Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-21 Planning MINCALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUATION OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1982 April 21, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Jeff Barnes in the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Don Greene, Jackie Reid, Gene Morris, and Ethel Hansen. Christian Apenes arrived during the Duane Smith hearing. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. AGENDA It was suggested that the Planning Commission review the application for REVISION the bed and breakfast on Oak St. and the application for the Plaza lemonade stand prior to delving into the continuation of Duane Smith's subdivision off Prim Wiley. PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -21 is a request for a Conditional Use PA #82 -21 Permit and Site Review to convert the existing dwelling at 153 Oak St. CONDITIONAL into an owner occupied travelers' accommodations consisting of two guest USE PERMIT rooms. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Retail Commercial. Zoning: C -1 SITE REVIEW (Retail Commercial). Assessor's Map 9BB. Tax Lot: 11600. KNECHT APPLICANT: Phyllis Knecht STAFF REPORT: 1) Fregonese read the staff report. 2) Barnes asked whether the criteria established by the Health Dept. would apply to this application. Fregonese replied that the Health Dept. standards applied to travelers' accommodations of greater than two rooms, and thus would not apply to this application. 3) Morris asked about the condition of the alley which abuts the north- east property line of the site. Fregonese replied that it was actually a driveway, since it is not a dedicated strip, and the Engineering Div. does not claim it as City property. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Phyllis Knecht, applicant, stated the driveway had been originally sold by the McCall family, along with the lot next door, but had reserved the strip for use by both parcels. 2) Greene asked Knecht what her opinion would be regarding a Health Dept. review. Knecht stated she hadn't seen this particular requirement, but the Health Dept. had offered to inspect the premises. She decided not to pay the fee for the inspection if it was not required. She did state, however, that she would be in favor of the inspection. APC, 4/21/82, Page 1 3) Morris asked whether the alley was paved. Fregonese replied that the surface would be constructed of red bricks only on the driveway portion and the parking lot would be surfaced in oil mat, subject to the standards provided to the City by the County Roads Dept. This is an experimental surface which is being tested in several light -duty applications throughout the City. 4) Morris wondered if this proposal would be subject to an annual review by the Planning Commission. Fregonese replied that it wouldn't since it was located in a commercial zone. Morris stated he was con- cerned about buses that might be parking in the street for any lengthy period of time. Fregonese replied that the applicant is providing more than enough parking spaces behind the site for off street parking. Morris asked if a motor home could negotiate within the parking lot. Fregonese replied that they could, but with difficulty. 5) Greene stated he felt this was a great idea for the use of this structure since it was an historical landmark, and should make an ideal bed and breakfast. 6) Morris moved to approve PA #82 -21. Hansen seconded the motion with the attached conditions. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -27 is a request for a Conditional Use PA #82 -27 Permit for the seasonal use of a portable lemonade stand to be located CONDITIONAL in the alcove of Rare Earth at 37 North Main St. Comprehensive Plan USE PERMIT designation: Downtown Commercial. Zoning: C -2. Assessor's Map 9BB. VANLANDINGHAM Tax Lot: 8600. APPLICANT: David VanLandingham STAFF REPORT: 1) Jannusch read the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) David VanLandingham, applicant, stated there had been three different operators of the juice stand over the past 9 years. Last year had been the first year it had been operated totally legally, incorporating the Health Dept. for periodic inspections, which had been initiated at his own request. 2) Duane Smith noted that the lemonade served there was good and he enjoyed it. The public hearing was then closed. APC, 4/21/82, Page 2 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) Barnes stated he felt this request was a good use of the property and, in his recollection, it had been run properly. 2) Hansen felt it enhanced the atmosphere of the downtown area. 3) Morris moved to approve PA #82 -27 with the attached conditions. Hansen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. CONTINUATION COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION (cont'd.) OF PUBLIC HEARING 1) Fregonese recapped the conditions initially suggested by staff, PA #82 -24 changing condition 2c to read "homes" rather than "structures." He PERFORMANCE recalled that density bonuses should be awarded only for the energy STANDARDS provisions and the open space provided by the applicant. He noted that SUBDIVISION the deed restrictions should be fairly explicit in their text. He SMITH maintained once again that the homeowners' association would have problems with the maintenance of a private road, since typically such associations do not have the know -how to put together the proper improvement require ments for such a road. He stated that making a provision of the deed restrictions would guarantee that the road would be maintained. He noted that another possibility, in an effort to lessen the complexity of the project, would be to form a local improvement district, where the majority of property owners could force the minority to resurface the road. Barnes asked whether this would pertain only to those who fronted on the road, and Fregonese replied yes, and that it would not apply to those with Prim or Wiley frontages. Fregonese further noted that the solar covenant would be modified for the hours from 9 AM to 1 PM, rather than for 10 AM to 2 PM which the ordinance addresses. Barnes noted that he could not commit himself at this time to recommending this amendment to the conditions of approval. Fregonese noted that the Planning Commission should not be worried about the cost, and that these conditions could be addressed upon approval of the final plan since they were not necessary for approval of the preliminary plan for the development. 