HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-12 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wizhing to 'peak at any P2anw%ng Commizzion Meeting encowcaged to do Aso.
14 you do w,ioh to Apeafi, pPea6e n.i6e and age'L you have been rceeogwized by the Chai'c,
give .yowc name and eomp.Cete add/La's. you w-W. then be attowed to zpeafi. Please
no that pubd;%e test.mony may be .L tmi ted by the Chain. and n &matey ,ins not af2owed
age'L the pubti.c hean,Lng hays been c tot ed
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 12, 1982
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, FINDINGS ORDERS: Regular meeting of April 14, 1982
Special meeting of April 21, 1982
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. PLANNING ACTION #82 -18, continuation of the request for an annexation and a
zone change for approximately 3 acres located on the east side of Tolman Creek
Road, north of Hwy 66. The southern portion of the property fronts on Hwy 66
and is presently in the City limits, zoned C -1 (Retail Commercial). The portion
to be annexed is currently designated as RR -5 by the County, and would be re-
zoned as C -1. Comprehensive Plan designation: Retail Commercial. Assessor's
map 11C. Tax lot: 600.
APPLICANT: Don Rist.
2. PLANNING ACTION #82 -26 is a request for preliminary approval of an 8 -unit
Planned Unit Development on the north side of Nutley, west of Scenic; and
two Ordinance Variances. One variance from the paving requirement of
Nutley from Scenic to Alnut and a variance to allow for a 16' private road
access into the development in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance. Com-
prehensive Plan designation: Rural Residential and Suburban Residential.
Zoning: R- 1:7.5P and RR -.5P. Assessor's map 8AD. Tax lots: 4300 and
5000. APPLICANT: John Barton
3. PLANNING ACTION #82 -31 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Review to convert a portion of the existing residence at 239 Oak Street into
an antique store. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban low residential.
Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, low density). Assessor's map 4CC. Tax lot:
6600. APPLICANT: Margie /Jack Ross.
4. PLANNING ACTION #82 -32 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Review to convert the existing dwelling at 668 North Main St. into an owner
occupied Bed Breakfast with 3 -units and an owner's apartment in the resi-
dence and the proposed construction of 3 duplex cottages for a total of 9
guest units. Comprehensive Plan designation: Retail Commercial. Zoning:
C -1 (Retail Commercial). Assessor's Map 5AD. Tax lot: 800.
APPLICANTS: Joseph /Phyllis Morical.
5. PLANNING ACTION #82 -33 is a request for final plan approval for a 28 -unit
Planned Unit Development at 538 Granite St. and a Minor Land Partition at
532 Granite Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Residential.
Zoning: RR:.5. Assessor's Map 17AA. Tax lots: 1101, 2200, 2203.
APPLICANT: Lithia Homes, Inc.
6. Renewal of Traveler Accommodations at: 120 Gresham, 634 Iowa, 467 Scenic, 142
N. Main, 70 Coolidge, 150 N. Main, 111 "B" St, 295 Idaho, 725 Terra and 321,
325, 335, 343 Garfield Streets. Also renewal of professional offices at 333 N. Main.
7. Final approval of Ashland /Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and
Memorandum of Understanding.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES AND
FINDINGS
AND ORDERS
STAFF REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
MINUTES
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 12, 1982
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jeff Barnes in the Ashland
Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Ethel Hansen, John
Billings, Tom Owens, Don Greene, and Lance Pugh. Planning Director John
Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secretary
Ann Baker were also present.
The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of April 14,
1982, were approved as written.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -18 is a continuation of the request for
PA #82 -18 an annexation and a zone change for approximately 3 acres located on the
ANNEXATION east side of Tolman Creek Rd., north of Highway 66. The southern portion
ZONE CHANGE of the property fronts on Hwy 66 and is presently in the City limits, zoned
RIST C -1 (Retail Commercial). The portion to be annexed is currently designated
as RR -5 by the County, and would be rezoned as C -1. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Retail Commercial. Assessor's Map 11C. Tax Lot: 600.
APPLICANT: Don Rist.
1) Fregonese gave a recap of the proceedings on this
planning action from the previous Planning Commission meeting. In reading
the amended staff report, it was suggested that, due to a lack of interest
on the part of the Planning Commission and Jackson County Planning, the
planning action should be processed as a traditional annexation, rather
than a contract annexation, as previously suggested by staff.
