is a corner lot and the applicant has quite a bit more frontage than most partitions. Staff was trying to balance that requirement for a sidewalk. Harris believes there are some constraints to making a sidewalk happen. Fields wondered if we have a concern that the steps come right to the edge of the right-of-way. Harris said they could add a Condition as Fields had suggested about putting in a landing, perhaps gravel. It could be a more ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2001 informal path in front of Lot A and B but preserving that area. Fields thought it would be nice not to have a retaining wall within the right-of-way so one could open a door. Brightenburg thought that technically he could not put any structure in from the right-of-way to the curb. Knox said he could put in an 18 inch retaining wall because the City does not recognize anything less than 18 inches as a structure. Fields is willing to accept the modification in Condition 11. Rebuttal Brightenburg will try to work this out with his neighbors. Harris suggested modifying Condition 16 to incorporate the landings and the landscaping. It would read: That a landing shall be installed in the right-of-way adjacent to the on-street parking on Patterson along the frontage along Lots A and B. The landscaping plans shall be revised and submitted to the Staff Advisor showing these changes prior to the signature of the final survey plat. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman moved to approve PA2000-117 with the attached Conditions. Fields seconded the motion and it carried. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2001