Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-13 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wohing to 4pealz at any P2anw%ng Commizzion meeting encawraged to do 6a. 14 you do wish to 4peaia, p1ea4e use and a4tek you have been necogn4.zed by the Chain, gave you& name and comp.2ete addne.s.6. You w,%t2 then be a,2Cowed to 'speak. PPea4 e note that pubt i.c .eAtimony may be .P.c.m-i ted by the Chain and no/matey Ls not a.1owed aj e& the pub.Pic heating ha's been c2ozed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 13, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St. II. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS ORDERS: Regular Meeting of December 10, 1981 and Hearings Board of December 23, 1981. IV: PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLANNING ACTION #81 -98 is a request for a Minor Land Partition to divide a .8 acre lot into two parcels of 17,100 and 18,325 sq. ft. each. The property is located at 520 Helman Street and the proposed smaller parcel already has a dwelling on it. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:5. Assessor's Map 4CA. Tax lot: 3300. APPLICANT: James D. Brohaugh 2. PLANNING ACTION #81 -106 is a request for a 3 -unit Performance Standards Development located at 440 Helman Street. The request involves the removal of the existing house located at 440 Helman and using that area for access, parking and green space. The new units would be located on the eastern portion of the property and would be served by a private way. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:5. Assessor's map 4CB. Tax lots: 6400, 6500. APPLICANTS: Don and Linda Greene V. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: 1. PA #81 -105, request for a Site Review for 12 -2 bedroom apartments at 715 N. Main St. Applicant: Don /Linda Greene. VI. STAFF BUSINESS: 1. Comp Plan Time Schedule 2. Review of 1981 projects and proposed projects for 1982. VII. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 13, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Jeff Barnes in the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Tom Owens, Don Greene, Lance Pugh, John Billings, and Christian Apenes. Planning Director John Fregonese and Associate Planner Dick Wanderscheid were also present. ELECTION OF Billings moved to nominate Barnes for another term as Planning Commission CHAIRMAN/ chairman, with Pugh as vice chairman. The motion was seconded by VICE- CHAIRMAN Apenes and passed 5 to 1, with Barnes voting N0. APPROVAL OF The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of December 10, MINUTES AND 1981, and the Hearings Board Meeting of December 23, 1981, were approved FINDINGS as written. AND ORDERS PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #81 -98 is a request for a Minor Land Parti- PA#81-98 tion to divide an .8 -acre lot into two parcels of 17,100 and 18,325 sq. ft. MINOR LAND each. The property is located at 520 Helman St. and the proposed smaller PARTITION parcel already has a dwelling on it. Comprehensive Plan Designation: BROHAUGH Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1 -5. Assessor's Map 4CA. Tax Lot; 3300. APPLICANT: James D. Brohaugh. STAFF REPORT: Wanderscheid gave the staff report. He went over the memo from Al Alsing concerning the sewer problem. Barnes wanted a clarification of what is required as far as Greenway Dedication. He said he believed it was usually the 100 -year floodplain. Fregonese stated 20 ft. was approximately the 100 -year floodplain and limiting it to 20' made it easier to survey as a straight line. Barnes wanted to know about the proposed building site that was included on the notice map in the Planning Commission's packet. Wanderscheid stated it was a drawing by Mrs. Morrison who had submitted it along with her letter. It was not proposed by Brohaugh or by staff. In fact, it did not meet setbacks and could not be built there without a variance. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. James Brohaugh, 520 Helman St., applicant, stated he was in favor of the granting of the request. He stated the staff report summarized all the things he wanted to say. The future building site had not been determined. Since the sewer line bisects the property, there were some APC, 1/14/82, Page 1 limitations as to where the house could be located. 2. Marjorie Morrison, 500 Helman St., stated she understood the building site would be where her existing driveway comes in. She has used it for 18 years and she wanted to be assured granting of this request did not preclude the use of her driveway. 3. William Vance, 448 Helman, stated he was not for or against the request, but he was concerned about the greenway question. Fregonese explained that greenway dedications were required as a condition of approval for any minor land partition on Ashland Creek. It was a contract with the City in return for granting the partition to dedicate to the greenway. 4. Morrison wanted to know where the greenway dedication was. Fregonese stated that it would be adjacent to Ashland Creek on the west side of the creek, on the rear portion of Brohaugh's property. 5. Mr. Kollanda, 566 Helman, stated that on Nov. 15 and Dec. 19, during the heavy rains, the toilet in his basement bathroom backed up and spilled City sewage all over his basement. An engineer had told him that the rim of his toilet was 2.78 ft. below the manhole. Because of this, during high runoff his basement is flooded. During these two times, raw sewage was running across Brohaugh's yard. He wanted to know how you could justify adding an additional unit to this sewer line when it was already inadequate. If the line were repaired, he did not mind if the applicant built a house there. 