2) Barnes asked why the condition had been imposed to require the appli-
cant to install the water line along Tolman Creek Rd. to the north property
line of the subject parcel. Fregonese stated this was the same condition
that had been applied to the YMCA property, so that the next person
to the north could hook on directly to the water line. He also
noted that it was possible that an assessment district could be formed
with the Y property.
1) Jack Davis, 515 E. Main, representing the applicant,, noted that the
applicant was willing to support and comply with all the conditions estab-
lished by the amended staff report. He asked for a clarification on
APC, 5/12/82, Page 1
condition #1 as established in the staff report, relative to the water
availability prior to a lifting of the moratorium in this area of the City.
He wanted it clarified that the equivalent of two single family homes be
permitted to hook up in light of the applicant's proposal to proceed with a
commercial development at the site. Relative to condition #2, he felt it
was important to clarify that the water line is from Highway 66, along
Tolman Creek Rd., and not from Tolman Creek Rd.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Greene stated he had no problems with Davis's clarification of the
conditions.
2) Billings moved to approve PA #82 -18 with the attached findings and
conditions. The motion was seconded by Greene and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -26 is a request for preliminary approval
PA #82 -26 of an 8 -unit Planned Unit Development on the north side of Nutley St.,
PUD AND TWO west of Scenic, and two Ordinance Variances, one variance from the paving
VARIANCES requirement of Nutley from Scenic to Alnut, and a variance to allow for a
BARTON 16 -ft. private road access into the development in lieu of 20 ft. as
required by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural residential
and Suburban Residential. Zoning: R- 1 -7.5P and RR -.5P. Assessor's
Map 8AD. Tax Lots: 4300, 5000.
APPLICANT: John Barton
STAFF REPORT:
1) Fregonese read the staff report.
2) Owens asked for a clarification of the pavement width along Nutley.
Fregonese pointed out that, from the pavement line to Alnut, the road
surface was granite, with curbs and gutters, to a 28 -ft. width. From
Alnut to the project boundary, the road was fully maintained. He further
noted that the 20 -ft. road width is wider than upper Nutley's present
traveled width.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) John Fisher Smith, 114 Bush, architect for the project, noted that
the request was for a Performance Standards development, and the low
density was designed specifically for the area to retain its natural
features, relative to the terrain and vegetation. He stated that the
applicant would be living in one of the units of the project when it is
completed. He then provided a slide show to help explain the proposal.
Relative to the required additional public parking, he explained that
the design of the project would provide 32 spaces rather than 20, as
per staff's recommendations. The 32 spaces would be provided with 2
spaces per garage, and 2 extra spaces per house would be included in the
design in lieu of the 4 additional public parking stalls suggested in
the staff report.
APC, 5/12/82, Page 2
2) Richard Stevens, 110 Pine, planning consultant for the applicant,
addressed the paving of Nutley and the interior parking and circulation
proposal for the project. He addressed Section 18.88.010 of the
Performance Standards Code, relative to the purpose and intent of the
street requirements in a Performance Standards subdivision. He felt
that a variance could be granted by addressing the same concerns as the
ordinance and expressing a soundness in the design criteria. He felt
that Seminary Dr. should be designated as a place, since traffic counts
projected for the proposal would be an 80 trips per day figure, and the
standards for a place were set at 1 -100 vehicle trips /day. Relative to
the 20 ft. width requirement imposed by the staff report, he addressed
the semantics of the ordinance, by noting that the wording states that
a road "should" be 20 ft. in width, not "shall" be 20 ft. in width. He
further stated that the Fire Code addresses an all- weather driving
surface as being just that, and not necessarily asphaltic concrete paving.
He felt it would be proper to rewrite the condition to state that Seminary
Rd. must meet the minimum Fire Code and be not less than 16 ft. in
asphaltic paving.
3) Greene noted that a cut to a 20 -ft. width with a compacted shoulder
is different from a 20 -ft. paving requirement. Stevens noted that such
a condition would require a greater cut in the existing banks.
4) Barnes noted that Seminary Rd. is 50% longer.than the place require-
ments established in the code. Stevens acknowledged that Barnes was
correct.
