Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-13 Planning MINNOTE: ,Anyone w- L6!vLng to 4peak at any Harming Comm -L64 -Lon meeting 4.4 encouraged to do Asa. I you do w.i6h to Apeada, pease nee and aUten you have been recognized by the Chain, gave you& name and complete addtce6.. you wLa then be attowed to 4pecth. Ptea4e note that pub.2Lc te.sti.mony may be tLmited by the ChailL and nonma ty not cLPowed age& the public he.w..Lng hay been cto ,sed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 13, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 East Main St., Ashland, Oregon II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Meeting of June 8, 1983 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PLANNING ACTION #83 -53 is a request for a Minor Land Parition and Boundary Line Adjustment to create an additional parcel from the two existing two lots at 131 135 Meade St., and three Ordinance Variances for creating a lot wider than it is deep, less than 80' deep and for a 10' front yard setback for a proposed dwelling. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 (Single family Residential). Assessor's map 9CA. Tax lots: 10500 10501. APPLICANT: Wilbur Bushnell B. PLANNING ACTION #83 -54 is a request for preliminary plan approval for a 38 -unit Performance Standards Subdivision located above Liberty St., Morton St., and Long Way. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low Density Resi- dential Woodland Residential. Zoning: RR -.5P WR. Assessor's Map 16AC, 16 BD. Tax lot 400 and part of 100,& 200. APPLICANTS: Dave /Rhonda Lewis C. PLANNING ACTION #83 -55 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the existing duplex at 546/548 Scenic Drive into condominiums. Comprehensiv Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, Multi- family Residential). Assessor's map 5DA. Tax lot 5301. APPLICANT: Don Greene D. PLANNING ACTION #83 -57 is a request for a Conditional use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing dwelling at 150 N. Pioneer St. into a retail fabric sales and quilt instruction shop. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, Multi- family Residential). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot 11800. APPLICANT: Naida McDermitt E. PLANNING ACTION #83 -58 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the lower level of the existing dwelling at 955 Glendower St. into a Montessori pre school. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R- 1:7.5. (Single family Residential). Assessor's map 5AA. Tax lot 100. APPLICANT: Christine /Wayne Burns. F. PLANNING ACTION #83 -61 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Review for the proposed addition of a supplies storage building at the Oregon St. Hwy. Div. Ashland Maintenance Station at 706 Tolman Creek Rd. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1:5 (Single family Residential). Assessor's map 14BD. Tax lot 100 APPLICANT: Oregon St. Hwy. Div. G. PLANNING ACTION #83 -62 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and Ordinance Variance to divide the existing tax lot on Otis Street, near Elizabeth St. into three separate parcels. The Variance is necessary for creating lots deeper than 150'. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning; R -1:5P (Single family Residential). Assessor's map 5AD. Tax lot: 500. APPLICANT: Kelso Realty /Van Vleet Realty IV. TYPE T PLANNING ACTIONS: A. PA# 83 -50, 12 mos. extension of preliminary approval (PA #82 -24) of Apple wood Subdivision on the NE corner of Prim Wiley. B. PA #83 -52, final plan approval for Phase I (17 units) of a previously approved PUD (PA #83 -29) located immediately south of Oak Knoll Dr. Twin Pines Circle. C. PA #83 -56, Site Review for proposed construction of a building to be used for light manufacturing in the Ashland Business Park on Clover Lane. V. R VI. STAFF BUSINESS: U IA SN: A. Letter from Jackson Co. Health Dept. re: Romeo Inn /swimming pool use. A. Public Hearing: 7 -27 -83 re: SW Ashland Rezone, CUP's for quarry expansion and buildings over 40' in height in SO zone. B. Sign Code Discussion of possible revisions C. Satellite dish antennae report on meeting with industry professionals VII. AIJJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:43 p.m. by Vice Chairman Don Greene. Members present were Mike Slattery, Mary Ann Alston, Ethel Hansen, Neil Benson, Betty Lou Dunlop, and Tom Owens. Chairman Lance Pugh arrived later. Also present were Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the June 8, 1983 meeting were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA* 83 -53 MINOR LAND PARTITION, BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE WILBUR BUSHNELL PLANNING ACTION #83 -53 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and Boundary Line Adjustment to create an additional parcel from the two existing two lots at 131 and 135 Meade St., and three Ordinance Variances for creating a lot wider than it is deep, less than 80' deep and for a 10' front yard setback for a proposed dwelling. Com- prehensive Plan designation: Single- family residential. Zoning: R- 1:7.5 (Single- family residential). Assessor's map 9CA. Tax lot #'s: 10500 and 10501. APPLICANT: Wilbur Bushnell STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report explaining the Variance requirements for the parcels proposed. At the conclusion of the Staff Report, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Dale Hofer, Savikko Engineering, represented the applicant. He explained to the Commission that the setback