6. Brohaugh stated he had spoken to Al Alsing that morning concerning the sewer line, and Alsing indicated it would be proposed for the budget of next year. 7. Richard Schultz, 580 Helman, stated he was also concerned about the sewer problem and the condition of the actual building site being proposed. He stated the soils were saturated and the lot was not suitable for building. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1. Barnes wanted staff to go over the memo from Alsing, since the audience did not know what the memo stated. Wanderscheid read his memo to Alsing concerning the problem, and then read Alsing's reply. 2. Apenes stated, concerning the saturation problem, that all of Quiet Village and much of the town was saturated and there was nothing in the area that was dry in the winter. 3. Barnes stated the problems with the sewer being brought up by the neighbors were extreme conditions and not something that occurs daily. APC, 1/13/82, Page 2 4. Mrs. Kollanda, 566 Helman, stated the newpapers indicated there was not enough money in the budget and she was concerned that there would be no money allocated for this and the raw sewage problem would continue. 5. Barnes stated that one more house would not make that much difference since there are hundreds of houses on the line now and he could see no reason to deny the partition based on that. 6. Mrs. Kollanda stated they were required to put a backflow valve on their sewer line to ensure that their basement was not flooded again. 7. Billings wanted to give a history of the zoning in the area. He stated that a number of years ago there were very few houses on the eastern side of the street and it was considered a potential problem because of flooding. Brohaugh's lot or a lot adjacent to it used to house an above- ground City septic tank. The Planning Commission back then had decided not to allow development along the east side of Helman St. from Jack Williams' property to Ohio St. unless the bottom floor of the living quarters was at least at street level. He felt we should not make matters worse, and we should follow the old policy and that there be no sewage drainage from a basement to the line and that all sewage facilities should be located at street level. 8. Barnes wanted to know if there was anything we could do to help the people get the problem resolved. Fregonese stated the Planning Commission could send a memo to the Council or the Budget Committee urging them to solve the problem, because there was a danger to public health. He did feel, however, that one more house would not make a difference and it was insignificant. 9. Apenes wanted to know if it would be possible to set a time limit for construction. 10. Fregonese stated it would be hard to set a time limit for building because it was an episodic type of problem down there. They could possibly set a condition that there be evidence that the building would not degrade the system before a building permit could be issued. 11. Pugh stated he felt it was important because this planning action was bringing this issue to light and he would like a detailed report from.. Alsing. He felt the City Council should be made aware of the magnitude of the problem by memo. He saw no way the partition could be denied based upon the evidence in the record. 12. Owens stated the recurrence of the sewage was episodic and infre- quent and it was difficult to tie a condition together to ensure that it would not be a problem that would come up after construction had been started. 13. Apenes stated this was a very wet winter which was adding to the problem and he felt that the infiltration of storm water into the sewer APC, 1/13/82, Page 3 line was the problem. That was reason enough, he felt, to deny the request. 14. Barnes wanted to know how often sewage had been in the basement of the Kollandas'. The Kollandas stated it had happened twice this year and three other times. Mrs. Kollanda stated sewage was going into the creek during some of these occasions. 15. Brohaugh stated that Alsing had quoted him a preliminary figure of $65,000 to get the line replaced. The solution would be to tap the manhole above the manhole on Brohaugh's property and relocate a line to the street from the upper manhole. 16. Pugh moved to approve PA #81 -98 with the five suggested conditions, adding condition #6 that the building permit be denied until evi- dence exists that the presence of raw sewage is eliminated, and also that a memo be sent to the City Council and Budget Committee stressing the urgent need to fund the new sewer line. 17. Owens stated he liked the concept, but the nature of the sewage overflow there would cause problems, since it would be impossible to see any evidence of sewage one day and then a heavy rain could cause it the next day. Therefore, he had a problem with that condition. 18. Barnes wanted to know if the building permit could be tied to Alsing's assurance that the problem had been resolved. 