5) Owens felt that the width requirement, as established in the
Performance Standards Code, is a mandatory requirement. Stevens replied
that the wording indicates that it is a discretionary matter because of
the word "should" being used instead of "shall."
6) Fregonese quoted from the Guidelines established in the Performance
Standards. He stated the ordinance is very specific in the impositions
of the standards used, and they apply to all developments. He further
noted that a 16 -ft. road would compare to the average alley width of the
paved alleys in the City. He stated the minimum requirement for a
double flag drive is 15 ft. for only two houses. He also stated that it
was the specific intent of the ordinance that this be a mandatory
requirement, and the word "should" was a drafting error on his part.
7) Billings noted that historically the Planning Commission had
recommended that on hillsides and contours, a 20 -ft. width was not
necessary, and a more desirable and adequate width could be a 16 -ft. road.
He stressed it was the Planning Commission's intent that cuts and fills
be minimized. He noted that Highway 99 had been 16 ft. wide for years.
Fregonese responded by saying that Highway 99 had been 16 ft. wide, but
with 5 -ft. shoulders. Fregonese also stated that no development in the
1970s in Ashland had been allowed at less than standards established.
APC, 5/12/82, Page 3
8) Stevens pointed out the careful planning and care for the environ-
ment which had been applied in this development. He further noted that
the Planning Commission does have discretionary powers in this instance
under the ordinance.
9) Hansen, addressing Billings' concerns, stated she remembered a tour
that had been conducted of area roads, relative to wide versus narrow
cuts as they related to the contours of the roads. She asked Fregonese
if allowing a 16 ft. road in this case would be like opening Pandora's
box, as he had noted in earlier testimony. Fregonese stated that, if the
Commission leaves the standards open to options, what would prevent an
application being filed for less than 16 ft.? He felt anyone could come
in with a good sales pitch and negotiate the width of all the roads in
new developments. He further stated that 10 ft. is a traffic engineering
standard width for single lanes. Barnes concurred, stating that it had
been a fight with the Public Works Dept. to reduce the required width
from 36 ft. down to 20 ft.
10) Stevens stated he didn't think the Commission would be opening
Pandora's box. He felt the standards
could apply to places only, with less than 100 vehicle trips /day as a
standard. He reiterated that the Fire Code requires a 20 -ft., unob-
structed width. He further stated that the applicant would be willing
to do some paving to the access road and also some paving to Nutley. If
it was agreed upon by the applicant to pave the total length of Nutley,
there would be no incentive for adjacent property owners to sign in favor
of improvements under a local improvement district. He noted that the
figure of $21,000 was more accurate than the $8000 cited in the staff
report as the cost for the paving project. Adding units to cover the
additional cost would be contrary to the intent of the development.
11) Fisher -Smith stated the cost of $84 /lineal foot, with 400 ft. of
length on Nutley, would actually be around $25,600, including engineering
and surveying.
12) Fregonese stated he had gotten a figure from Public Works, and the
$8000 reflected improvements of Nutley, from where the pavement ends
all the way to Scenic. Lower Nutley is presently paved, and then the
surfacing becomes a remedial roadway. Fisher -Smith said Barton would
have no objection to an LID with Barton paying half of the construction
cost.
13) Barnes asked what remedial paving would be, as suggested by the
applicant. What was it exactly that they were asking for? Stevens
stated they would be willing to comply with the code. Fisher -Smith
stated that remedial paving would be constructed to a 20 -ft. width to
Alnut, and from there would be a granite surface with curbs. He then
reiterated that the parking established for the proposal meets the
ordinance requirements.
APC, 5/12/82, Page 4
14) John Barton, applicant, stated that a road 16 ft. wide would allow
passage of two vehicles, or a car and a fire truck. A 20 -ft. paving
requirement would require an additional 3 ft. of cut and fill, and 3 ft.
is a lot on this terrain, particularly with their concerns regarding the
retention of the aesthetics of the environment. He further stated there
should be no problem with setting precedents regarding the road width,
and future plans could be evaluated on the merits of those plans on an
individual basis.
15) Barnes asked what the slope of the land was, and Fisher -Smith replied
that there was a 24 -25% slope.
16) Tom Foster, 147 Nutley, stated he was in opposition to the proposal.