2) Barnes stated that he wished to have an assurance that the buildings would be energy efficient, and he would like to have this in the covenant. Fregonese stated he felt it would be appropriate to do this. He also noted that bonus points should be awarded only for 10% rather than 18% originally addressed. 3) Barnes asked Smith what would happen if a buyer did not want a package plan, as submitted by the developer. Smith stated that the buyer could submit an alternate plan to the developer for his approval. He further noted that the deed restriction contains BTU requirements that pertain to approval of the project. 4) Barnes asked Smith if there were any architectural standards and how they would be determined for alternate plans submitted. Smith replied that he would reserve the right of approval on any alternate plans up to APC, 4/21/82, Page 3 the 75% which might be sold at the project, after which time design approval would be given to the homeowners' association. 5) Barnes asked Smith how he felt about including sidewalks on one side of Applewood Place. Smith stated he would do this, but he did not agree with the necessity for them, noting that it was a 20 -ft. road with minimal traffic. Also, he stated there was a footpath located at the rear of the lots. He understood that it was the City's idea to encourage foot traffic in a separate location from automobile traffic. 6) Greene stated he thought a zero lot line would be more appropriate for the north property lines than the 3 -ft. setback as indicated on the site plan. Fregonese pointed out that this might pose a problem if a firewall is required adjacent to the property line at that point. Reid felt that the 3 -ft. setback would provide an additional place for landscaping. Fregonese stated that a zero lot line would require a maintenance easement. Barnes stated that a zero lot line would also create problems for an overhang created by an eave into the adjacent properties. Fregonese agreed, and stated that often builders can miss lot lines by a few feet, and if a 3 -ft. setback was maintained, this would help alleviate the potential for building over a property line. 7) Barnes felt that an additional condition should be imposed that street trees be provided along Applewood Place. 8) Greene suggested that the applicant sign in favor of sidewalks, rather than putting them in, along Applewood Place. He also suggested that a two -year maintenance plan be developed for the landscaping to include an operating reserve account prior to turning over the common area to the homeowners' association. He stated that it was his under- standing that homeowners' associations were a new concept, and thus required some close scrutiny. Fregonese pointed out that the first home- owners' association was formed in Boston in 1820. Fregonese pointed out, relative to the alternative to a sinking fund, that an LID could be formed in which a majority of the lot owners could vote to improve the street or develop sidewalks, e.g., 6 out of 10 of the property owners, and each -of the 10 would have to pay equally. He also felt that the sinking fund idea would be appropriate if the homeowners' association opted for this in their association by -laws. 9) Morris asked where the additional 11 parking spaces would be located. Fregonese replied that they could be included on the final plan when it is submitted. 10) Smith pointed out that each of the lots could be fitted with a 30 -ft. apron in lieu of a 20 -ft. apron, providing one additional space per lot, rather than reserving one whole section for off street parking. He stated that these 30 -ft. aprons were not planned to be included on Prim. Fregonese noted that, since Prim would only be improved to a 24 -ft. width, some of the 30 -ft. aprons should be provided on Prim, but this could be worked out at the final plan stage. Reid noted that this might pose a APC, 4/21/82, Page 4 problem for individuals who plan on entertaining and having a number of people parking close to their house. 11) Morris questioned whether or not the applicant would be required to complete the entire project before selling any of the units. Fregonese stated that phasing of the project could be possible, perhaps the external lots first. Smith noted that, if 6 out of 10 of the lots would sell, he would do the whole paving plan at the time they sold. 12) Greene felt that part of the common space and recreational area should be included under the first phase, if the project was anticipated to be phased. Fregonese noted that it would be appropriate that two thirds of the project be considered under a single phase, and the remainder of the project included under the second phase. 