19. Greene said he felt he did not feel the building permit could be denied without a moratorium on building in all the area served by the sewer line 20. Fregonese did state, however, that he felt it would be legal to limit the building permit on the proposed new parcel due to the fact that the property does have a manhole on it and it does flood which does cause a health hazard. Therefore, he felt by using that criteria it would be legal to hold up the permit on that parcel because of its unique circumstances. He did explain that he did not feel it would be the best thing to do in this instance, but it would be legal to do it. 21. At that time a question was raised as to whether there had been a second to Pugh's motion. There had not been a second, and at that time Pugh withdrew his motion, but stated he did not believe the building on the proposed new parcel could be delayed. 22. Barnes stated he agreed that this lot could be singled out because it does have a manhole on it which does overflow with sewage. 23. Lance agreed, but stated this lot was not causing the problem and he felt that would not be fair. 24. Pugh moved to approve PA #81 -98 with the five suggested conditions and also directed staff to send a memo to the City Council and Budget APC, 1/13/82, Page 4 Committee. The motion was seconded by Owens. 25. Billings stated that because it was not urgent that the property be divided now, he felt it would be in the City's best interests not to approve the partition until the problem is resolved. Therefore, he would be voting no. 26. The motion was then voted on and passed 4 to 2, with Billings and Apenes voting NO. PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #81 -106 is a request for a 3 -unit Per PA #81 -106 formance Standards Development located at 440 Helman St. The request PERFORMANCE involves the removal of the existing house located at 440 Helman St. and STANDARDS using that area for access, parking and green space. The new units would DEVELOPMENT be located on the eastern portion of the property and would be served by GREENE a private way. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1 -5. Assessor's Map 4CB. Tax Lots: 6400, 6500. APPLICANTS: Don and Linda Greene STAFF REPORT: Greene abstained from voting and left the Commission to join the audience since he was the applicant. Fregonese gave the staff report and showed the plot plan. He stated that condition 6 dealing with a fire hydrant was to be deleted because there was an inadequate water line to serve a fire hydrant. He was adding an additional condition 9 that the applicant sign in favor of future street improvements, including sidewalks on Helman St. Apenes wanted to know where the surface drainage of this request would go. Fregonese stated that had not been worked out yet, but he felt it would probably go to the creek. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Don Greene, 375 Normal, applicant, stated he had worked with staff on a number of proposals for this property. They had tried flag lots and what they had ended up with was no creek access for some of the lots, poor solar access, and the removal of a large number of significant trees. Because of those reasons, he chose to go with performance standards options. He was proposing passive solar homes. He agreed with the suggested conditions. He had limited the density to 3 single- family, detached units in trying to keep with the neighborhood, where actually he had earned enough bonuses to put 4 units there. 2. Barnes wanted to know if he had any problem fixing the turnaround as alluded to in the staff report. 3. Greene stated he saw no problem with this. He may have to use part of the other lot, but he could come up with an adequate turnaround. 4. Someone in the audience wanted to know what performance standards were. Fregonese explained the concept of performance standards and the APC, 1/13/82, Page 5 fact that unit siting flexibility was allowed under performance standards and reduced road standards, but no additional units would be allowed. 5. Marjorie Van Buskirk, 420 Helman, stated she was not against the request. However, she abutted the property on the south and she would request that a fence be required on the south side so it would eliminate a trespass problem. 6. In answer to that, Greene stated he had no problem with a fence there to protect that property. However, he would like to be assured that his solar access was protected. Therefore, he would like to limit the height of the fence to 5 -6 ft. 7. Deb Barker, 70 Fourth St., a member of the Historic Commission, wanted to know if there was any salvage value to the old house and whether it could be moved. Greene stated he had looked at that option when he first considered the flag drive location and found that because of the poor condition of the house, the inadequate plumbing, the lack of a foundation, and the essentially illegal stairway according to current code, he felt it would not be worth going to the trouble of moving it. 8. Carl Van Buskirk, 420 Helman, stated he was against a portion of the project. He felt the number of houses on the small area was not compatible with the neighborhood. He stated the average lot size in the area was 13,000 sq. ft. and the only lot that was smaller, 10,000 sq. ft., was the one Greene created. He also stated there was some dispute about Greene's south property line, and he would like the boundary resolved and recorded prior to building. He agreed with his wife about the necessity of a fence and would want the fence to be high enough to prevent children from climbing over it. Then he wanted to know whether the greenway property would be open to the public now or in the future. Barnes stated he believed it would be in the future. In answer to that, Fregonese stated the property would be controlled by the City, would be subject to trespass, and would not be open to the public until the entire system was in place. 