Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-10 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone w zh,,ng to ispeak at any Harming Comm64 -.on meeting ,us encowtriged to do 'o. IU you do wLi h to zpeak, ptecue 4i,se and agerc you have been neeognLzed by the Chain, gave your/. name and complete addlLeL4. You witt then be mowed to 4peak. Please note that pub.P,%e te,t%mony may be £.Lm.i.ed by the Cha L. and norlma22y not a.P,P.owed c te.it the pubic hearing ha's been c eosed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 10, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS ORDERS: Regular Meeting of January 13, 1982 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLANNING ACTION #82 -01 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for an addition to the First United Methodist Church, at North Main and Laurel Streets. An existing addition to the church would be demolished. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban low and Urban High Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family, low density) and R -3 (Multi family, high density). Assessor's Map 9BB. Tax lots: 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600 2700. APPLICANT: First United Methodist Church 2. PLANNING ACTION #82 -02 is a request for an amendment to an outline plan approval for a 28 -unit Planned Unit Development with an amended boundary, at 538 Granite Street. The proposal consists of 6 attached and 22 detached units. Comprehen- sive Plan Designation: Rural Residential. Zoning: RR -.5. Assessor's Map 17AA Tax lots: 2200, 1101, 1102. APPLICANT: Lithia Homes, Inc. 3. PLANNING ACTION #82 -04 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing structureat 170 Oak Street into professional offices on the lower level and an apartment above. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, low density). Assessor's Map 9BB Tax lot: 12200. APPLICANTS: Wenker /Rigotti IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: 1. PA #82 -03, Minor Land Partition at 1474 Siskiyou Blvd. to divide the lot into two parcels. Applicant: Gerald Allen. V. STAFF BUSINESS: 1. Memo to City Council Budget Committee re: Helman St. sewer main 2. ORS 227.035 3. Study Session on Land Use Ordinance Revisions 2/17/82 VI. LETTERS COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Notice of luncheon from League of Women Voters VII. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS ORDERS PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW METHODIST CHURCH M I N U T E S ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 10, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Lance Pugh in the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Tom Owens, Gene Morris, Ethel Hansen and Christian Apenes. Planning Director John Fregonese and Associate Planner Steve Jannusch were also present. The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of January 13, 1982, were approved as written. DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -01 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for an addition to the First United Methodist Church at North Main and Laurel Streets. An existing addition to the church would be demolished. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Low and urban High Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- Family Low Density) and R -3 (Multi- Family High Density). Assessor's Map 9BB. Tax Lots: 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700. APPLICANT: First United Methodist Church STAFF REPORT: Apenes abstained due to a potential conflict of interest. Fregonese gave the staff report and noted that the Historic Commission was pleased with the proposed new structure and the efforts the appli- cant had made to revise the design because of some questions raised had regarding the original design. An alternate design of the parking area was also approved by the Historic Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Gary Breeden, 201 W. Main, Medford, project architect, presented a model of the church and showed the revised design. He then noted that detailed building plans were not yet available. Staff had noted some problems with the energy efficiency of the addition and Breeden addressed these by noting that the attic would be insulated, as well as the slab edge to the maximum their budget will allow. He also stated that the west wall has 8 ft. of earth sheltering which would act as a natural insulator. Relative to the redesign of the parking area, Breeden then noted that it would be difficult to change the driveways, since it could require the elimination of the established trees on the lot. He stated they would be willing to move the landscaped islands where possible to facilitate a better design. He then addressed the question of vacating the alley which staff recommended against. Breeden APC, 2/10/82, Page 1 informed the Commission that it was necessary to vacate the alley to provide for future expansion of the church project, and he requested that Condition #2 of the staff report be changed accordingly. 2. Pugh asked for clarification of the earth sheltered side, which Breeden responded to. 3. Fregonese noted that there would be problems with improving the alley whether it was vacated or not. Breeden replied that there would be no problems if the required improvements were just along church property and not for the entire alley. Fregonese still maintained that it would be better to leave the condition as is, rather than conditional upon the alley vacation. 