He raised the question of increased traffic, and pointed out that allow-
ing a variance for the paving requirement would increase the safety
problem that currently exists when motorists have problems in stopping
at present, coming down Nutley, due to the granite surface. He stated that
this problem is increased during bad weather. He cited an additional
problem relative to cars parking on Scenic. He stated there is a problem
with dust accumulation from the granite surface. He then questioned
whether the water system was adequate to provide services for the new
structures so that it would not create a negative impact on the
surrounding areas.
17) George Sanders, 196 Nutley, had the same concerns expressed by
Foster. He further stated there were problems with the runoff that
presently exists in the area, and he was concerned about the changing
of the water table increasing runoff and creating more problems for those
properties below the parcel.
18) Jere Hudson, 395 Strawberry Lane, stated he was not entirely against
the project and felt it was a good development. He was concerned about
the water availability, citing a Public Works Dept. letter addressing
the R.W. Beck report, which recommended that no more development be
allowed above Ditch Rd. He questioned what the effect would be on the
water pressure further up the hill.
19) Fregonese pointed out that the existing line was a 12 -inch line
leading up Nutley. He noted that, with 8 more houses there, there would
be no more effect than putting them anywhere else in that part of the
City. Until the Council establishes a water moratorium in the area, it
would be illegal for the Planning Commission to stop the development based
upon a water problem.
20) Gary Kimball, 55 Scenic, was concerned with water runoff to his
property, stating that his house is built on fill.
21) Jerry Havel, 95 Scenic, stated the same concerns as Kimball. He
noted that the solid granite base is 3 -4 ft. below the surface of the
ground. He stated there currently exists a water runoff problem at his
property, citing flooding in his house this year during the rainy season.
APC, 5/12/82, Page 5
He was concerned that development of the parcel would create additional
water runoff problems.
22) Fregonese pointed out that any improvements to the roads include
paving to City standards.
23) Fisher -Smith stated the applicant was in favor of paving Nutley,
and the only problem facing the applicant at this point was the approach
to take in providing the improvements required by the City. He noted
that drainage from the site would comply with engineering standards
established by the Public Works Dept.
24) Barnes asked what the storm drainage plan encompassed for the project.
Fisher -Smith stated no engineering studies had been done yet, but their
intent was to address this at the final plan stage, providing curbs at
some places, gravel, grass and line swales to comply with the topography
of the area.
25) Barton stated that it would probably be a Public Works requirement
that any increase in runoff be prevented to adjacent properties. Fregonese
replied that this was the case, and there would be no problem if the storm
drainage system was correctly designed and the system installed to those
design standards.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Barnes suggested that a compromise be reached for the paving on
Nutley. Fregonese suggested that the applicant be required to pave the
entire lower width of Nutley, but the best way to go about the improvement
for the road would be to form a local improvement district.
2) Owens stated he felt it was an excellent project, but a 20 -ft. road
should be required along Seminary. He further addressed the parking
designed by the applicant. He felt the proposal seemed reasonable, but
felt uncertain as to what should be done about paving the project.
3) Barnes noted that the parking problem may be created by the long
driveways used for the homes. He felt that pull -off areas would be
needed to designate specific public parking areas. Fregonese noted that,
as a condition of approval, the applicant sign in agreement, which would
establish public parking. This could be addressed at the final plan
stage.
4) Hansen agreed that the pull -out area would be a good idea for the
development.
5) Greene suggested that the additional parking provided at each site
may be used by the owners' RV's and additional vehicles, virtually taking
up all the extra parking. He felt it might be appropriate that the
APC, 5/12/82, Page 6
homeowners' association address these concerns for the public parking
designated areas.
6) Pugh stated he was not entirely convinced that the 16 -ft. width
request was an outrageous one. He felt the design was sensibly done.
He thought that the extra spaces provided on the joint drives would be
a good idea. He felt that the paving of Nutley completely to the project
would be a good idea.
7) Owens stated that, relative to Stevens' remark about the discre-
tionary powers given to the Planning Commission by the term "should,"
in his opinion "should" does mean "shall be."
8) Barnes felt it would be erroneous for the Commission to say that the
applicant has done such a good job, so he can put in a narrower road.
Their efforts are to be admired, but not to the degree that it would allow
a waiver of specific conditions that are required by ordinance. Fregonese
concurred with Barnes and stated he felt the ordinance offered specific
standards for each road that must be met universally by all applicants
in similar developments.