13) Reid stated she was familiar with a project in Eugene where paving blocks were incorporated, utilizing grass in their design. She thought that might be appropriate for the 30 -ft. aprons. Barnes noted that this was a good design for steep drives, and their design provides a high friction surface, where tires wear ice off the high points. He noted this was a more permanent method of parking design and is stronger than asphalt paving. He pointed out that this would do away with the drainage problem. 14) Fregonese then cited Section 18.08.030 of the Performance Standards Code regarding phasing of the project. 15) Greene pointed out that lots 21 and 16 were flag lots and should be improved to flag lot standards established by the Planning Commission. He felt that his concerns about the private road versus the public road had not been met. Relative to this, he felt that the "place" standards implied would be an additional mistake. He felt it would be placing an undue burden on the homeowners, and the road should be built to "lane" standards instead of place standards. Fregonese noted that it would include curbs, gutters, and a regular crown in the road. 16) Smith stated he had planned on using an inverse crown, with the drainage at the low point of the road. Barnes pointed out that this could create potential problems from runoff above the road, since some water would seep underneath the curb, rather than crossing over the top of it. Smith cited his engineer, Gene Ginther of Portland, who stated that this design was used frequently. 17) Greene and Barnes discussed further the pros and cons of places versus lanes. Greene maintained that the place designation was not appropriate for private roads serving ten lots. 18) Fregonese disagreed with Greene, stating that the private road was equivalent to the entrance of a parking lot in any multi -unit development. He asked Greene if he would feel the same if this were a PUD with 10 cluster units, noting that the function of the private road would be the same. Barnes stated he was less concerned with the public versus the APC, 4/21/82, Page 5 private designation of the road and more concerned with individuals speeding in and out of the project. 19) Barnes, Fregonese and Smith discussed the basic engineering of the road, including the utilization of concrete and tension steel in its design. Smith stated that the engineer would have a better handle on the precise design of the road. Fregonese pointed out that concrete has excellent durability. 20) Greene noted that it was difficult to get all owners together for improvement of the street. Fregonese suggested that it would be more appropriate to have the engineer design the road for a 20 -year life expectancy. Smith stated he figured the City would dictate the standards anyway, and that would cause no problem for him 21) Morris asked if the City would take the road and incorporate it in the public roads system without a curb and gutter as is proposed. Fregonese replied that this would not occur under today's standards. It was further determined that any edging, curbing, and guttering of the street could be determined in coordination with the Public Works Dept. at the time the final plan is received. 22) Hansen moved to approve PA #82 -24 with the amended conditions, which were as follows: 10) That street trees be provided on 30 -ft. centers along Prim and the private road. 11) That the applicant sign in favor of installing sidewalks along the private road. 12) That a solar covenant be included in the deed restrictions to Planning Dept. standards. 13) That the engineer design the private road to meet a 20 -year life expectancy, and to coordinate this with the Public Works Dept. 14) That lots 16 and 21 be improved to flag drive standards, and that lot 16 sign in favor of future street improvements to Wiley. 15) A 2 -year maintenance plan shall be developed for the landscaping and an operating reserve account will be set up prior to assumption by the homeowners' association. The motion was seconded by Reid and passed unanimously. TYPE I Planning Action #82 -20, a request for a Site Review to construct a new APPROVAL SOSC stadium and improve the parking lot; applicant: So. Ore. State College. 1) Fregonese and Jannusch showed the plans, and explained the landscaping provided in the parking lot noting that street trees should be installed on 30 -ft. centers along Webster and Wightman. 2) Morris asked how condition 10 could be enforced, relative to the overflow parking requirement agreed to by the College. Fregonese noted that the applicant would be liable to fining if such parking was not provided. Barnes asked if there were any problems with the number of spaces provided for the proposed facility. Fregonese stated there was almost double the available, as indicated by the submitted specification sheet included in the application. Barnes noted that, this being the case, the applicant could afford to give up some spaces in lieu of planting some trees in large planter areas inside the parking area. 3) Rod Stevens, representing the applicant, noted on the parking plan where there would be one row of compact spaces available and one row of standard spaces available. APC, 4/21/82, Page 6 4) Barnes pointed out to the applicant that the percentage of land- scaping required has a different impact according to the design of the parking lot. Stevens agreed to meet any City requirements for the size of the spaces. He noted that in the design of the parking area attempts had been made to avoid high hedges, since vandalism is typically a problem where hedges are too tall. Fregonese suggested that trees be interspersed in the hedge to meet the street tree requirement. Stevens stated he had no problem with this, however, leaves pose a problem in the maintenance of the parking area. Since the applicant is trying to maintain an energy consciousness, deciduous trees have been anticipated. 