4. Morris questioned whether the existing Queen Anne structure would be re- moved or demolished. Breeden replied that it would be removed. Fregonese stated that the Historic Commission recommended the retention of the existing Queen Anne home at the site as a potential integration into the church facility. Hopefully the moving of this structure would only be a last resort. Fregonese also noted that staff would recommend condition #1 to be amended to read that the existing trees be retained wherever possible. 5. Apenes asked for clarification of the covenant expressed in condition #2 of the staff report relative to the parking facility. Fregonese stated that this condition was imposed to ensure the retention of those tax lots designated for parking permanently by the church. He stated that, in lieu of filing this covenant with the City, the tax lots should be consolidated to maintain their ownership by the church and use as parking facilities in toto. 6. Wes Hoxie, 821 Hillview Dr., expressed hisconcerns in favor of the alley vacation, and stated that adjoining neighbors are in accordance with the vacation. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1. Morris stated he was against condition #3 of the staff report, which outlined the Historic Commission's request to be kept apprised of the colors to be used for the proposed addition. Fregonese pointed out that this didn't establish specific parameters, only that they requested notification by the applicant at the time these colors were determined. 2. Morris moved to approve PA #82 -01 with applicant's findings and conditions as amended; the motion was seconded by Owens. The motion passed unanimously. APC, 2/10/82, Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -02 OUTLINE PLAN AMENDMENT LITHIA HOMES DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -02 is a request for an amendment to an Outline Plan Approval for a 28 -unit Planned Unit Development with an amended boundary at 538 Granite Street. The proposal consists of 6 attached and 22 detached units. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Residential. Zoning: RR -.5. Assessor's Map 17AA. Tax Lots: 2200, 1101, 1102. APPLICANT: Lithia Homes, Inc. STAFF REPORT: Fregonese gave the staff report. He indicated on the site plan the requested boundary amendment and also showed the splitting off of the one house on Granite St. In addition to the request ex- pressed in the staff report, the applicant requested further amendments, which were to build the project in a single phase, rather than in the four phases originally approved; secondly, to•allow for a 25 -ft. building setback from the creek, rather than the 40 -ft. setback required in the original approval; thirdly, to allow for a determination of foundation types and locations, as well as driveway locations, during the final plan approval. He then noted that the single phasing of the project posed no problems for staff. Relative to the creek setback question and the foundation and driveway cut infill question, he noted that these should be addressed at the time final plans were submitted. Fregonese then addressed the road stub at the west end of the project which dead -ended at the proposal boundary. He advised that this road should end at the driveways. Should the applicant request further ex- tension, this would require City approval. In response to neighbors' objections to the site plan relative to building locations, John Hardey, project engineer, noted that the units as indicated on the site plan are extra large for illustrative purposes only. It was then noted that any easements will have to be shown on the final plat. Fregonese then recommended approval with the attached conditions, and that the applicant be allowed to develop the road in one phase rather than in the four originally approved. He noted that the splitting off of one unit required further discussion. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. John Hardey, 1963 Lawnridge, Medford, project engineer, spoke for the applicant. He felt there were ho problems with the conditions, except for his concern that with the street plug in City ownership, his client's property to the west might be landlocked, and should he attempt to cross that street plug, would his client be trespassing? Fregonese indicated that he would, but there are alternative ways to provide access across this plug. 2. Mark Cooper, applicant, then spoke for himself. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak. He felt the imposition of APC, 2/10/82, Page 3 the street plug condition would seriously deprive him, and that, in effect, he would have to trespass in order to reach his adjacent properties. Fregonese pointed out that a street plug is a standard condition and Cooper was being treated as everyone else. The intent of this condition is to protect public access and block the possibility of future expansion on adjacent lands prior to any City approvals. 3. A contingency of neighbors was at the meeting and expressed concerns about the proposed project. 4. Bill Moore, 518 Granite, stated the neighbors opposed the project because they felt it was a mistake to put the. development there. He raised serious objections to the proposed changes. He believed approval of this project violated Planning Commission findings 5, 6, 7, 8 and conditions 2, 3, 14 and 30. Copies of the findings were then distributed. 5. Maridale Moore, 518 Granite, stated that, in their opinion, the proposed plan appeared to be in conflict with conditions 2 and 3, designed to prevent clusters that are too dense and any slope reduction. She noted that the creek is very fragile, and the additional units have been placed on their open space. 