9) Billings stated that the requirements for the minimum of a 20 -ft.
road were counter to the original concept the Planning Commission had
been trying to establish relative to minimizing cuts and fills in sloped
areas of the City. Barnes disagreed, stating that certain standards
cannot be flexible. Flexibility in interpreting the code would be an
unjust administration of the ordinance.
10) Billings reiterated his frustrations relative to some developmental
standards established by the City planners in recent years as not
addressing the intent the Commission had originally maintained.
11) Greene stated he thought the project was an outstanding development.
He felt the architects had done a remarkable job of designing the project
to fit the area. He questioned the place designation for Seminary Dr.
due to the greater length this access had relative to the maximum allowable
300 ft. length established for places in the ordinance.
12) Barnes asked whether the paving of the lower part of Nutley might
be more appropriate.
13) Owens asked Fregonese if the ordinance requires the applicant to
do the paving to a project. Fregonese replied that the requirement is
that the access be fully improved, but who should be doing the improving
is not identified in the ordinance. He stated that Barton is trying to
form a local improvement district and is willing to assume 50% of the cost
for the improvements. Only 51% of the total value is required to estab-
lish a local improvement district. It was noted that here was another
conflict in the ordinance that needs to be addressed.
APC, 5/12/82, Page 7
14) Fregonese stated that, as an option, the applicant could be required
to pave the lower end of the unimproved section of Nutley, and an oil
matte or macadamized_surface be applied to the upper end abutting the subject
parcel. The applicant should also be required to sign in favor of future
improvements to Nutley.
15) Barnes then addressed Fisher -Smith and stated approval for the
additional parking spaces provided by the applicant for the development,
but requested that 3 additional spaces by the joint drives be marked
specifically for public parking. Fregonese stated that the City does
the engineering estimate for a local improvement district.
16) Greene addressed the question of pedestrian access along Seminary,
noting that walkways may be advisable along the road for pedestrian
travel.
17) Greene moved to approve PA #82 -26 with the findings and amended
conditions: condition #1 to read that Nutley be paved to a 28 -ft. width
to Alnut and that the road surface above Alnut be improved to an oil
matte or macadamized surface to a similar width, or that a local improve-
ment district be developed for the paving, and tbat the applicant sign
in favor of future street improvements to Alnut; condition #3 to read
that the applicant shall provide 3 additional public parking spaces to be
placed at the junction of the triple driveways. The motion was seconded
by Owens.
18) Billings moved to amend the motion such that condition #6 would
read that the interior roads should be paved to a width of at least 16 ft.
That motion was seconded by Hansen.
19) The vote on the motion to amend the original motion was 3 to 3,
thus defeating it.
20) The vote on the original motion was also 3 to 3, defeating the parent
motion to approve the project.
21) After further discussion, Fregonese suggested an option which was
basically that Seminary be improved to a 20 -ft. width, but 3 ft. of that
width be provided as pedestrian access, and a separate designation and
impervious surface be applied to the pedestrian walkway. Billings res-
ponded by saying that he still felt that 16 ft. would be adequate for
ingress and egress.
22) Hansen stated she agreed with Fregonese. Fregonese further noted
that, on a 16 -ft. road, some sort of pull -over place would be needed to
allow traffic meeting head -on to pull to the side of the road. He noted
specifically that problems would arise and a number of pickup truck
mirrors would need to be replaced if this provision was permitted.
23) Hansen moved to approve PA #82 -26 with amended conditions, excepting
that condition #6 be worded such that the interior road would be graded
APC, 5/12/82, Page 8
and paved to a 17 -ft. width with a 3 -ft. additional width of an alternate
impervious, permanent surface. The motion was seconded by Pugh and
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -31 is a request for a Conditional Use
PA #82 -31 Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing residence at
CONDITIONAL 239 Oak St. into an antique store. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban
USE PERMIT Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi Family, Low Density). Assessor's
SITE REVIEW Map 3: 4CC. Tax Lot: 6600.
ROSS APPLICANT: Margie /Jack Ross.