9. Mr. Van Buskirk wanted to reiterate the problem with the south boundary line. He wanted to be assured that it would be resolved prior to any building there. Barnes stated that was not something the Planning Commission dealt with and it would be up to the property owners to work out a property dispute. He also stated that with respect to the number of units and size of lots down there, that was decided previous to this Planning Commission by the zoning in the area. This request was in conformance with the law regarding the zoning of the area and it had been that way for some time. 10. Van Buskirk stated he realized this, but felt it still was not compatible with the area. APC, 1/13/82, Page 6 11. Morrison wanted to know what would be done with the drainage. Barnes stated it would have to be piped to an adequate size and an easement provided. 12. Mr. Kollanda, 566 Helman, stated they still had the same problem with sewer. He felt Greene should not have voted on the preceding planning action because of that. 13. Vance, 448 Helman, wanted to know whether the fence being proposed along the driveway was existing or new. Greene stated it was an existing fence. Vance stated the fence was only 4 ft. high and not 5 ft. as indicated on the plans. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1. Owens wanted Greene to reiterate how the landscaping would be done. He was concerned about the maintenance. Greene stated that the land- scaping of all the common areas would be accomplished prior to the houses being built. There would be a homeowners' association formed that would require dues to maintain the landscaping. He was proposing a two -year contract with the landscaper to make sure the landscaping was well established before the owners took it over. 2. Owens wanted to know what the mechanism for maintaining the land- scaping would be after the two years. Greene stated that monthly dues for landscaping would be required. There would be a lien against the property, therefore, the money would be in an account and there would be no reason not to use this account to perform landscape maintenance. He was confident that this system would work. 3. Billings wanted to know what size pipe was being proposed for the irrigation ditch. Greene stated he did not know for sure, but he would estimate 10 -12 inches. He would have to have it engineered in conjunction with the other engineering__ on the project. 4. Apenes wanted to know if this was the same ditch that proceeded across the Reynolds property. Greene stated that it was. Apenes stated it was 8 inches across the Reynolds property. It was not very well engineered and had caused problems in the area because it had overflowed. 5. Greene stated he would make sure it was engineered to handle all the potential flow. 6. Pugh stated he appreciated the energy- conserving details, the site plan, and the provision for open space at the creek so that all the property owners could enjoy the creek. 7. Billings stated he had found out that the lot area was higher than he originally thought. He did not think it was subject to flooding APC, 1/13/82, Page 7 11. The motion was voted on and passed unanimously. 12. Fregonese wanted to discuss conflict of interest with the Planning Commission. He thought State law would not allow voting if an applicant had a business deal with a Commissioner within two years. He wondered if maybe Barnes should have abstained from the voting on this proposal. He asked Owens if he knew anything about this from his legal background. Owens stated he had not looked at that law for years, but he does not remember that particular section. Fregonese stated it was part of the law passed in 1973 and he felt it was part of the conflict of interest definition. Pugh stated he didn't believe it was necessary to abstain from voting when you had had a business contact within two years, but he felt the law only required you to make that business contact known prior to voting. TYPE I 1. Planning Action #81 -105, a request for a Site Review for 12 2- bedroom APPROVAL apartments at 715 N. Main St.; applicants: Don and Linda Greene. Fregonese stated this had been noticed and no one had called it up. There was then a discussion of the project. Billings felt it was a good utilization of the lot and the area could use some new development. There was no one on the Planning Commission who wanted to call the item up, so it became final. COMP PLAN TIME SCHEDULE and he felt the request was a good project. 8. Owens stated he felt the project was good looking. 9. Apenes moved to approve PA #81 -106 with the suggested conditions, eliminating condition 6, and adding condition 9 that the applicant sign in favor of future street improvements, including sidewalks, on Helman St., adding condition 10 that the size of the piping for the drainage ditch be approved by the County Water Master, and condition 11 that adequate screening in the form of a 4 -6 ft. fence or vegetative screening be required on the south property line. The motion was seconded by Owens. 