Variance would assure the capability for the applicant to build a nicer home than he would ordinarily be able to do inasmuch as the lot is relatively shallow. He further noted that many of the homes in the area are built close APC, 7/13/83, Page 1 to the Hillcrest St. 2) As there were no individuals to speak in opposition to the proposal, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Owens asked Staff how enforceable the condition that no future variances be granted would be. Jannusch explained that inasmuch as it was made an official part of the record and would be maintained on file, this and /or other staffs could easily enforce it. 2) Greene asked how the front setback request is not self- imposed. Jannusch explained that the lot has a frontage on the street and with the existing structures and the terrain of the site, a logical lot line is being created. He further noted that the upper lot is the largest of the three proposed in excess of 10,000 sq.ft. in size. Greene still felt that justification was questionable for the grant- ing of the setback Variance since all the lots in this area he felt have dual frontages. Jannusch noted that the difference between both streets is narrower at this point than most other lots in the area. He further explained the provision in the code for 10' setbacks in a 50% slope area noting that this proposal almost matches this cri- teria. 3) Slattery asked staff whether the solar access requirements would be met for parcel #3. Staff replied, yes, they would. 4) Greene saw no problem with this requirement either. 5) Owens stated that the proof presented by the applicant was mar- ginal in terms of the hardship represented. He stated that the impact should be minimal for the Variance granted, but it still bothered him that adequate findings were not submitted. He stated, however, that he would be willing to support the application and thus moved to approve the application with the attached conditions recom- mended by staff. Benson seconded the motion and the vote was unani- mous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -54 PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION DAVE /RHONDA LEWIS PLANNING ACTION #83 -54 is a request for preliminary plan approval for a 38 -unit Performance Standards Subdivision located above Liberty St., Morton St. and Long way. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low Density Residential Woodland Residential. Zoning: RR -.5P WR. Assessor's map 16AC 16BD. Tax lot 400 part of 100 200. APPLICANTS: Dave /Rhonda Lewis APC, 7/13/83, Page 2 Commissioner Alston stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest inasmuch as she is an affected property owner. 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report, noting the site plan, including the shadow plans developed by his computer program for December 21. He stated that in his opinion the siting of the proposed structures would require minor adjustments or in some cases, prohibition of two story structures unless there was a significant shading from existing vegetation. He noted some additional staff concerns, specifically; a) that driveways be paved, b) that development should include clean- up of fallen slash for fire prevention prior to and during construc- tion and c) that lot #39 created a problem inasmuch as there is no access, no water for fire protection available to this lot and no sewer. 2) Greene asked for clarification of this third item and Fregonese explained the access requirements further. 3) Greene referred to the field trips taken on the site, specific- ally noting the last field trip taken the week before. Benson fur- ther commented on the field trip noting that the Commissioners had started at the base of the project on Liberty Street and had gone all the way up to the Water Line Road. He expressed his concern about the applicant's intent to move the Water Line Road with some major cuts and fills, thus destroying one of the most pristine parts of the property directly adjacent to the TID ditch. Fregonese, Benson and Greene further discussed the placement of the Water Line Road and that of Lisa Lane with the general consensus that the Water Line Road could and should be moved providing access off an already established road bed and not negatively impacting the area mentioned before. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Roger Kauble, engineer for the project, addressed the question of lot #39 explaining that the Ashland Loop Road swings through it. This, he contended should provide access even though the lot is from 50% to 60% in slope. He stated further that there was one possible building site by the lot, but that it would be impossible to reach from the lower end of the project. The applicant's intent was to leave it undeveloped until the Loop Road was improved. Fregonese explained to the Commission that the zoning for this parcel was Woodland Residential with a minimum of 2.5 acre size. The parcel is approximately 2 acres in size. This zoning applies only when the topography does not exceed 50 He stated further that the Loop Road would not provide an adequate access inasmuch as it was not improved and it was not 20' in width, secondly that there was no water or sewer services available. His suggestion to the applicants APC, 7/13/83, Page 3 was to leave it as open space and perhaps relocate the lot on the lower portion of the project. 