STAFF REPORT:
Jannusch read the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING:
There was no comment, and the public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Greene moved to approve PA #82 -31 with findings and conditions,
including an additional condition that street trees be provided to stan-
dards established by the Planning Dept. The motion was seconded by Owens
and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -32 is a request for a Conditional Use
PA #82 -32 Permit and "Site Review to convert the existing dwelling at 668 N. Main St.
CONDITIONAL into an owner occupied bed and breakfast with 3 units and an owners'
USE PERMIT apartment in the residence and the proposed construction of 3 duplex
SITE REVIEW cottages for a total of 9 guest units. Comprehensive Plan Designation:
MORICAL Retail Commercial. Zoning: C01. Assessor's Map 5AD. Tax Lot: 800.
APPLICANT: Joseph /Phyllis Morical.
STAFF REPORT:
1) Jannusch gave the staff report.
2) Greene noted that he owns property in the area, but he has no
financial interest in the project whatsoever.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) Joe Morical, applicant, stated he was there to answer any questions.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Hansen asked staff why a pump would be required for elimination of
sewage from the site. Barnes pointed out to her that the 3 duplexes
located at the rear of the parcel were below street level at N. Main,
where the sewer is located. Since simple sewage disposal is based on
APC, 5/12/82, Page9
AGENDA
gravity feed, a pumping system was the only logical way to eliminate
the sewage from the site.
2) Greene asked if there was any difference in the existing construction
at the site from previous Commission review. The reply was no.
3) Owens moved to approve PA #82 -32 with attached conditions. Billings
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Barnes noted that all scheduled items would not be finished by the con-
clusion of the meeting. A new date should be established for review of
those planning actions and business items not covered. It was determined
that the next meeting would be held on Tuesday night, May 18, 1982, in
the Old Council Chambers.
TYPE I Planning Action #82 -34 is a request for a Site Review for expansion of the
APPROVAL existing restaurant to include outdoor seating, applicant: Michael Hart.
Fregonese outlined the findings and conditions suggested by staff. He
showed the plans to the Commission, indicating the additional landscaping
proposed by the applicant. Jannusch suggested that an additional condi-
tion be imposed relative to a noise abatement problem expressed by a con-
cerned neighboring property owner. The planning action was approved with
the added condition that the applicant comply with the City's Land Use
Ordinance relative to noise abatement, specifically for the outside
seating area.
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -33 is a request for final plan approval
PA #82 -33 for a 28 -unit Planned Unit Development at 538 Granite St. and a Minor
FINAL PLAN Land Partition at 532 Granite St. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
APPROVAL Residential. Zoning: RR -.5. Assessor's Map 17AA. Tax Lots: 1101,
MINOR LAND 2200, 2203.
PARTITION APPLICANT: Lithia Homes, Inc.
LITHIA HOMES
STAFF REPORT:
1) Barnes abstained from comment and review since he has been recently
retained by the applicant to design five cluster units for the project.
2) Fregonese gave the staff report. He outlined changes to the condi-
tions of approval established in the staff report. The changes were as
follows: Relative to condition #1, the condition should start out, "The
boundary line adjustment for the upper portion of the property..."
Relative to condition #3, the end of the condition should include the
wording, "...or engineered to not include the 100 -year flood height at
the Rutter house." Relative to condition #5, the change should read,
That there should be no commencement of construction or clearing of
brush prior to submittal of the subdivision agreement and the bonding of
the project, including earth moving operations." Relative to condition #12,
the end of this condition should read, "...or documentation be provided
by an acknowledged expert, such as Jackson County Soil Scientist Dave
Maurer, or possibly Ed Webber." Relative to condition #13, it should
APC, 5/12/82, Page 10
read, "All foundations shall be engineered in the project site at
building permit time to ensure stability in the area." Relative to
condition #16, it should be noted specifically that this condition applies
to the road only.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) John Hardey, engineer for the project, stated the intent of the
teardrop is to be a one -way road. In his estimation, 12 ft. is adequate
for one -way circulation, and an additional 5 ft. would be provided for a
sidewalk. He noted a large, 15 -ft. driveway at the end. He stated the
geometry of the teardrop was difficult to design correctly. He noted that
the original condition required that the major roads throughout be no
less than 20 ft. in width, and this was, in fact, an access road. He
further addressed the original conditions relating to the all- weather path,
and noted he would like to have a decision on the sidewalk at this meeting.
He stated he agreed with the remainder of the conditions.