5) Morris noted that sidewalks should be installed along Wightman. Barnes noted that, when installing the sidewalk, the existing trees as well as any proposed trees should be protected. He noted it might be appropriate for the applicant to exchange some of the landscaping area for trees on 30 -ft. centers between the sidewalk and parking lot. 6) It was noted that staff should examine carefully the parking lot configuration to determine stall size and configuration requirements. 7) The application was approved with attached conditions. OLCC 1) Jannusch explained the memo received from the OLCC by the Planning LICENSING Dept. It stated generally that relative to the placement of a liquor REGULATIONS establishment adjacent to a church or other publicly -owned school or park facility, that within 500 ft. of such facility impacted property owners could write in opposition to the granting of a liquor license to the OLCC, but it was a discretionary power that the OLCC had. The memo, which addressed OAR Chapter 845 -05 -025, essentially implied that if a church had no objection to the granting of a liquor license within 500 ft. of the church facility, the OLCC would grant the license. 2) Barnes stated he was not sure that the church oculd sign away their right to object to such a granting of a license. Fregonese noted that in such a case the City would have to come to the church's aid. Barnes continued by stating that in a way it precludes similar other uses. 3) Greene stated he had problems with permitting churches in E -1 zones. ALLEY 1) Relative to the alley vacation between Laurel and Bush for the VACATION Methodist Church, it was noted that the City Council had approved the BETWEEN application at their Tuesday night meeting. LAUREL BUSH LETTER A letter from Andy Green, pastor of the Ashland Christian Fellowship FROM GREEN was entered into the record. It was noted that the applicants were now interested in the Darex building on Hersey St. and not the Hanova building as previously intended. Fregonese noted that their new proposal would provide adequate parking, whereas their prior proposal had problems complying with parking requirements. He then read both the permitted and conditional APC, 4/21/82, Page 7 uses for the M -1 zone. Apenes asked, since churches are only allowed as a conditional use, why they would be allowed outright in this zone. Fregonese pointed out that they were only allowed as conditional uses in residential zones. He further noted that churches could be included under discussion as allowable in commercial zones. Bruce Smith, acting as a representative for the church, spoke in favor of the proposal. He noted their intention would be to lease the property for 5 years, and the lease would have an option to be renewed at the end' of the 5 -year period. He stated they are presently outgrowing the Parks and Recreation building on Winburn Way. He added that their week -day activities would possibly be expanded in this new facility. Fregonese noted that this use possibly could be considered as an enter- tainment establishment, since it is a similar use as far as zoning is concerned. This would be okay in the proposed E -1 zone, but not in the M -1 zone. However, this might be appropriate in view of the future zone change anticipated for this area. Barnes asked whether this would be setting a precedent for all E -1 zones. Fregonese replied that it would. Greene pointed out that this could pose a possible conflict with daytime activities. Barnes asked if there were ever any temporary uses permitted under such a proposal. Fregonese pointed out some options which the Planning Commission could discuss further. He stated it could be possible to permit a church in an E -1 zone under a conditional use, or to allow a church in the E -1 zone as an administrative use. Apenes asked whether this use would be temporary or permanent. Fregonese replied that there is presently no provision either way. Barnes suggested that a CUP would ensure compatibility of uses in future applications for such facilities. It was finally determined that this particular application should be allowed in the existing M -1 zone. LETTER FROM A letter from the County Assessor's Office was entered into the record. CO. ASSESSOR'S Fregonese noted that the surveyors are presently doing this and there OFFICE is no necessity for updating our code. APC, 4/21/82, Page 8 LETTER FROM The County Health Dept. was asking for direction from the Planning COUNTY Commission in terms of regular inspections for bed and breakfast estab- HEALTH DEPT. lishments in the City. After some discussion, it was determined that bed and breakfasts should be treated the same as motels and restaurants, relative to State Health Dept. inspections ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 4/12/82, Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD U ,�,G4 PH /z -t,/ YES NO PH gl YES N s �.s Greene Hansen Reid 1 Barnes hr" Morris Morris Barnes Reid Hansen Greene AJammer TOT i' TOT v 5-b —4W2ig5 Apenes Hansen Barnes Morris TOT PH "Z,- YES NO PH Pig Morris Reid Barnes Greene Greene Reid TOT PH YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO PH Apenes Owens Pugh Morris Billings Greene Reid Barnes Hansen Reid Greene Hansen Barnes Pugh Owens Billings Morris Morris Apenes Apenes Pugh Barnes Billings Owens Reid Hansen Hansen Greene Greene Billings Barnes Reid Owens Apenes Morris Pugh TOT TOT TOT TOT PH YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO PH Pugh Morris Apenes Owens Billings Greene Reid Barnes Hansen Reid Greene Hansen Barnes Pugh Owens Billings Morris Morris Anenes Apenes Pugh Barnes Billings Owens Reid Hansen Hansen Greene Greene Billings Barnes Reid Owens Apenes Morris Pugh TOT TOT TOT TOT Hansen --04111i‘ Apenes l YES NO YES NO YES NO