2) Kauble explained the amount of time and work that had gone into preparation of this site plan noting his appreciation for the staff's cooperation. Benson asked Kauble whether, in fact, lot #39 would not be built on at this point. Kauble stated that this was the case. He further note that it had been his hope to try to get Lisa Lane out of the draw to preserve the greenway adjacent to the seasonal creek. He further noted that this proposed design does include a cross hills pathway and that this pathway would be dedicated to the City for their proposed collector pathway. He noted the areas of recreation including the picnic spots and the viewing areas on the plan. He further stated his agreement with the proposal to expand Lisa Lane to 24' and the narrowing of Morton as indicated in the staff's recom- mendations. He further felt that a good solar access plan could be worked out for a majority of the lots although some will have none. He further hoped to allow the cutting of trees in excess of 6" in diameter for pools and decks as well as for structures as indicated in condition #4 of the Staff Report. He continued by noting that the storm drainage system had been discussed with Al Alsing and that he had felt comfortable with the drain field idea although he felt engineering details would be needed prior to final approval of the project. He agreed with the remaining condition. 3) Hansen asked how condition #4 relative to the removal of such trees for construction of pools and the like would be enforced. Kauble stated that this would be taken care of at the time of the building permit issuance. Hansen further stated that she felt it necessary to allow for the removal of trees for a fuel break around the structures. 4) Kauble stated that the common driveways have been designed for less disturbances of the natural vegetation and topography. Hansen asked the width of these driveways proposed to which Kauble replied 16' at the access point, narrowing to 10' to 12' for the majority of the driveways. 5) Benson stated that he thought it would be necessary to require in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions that the proposed access points be utilized when construction commenced. 6) Greene asked Kauble to review his method of obtaining his density bonuses. Kauble explained that it was via common open spaces, energy efficient housing, minimum disturbance and adequate solar access. 7) George Kuhl, 769 Liberty St., spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that the map he received did not explain what would be hap- pening to Liberty St. Greene stated that the notices would only show the area of development but that the developer would be required to impove Liberty St. at the time of development. Kuhl stated that APC, 7/13/83, Page 4 he did not want to be responsible for the improvements to Liberty St. and that in the future, maps should be provided showing street acces- ses as well as road widths. 8) Fregonese stated that at this point, there was no design that had been engineered for the road. The road design would be a Public Works function and whether or not the applicant would be paying for the paving or creating a Local Improvement District would require Council action as the Planning Commission does not deal with finances. He stated further that in his experience, neighborhoods should expect that Liberty would be improved to a 24' to 25' width with curb and gutters and that with improved parking on one side a possibility of 28' width. He then explained how a Local Improvement District works. 9) Gregory Fowler, 801 Clarence Lane, read a statement from the Liberty St. residents requesting the tabling of this PIanning Action due to lack of information and inability to respond. 10) Mary Ann Alston, 831 Liberty St., spoke in opposition of the proposal stating that she owns property adjacent to the project. She stated concern about the access of Lisa Lane onto Liberty and asked how the applicants plan on keeping kids and motorcycle riders off of her land. She felt that the existing Water Line road should be utilized. She supported the use and installation of the path and felt that where the applicant intends on putting the road would destroy the rock outcropping. She stated that she suspected that the water could be turned off during the time of blasting. She continued by stating that in her opinion, the Water Line Road could be used out to Emma Street in an emergency. She stated that it would be appro- priate for someone to maintain the access way out to Emma to ensure that access and egress during emergency situations could be main- tained. She felt that the cutting of 6" trees would not be a ter- rible loss but that an enlarged size possibly up to 24" would. She was concerned regarding the impact on Liberty St. due to traffic impacts of a potential 60 houses. 11) At this point, Commissioner Pugh arrived. 12) Mary Ann Beagle, 475 Forest St., stated that when she had bought her property, there had been plans to extend Morton Street and that this had been vacated by the City. 13) Tom Keevil, 600 Ashland Street, suggested that the Planning Commission postpone review and approval of this proposal feeling that any decision made at this point would be on an ad hoc basis. He felt that approval of this project should be done only after knowing where the streets are going to be and whether they are going to be providing major or minor access. Greene responded to Keevil by stating that future street dedications were determined during the rezoning process. AFC, 7/13/83, Page 5 14) Kelly Nash, 684 Liberty, stated that the project review should be tabled to allow the residents to acquire further information. 