2) Billings asked Hardey how much cut and fill is required for a 20 -ft.
road. Hardey replied that there would be a retaining wall constructed
adjacent to the road in some areas to a height of 15 ft. where the cut
had to be protected. He further noted there would still be some cut on
the top of the retaining wall.
3) Judy Kennedy, 506 Granite, read a letter of concern from adjacent
property owners. The letter was placed in the record.
4) Rick DeNeff, 6820 Hwy 66, stated he was a native Oregonian and had
chosen the Ashland area some 10 years before to build a business. He
stated he was tired of reading about this project in the paper, and he
is looking forward to its completion as a quality project. He felt that
Mark Cooper had been subjected to undue ridicule and persecution by many
people, and he felt this was unfair.
5) Fregonese noted the applicant had requested zero lot lines for the
garages and he thought this was a good idea. He stated this would answer
the question of why there were no driveways anticipated.
6) Hardey stated he understood that the phasing question had been
resolved with the outline plan approval. He stated that the fire hydrant
requirements would conform to City standards to Public Works and Fire
Depts. satisfaction. Relative to the stream flowing through the develop-
ment, Hardey noted it was an interesting question. He stated the total
watershed which lies above the project continues to this stream. The
grading and storm drainage anticipated for the project should not increase
the impact on the stream, and the water volume anticipated would not be
increased but only controlled by measures built into the engineering plan
for the storm drain. The storm system is presently being engineered and
would be submitted at a later date.
APC, 5/12/82, Page 11
7) Hardey stated that each cut and fill and grade established for
the driveways had been accurately engineered and had not been hap-
hazardly noted on the plans, as had been intimated by opponents of the
project. Relative to the proposed minor land partition, he further
stated that the acreage for the partition is the same as that taken out
of the lower parcel. He noted he had understood that this had been
handled at the outline plan stage and had also been approved.
8) Pugh requested a clarification of the Planning Commission's deter-
mination of the phasing requirements. Fregonese read a copy of the
2/10/82 minutes which had outlined the request for non phasing of the
project. At that meeting, the Commission had approved that alteration of
the applicant's initial plan.
The public hearing was then closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION:
1) Greene felt the density bonus issue needed to be addressed at
this point. He felt the applicant was claiming greater bonuses than
those allowable by the code. Fregonese pointed out to Greene that the
applicant doesn't need any bonuses, since the units had been reduced to
comply with the permitted density of the RR -.5 zone.
2) Billings moved to approve PA #82 -33 with attached conditions. The
motion was seconded by Hansen and the motion passed unanimously.
3) Carl Oates, Granite St., asked the Commissioners a rhetorical
question. He wanted to know if any of the Commissioners had any business
dealings with the applicant since the onset of the project. Except for
Barnes who had stated his dealings prior to the hearing, none of the
Commissioners had any business dealings with Cooper.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM.
John Fregonese, Executive Secretary
APC, 5/12/82, Page 12
454
H
9 pie s
illings
ansen
arnes
awls
ugh
aid
reene
)wens
TOT
H n'3/
4MPW5-
illings
ansen
3arnes
Goias
ugh
eorti
reene
)wens
TOT
kommim
illings
ansen
iarnes
reveLs
'ugh
reene
)wens
TOT
YES
rf
YES NO
v
V
H YES NO PH
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD
NO PH P2 -Z p YES NO PH y Z4.• YES
X Pugh
Owens
Greene
RION
Pugh
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
TOT
PH 3 Z YES NO
Owens
Greene
Pugh
P #IR6
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
aprows
TOT
Owens
Greene
Pugh
1�1.G
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
t
TOT
YES NO
Greene
Owens
'tam=
Billings
Hansen
Barnes
Mrc -i
TOT
PH
Pugh
Greene
Owens
Billings
Hansen
Barnes
Metes
TOT
PH a02_ 3 3 YES NO
Pugh I/
.R
Greene
Owens
Billings
Hansen
Barnes
6
TOT 2)
YES NO
NO PH82''2c,
44assiFs
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
Owens
Greene
Pugh
TOT
PH
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
Owens
Greene
Pugh
TOT
PH
Barnes
Hansen
Billings
A44(3
Owens
Greene
Pugh
TOT
YES NO
v
YES NO
YES NO