10. Barnes wanted to know if street trees would be required. Fregonese stated the existing street trees already met that requirement. Fregonese went over the schedule and explained the tentative agendas for meetings. He was proposing to eliminate the regular meeting in February or have an additional hearing on Feb. 17 for land use actions, or move everything back two weeks and have the regular meeting on the 10th. Barnes wanted to know if staff would be making a presentation to the City Council prior to the CPAC /Planning Commission work session, so it wouldn't be redundant for the people on CPAC and the Planning Commission who had been working on it. Fregonese stated he could do that. Some of the other Commissioners felt they would rather be in on the entire discussion, so it was decided that the presentation would be part of the regular meeting and all people would attend. There was then a discussion as to whether there would be a need to continue the February 24 hearing to the next week if there were a lot APC, 1/13/82, Page 8 of people who wanted to speak for or against. It was then decided that it was best to wait until that meeting to see the amount of people who wanted to testify before that decision was made. There was then a discussion of holding land use hearings in February. Barnes wanted to know if staff was aware of any that were being proposed. Staff indicated that they knew of at least two or three conditional use permits that were being proposed for February. The people were somewhat disappointed when they heard there would be no hearings in February. There was also the possibility that there could be more applications for additional planning actions since the deadline would not be until next Wednesday, January 20th. Mark Cooper, from the audience, stated he would very much like to have a master plan of his development on the February agenda. Therefore, he hoped they would have hearings in February. After much discussion, it was decided that regular land use hearings would be held on February 10, 1982, and that the workshop on the land use ordinance revisions would be on the 17th. 1981/1982 Fregonese went over the memo. He stated most of the projects in 1981 PROJECTS had been completed. They had discussed this with CPAC who had been interested in forming an information center and doing some capital improvement planning. In answer to this, Greene stated he felt capital improvement was badly needed and he would like to see the Planning Commission get involved with that. Fregonese stated he would also like to get involved with street improvements and it might be better to have rural -type paving standards used on Hersey St. and Mountain to provide another bypass in town. He thought maybe the City should look at that. Billings stated that Ashland used to have all granite streets, but they were maintained and were never a problem. He felt the problem with most of the granite streets in which were disgraceful, was that they were not being maintained adequately. Greene stated that part of the problem with Mountain Ave. is that it's a City /County dispute. Fregonese stated that if it had been in the County it would have been macadamized much like Mountain Ave. is as soon as it enters the County. Greene stated he felt it would really improve traffic flow if the North Main /Hersey /Mountain bypass could be developed. He thought it should be a very high priority in 1982. Barnes stated that the 1981 list had addressed the downtown parking problem. He wanted to know if there was any progress on it. Fregonese stated he was meeting with downtown merchants on a proposed parking district. Economic Development had been charged by the Mayor with taking this item over and they would be working on it. Greene wanted to know what everyone's feelings were concerning the industrial park. He stated he had heard some negative reactions in that APC, 1/13/82, Page 9 some people believe that the City should not be involved in something that the private sector can do. Fregonese stated that would probably work if other cities weren't involved, but it's impossible for Ashland to compete with cities that are actively trying to attract industry. Therefore, the private sector could not compete with other cities that had an attractive industrial program set up. In answer to that, Billings stated the public would complain if the City appeared to be trying encourage economic development on private property and the public would perceive the owner of the private property as being the person who would benefit. He felt that putting it in public ownership eliminated that problem and was actually the only reasonable way to do it. He was in favor of the project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 1/13/82, Page 10 TOT Apenes iBi11ings Barnes Pugh Greene AUwens Apenes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris Pugh Reid Greene Owens TOT Apenes Billings lateen Barnes is Pugh Greene H Owens YES NO 5 PH YES NO PH PH YES NO PH PH ff -`12 Owens Greene Pugh .Mo ..i s Barnes Billings Apenes TOT Owens Greene Reid PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD /44 /e3 Z Pugh Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Reid *Pugh Morris ,Barnes Hansen Billings Anenes TOT YES v NO PH P- YES NO Pugh r/ .fie Owens Apenes A4oftseA Barnes 4 s TOT YES NO PH Pugh Reid Greene Owens Apenes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris YES NO PH Pugh Reid Greene Owens Anenes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris TOT YES NO YES NO PH Ads Barnes limposot Billings Apenes Owens Greene Pugh TOT PH Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Reid Pugh TOT TOT TOT TOT PH Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Reid Pugh TOT