6. Marilyn Marthoski, 514 Granite, addressed findings 7 and 8. She noted that, in her opinion, the upper parcel which was exchanged, was very steep and more remote than the present proposal. 7. Carl Oates, 321 Granite, expressed his concerns about whether the road would be private or public. He noted condition 34. He stated that he assumed that, as taxpayers, we will now pay to maintain this road. He then questioned the proposed width of the road and stated that public roads in subdivisions are required to be 40 ft. wide, whereas this road isn't. 8. Mary Ann Santee, 508 Granite, addressed condition 14 regarding setbacks. She felt the house shown on the plan was touching her easement. She encouraged that the plan not be accepted as is, and hoped for future corrections. 9. Tim Rutter, 516 Granite, read a letter into the record. 10. Santee stated she had lived there for 12 years and this year was the first time her basement had flooded. She expressed concerns about who was watching the development of the project at this time, what with the tree cutting and land clearing that was occurring presently. She felt this had an impact on the natural flow of the creek. 11. Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenview Dr., was concerned about potential buyers of the houses in the proposal, whether they were pre -solds or purely speculation. She suggested that phasing was a good idea. Perhaps it was better to build 6, and from there determine any adverse impact upon the ecology of the hillside. APC, 2/10/82, Page 4 12. Judy Kennedy, 506 Granite, stated she agreed with the rest of the neighbors. 13. Hardey responded to the concerns of the neighbors. He stated the applicant is also concerned with runoff and potential liabilities created by such a project. He stated the roads would, in fact, cut off the natural drainage, but they will pick it up in their grading. Roof drains from the units would also go into the storm drain system. Hydrology studies are always done when designing such a system. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1. Morris asked whether the Council was authorized to remove any street plugs. Fregonese replied yes, that when adjacent properties were partitioned, the road would be continued or the road could be terminated and a turnaround could be created. 2. In addressing the road width, Fregonese stated that 20 ft. with no parking was standard in a P.U.D. The proposed width was not ideal, but it was adequate. 3. Apenes questioned the status of the existing unit on Granite St. Fregonese pointed out that the Planning Commission had the authority to reduce the number of allowable units due to the exclusion of this existing dwelling. 4. Pugh questioned the reasons for the single phasing of the project. Fregonese pointed out that Cooper wanted to put in the road all at once for possible economic reasons. Development of the road system would be preceeded by provisions for all pertinent utilities required. 5. Apenes questioned whether we could stop the development of the project at any point after the roads were installed. Fregonese pointed out that if any sliding or instability were created by the roads, the City Council could, by special ordinance. He noted that in the final stage of the construction, it is staff's intent to hire a City geologist to inspect the project. 6. Hansen asked Cooper to explain further his comment that the street plug would create undue hardship for him. Cooper stated that if he had no access to the remaining 50 acres to the west of the project, he could not do the 28 units of the present proposal, because of the economic burden placed upon him by the reduction of the number of allowable units to be built on the site. Since any future development would require Planning Commission approval, the street plug was unnecessary. 7. Fregonese reiterated that the street plug should remain a condition, but the applicant could file an easement for access to his property. APC, 2/10/82, Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -04 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW WENKER /RIGOTTI 8. Owens opted to abstain from voting on the proposal since he was new to the Planning Commission and, because of this, his only knowledge of the project was that which he had observed in the media. 9. Fregonese read the aforementioned findings. He then noted that, upon submission of more detailed information reflecting setbacks from the creek on the final plan, that particular condition could be amended. 10. Morris moved to approve PA #82 -02 with existing conditions and with the additional condition that the applicant be permitted a maximum of 28 units o, the project. The motion was seconded by Hansen. The motion passed unanimously. DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -04 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit. and Site Review to convert the existing structure at 170 Oak St. into professional offices on the lower level and an apartment above. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi Family Low Density). Assessor's Map 9BB. Tax Lot: 12200. APPLICANTS: Wenker /Rigotti STAFF REPORT: Jannusch gave the staff report. Fregonese noted that the property currently zoned R -2 was projected to be rezoned to E -1, the Employment District. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Lois Wenker, applicant, stated there would be no exterior changes except that the garage door of the existing single family dwelling on the lot would be replaced by a window and an entrance to the office proposed for the ground floor of the structure. She stated they were willing to comply with all conditions contained in the staff report. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1. Morris commented that he did not see a screened trash enclosure on the site. Wenker replied that any trash enclosure would be properly screened. 2. Morris stated he would like to see the street trees that are required on the development located on the applicant's property. 3. Apenes then clarified the parking and the vacant lot with Wenker. Wenker pointed out that the street parking adjacent to the parcel is designated as two -hour parking. 4. Owens moved to approve PA #82 -04 with applicant's findings and suggested conditions. Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. APC, 2/10/82, Page 6 'TYPE I APPROVAL 1. Planning Action #82 -03, a request for a Minor Land Partition at 1474 Siskiyou Blvd. to divide the lot into two parcels; applicant: Gerald Allen. It was noted that the rental units would eventually be removed. Morris commented on the problem of the ice on the sidewalk caused by a spring at the base of the driveway of parcel #1. He wondered if it could be controlled. Fregonese pointed out that we could impose an additional condition as a part of an approval of the project stating such. Morris moved that the request be approved, with condition #6 added, as follows: "That the spring located at the base of the driveway of proposed parcel #1 be piped and drained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Dept." The motion was seconded by Hansen and passed unanimously. The approval will become final when the applicant agrees to the added condition. Fregonese commented that the ordinance revisions would be forthcoming and be ready by the time of the joint session of the Planning Commission and CPAC on February 17. COMP PLAN Fregonese re- outlined the schedule for adoption of the Comprehensive MAP SCHEDULE Plan Map. He stated that the joint meeting with the County would be held around the first week in March. Relative to this, progress on the North Ashland Interchange continued. Joint meetings were being held with BCVSA and Eric Dittmer of Rogue Valley COG. Apenes had a question regarding the proposed golf course adjacent to the present Jackson House restaurant. Fregonese stated that, if the golf course proceeded as proposed, the City would request a consent to annexation. CONFLICT As requested by the Planning Commission, the State's Conflict of Interest OF INTEREST Statute was included in the packet and so noted. STATUTE NEW ORDINANCES INDUSTRIAL Fregonese discussed the progress which was being made on the industrial PARK park being proposed off Clover Lane. He stated the City's objective was to buy and develop the property, which would eventually result in indus- try providing several hundred jobs. He indicated there were several firms presently interested, with one firm commitment. The Economic Development Commission is presently putting together a marketing plan. Fregonese noted that Lawrence Matson, an architect in Ashland, had volunteered to draft a conceptual plan for the project. He then indicated on the map where the proposed park would be located. He asked if any of the Planning Commissioners had heard any public comment relative to the project. Morris commented that the only opposition that he had heard was that the City, not a private investor, was interested in buying the property and doing this project. Fregonese noted that the City's intent would be to work with the community on this project. Apenes asked if the industrial park would be visible from Oak Knoll. Fregonese stated that it would possibly be visible; but the design criteria for the development would mandate a high -class operation and the structures and setting would be more of a campus -like design, as opposed to the starkness that is stereotypical of industrial developments. APC, 2/10/82, Page 7 HOUSE IN AIRPORT ZONE Morris commented on the large multi -story house which is currently under construction in the airport zone. Fregonese agreed that it was in the overlay, but it was currently unclear whether approval had been granted by the County for the construction. He stated that Al Alsing was presently in contact with County Planning regarding this. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 2110182, Page 8 PH 12 0/ YES NO Apenes EijoJellangs Hansen Morris Pugh Gotwfie Owens TOT Apenes Billings Hansen Ba.s Morris Pugh Reid Greene Owens TOT Apenes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris Pugh Reid Greene Owens TOT PH YES NO PH PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD PH SZ -0 Y Owens 4:04.2. e Resiiet Pugh Morris 1ea-sos Hansen Bergs Apenes TOT D YES NO PH Owens Greene Reid Pugh Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes TOT Owens Greene Reid Pugh Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes TOT S NO PH Pugh $mod YES NO TOT YES NO PH Pugh Reid Greene Owens Apenes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris TOT PH Pugh Reid Greene Owens Anenes Billings Hansen Barnes Morris TOT YES NO YES NO PH 7. 4/0 /er PH S 0 YES NO Morris Ammums- Hansen 5-6614 495 Apenes Owens Cie R- Pugh TOT Morris Barnes TOT YES NO PH Morris Barnes Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Reid Pugh TOT v Hansen Billings�� Apenes Owens Pr'' Greene a-v R e i d Lu—� Pugh c a_e_c__ YES NO YES NO