15) Gary Prickett, 2300 Morada Lane, stated that it was his understanding that the traffic generated was still below standards acceptable for residential streets. Fregonese explained the traffic report on page 3 of the Findings submitted by the applicant. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Benson expressed concern about the access onto Liberty St. via Lisa Lane, noting that the gulley creates a natural chimney for fire. He also questioned whether it would be possible to require knock down barriers along the Water Line road. Fregonese stated that the Water Line road would still be maintained for City trucks but the barriers existing there had been put up by the residents. He stated that the Commission could require the developer to grade the Water Line road and put in a gate at the public road access. Benson asked if the maintenance of the remainder of the Water Line road and the installa- tion of knock down gates should be a recommendation to the City Council. Fregonese replied, yes. 2) Benson then stated his concern relative to the storm drainage plan. He stated that he had seen mass wastng in the watershed and that concentrating runoff into one spot could be disastrous as the applicant is proposing. 3) Greene asked whether the Physical Constraints section of the Ordinance pertaining to Class "C" lands would address this. Fregonese stated that it does, but that it would be important to place a specific requirement in the conditions for the benefit of future staffs and Commissions. 4) Slattery felt that it was wrong to place the proposed collector road as shown, thus destroying the beautiful area with the massive boulders. He stated further, his concerns about the fill required at the base of the hill adjacent to Liberty St. for the proposed ent- rance to Lisa Lane. He wondered whether the density proposed for this application was perhaps too much. He stated further that he felt perhaps a further traffic study should be given for the area. 5) Greene asked whether traffic counts were available on Liberty St. 6) Fregonese stated that this could be done by the next meeting, but that not much would be gained in waiting that long, inasmuch as it is already known that 10 vehicle trips per day would be generated by these numbers of houses existing. Greene asked what about the traf- fic counts along Liberty below Ashland Street to the Boulevard. Fregonese stated that this information could be provided. APC, 7/13/83, Page 6 7) Prickett stated that he understood that Liberty, below Ashland St., was already designated as a collector. Fregonese responded by stating that it was not, but that Ashland St. and Mountain streets were. He then asked the Commission what this additional information would do to provide them further information. He felt all the facts presently existed for them to make an adequate decision. He stated that 30 to 40 additional homes in the area would not kick any of the affected streets such as Liberty or Ashland into a critical status. He stated that the staff could look into it further if the Commission wished. 8) Hansen stated that the traffic concerns had been studied and restudied and that it was not necessary to bring it up again. 9) Slattery questioned the statistics provided by the applicant on page 5. Fregonese explained that these criterion had been used for years in determining traffic generated. Slattery then withdrew his request for additional study of the traffic impact. 10) Owens asked Slattery whether he was satisfied with this informa- tion. Slattery responded by stating he was. Owens continued by stating that he believed the information was accurate. His concern involved the rock area and the Commission's concern about maintaining of the natural scenic areas. Hansen concurred, requesting that the applicant's engineer address this. 11) Kauble stated that it would be difficult to locate the road proposed along the existing Water Line road since the large boulders would require blasting. He continued by stating that the existing Water Line road looks good today because of the healing process which has occurred since it was first installed. Some of the boulders beside the ditch could be saved, however, with some temporary scar- ring as a byproduct of the construction involved. 12) Greene asked whether retaining walls could be used for the road above the existing Water Line road. Kauble said that this would be possible. 13) Fregonese stated that the areas above the road would be those of most benefit to the people of the City of Ashland, that in his opinion, moving the road to the existing Water Line road would wreck the little glen directly above it. He then agreed that more extensive use of retaining walls could reduce the impact of the placement of this road and that the Planning Commission should require more detail relative to this in the final plan. 14) Benson reiterated his feelings that the existing Water Line road would be the logical location for the proposed road inasmuch as there is already ample room to handle the 20' easement that exists there. APC, 7/13/83, Page 7 15) Hansen stated that it would be appropriate to require additional information at the time of the final plan approval. Fregonese concurred, adding that it would be necessary to provide them with some direction. 16) Benson expressed concern about the lower portion of the project adjacent to Liberty Street being directly accessed over the existing drainage channel, in addition, he voiced concerns about the proposed drainage plan. Kauble stated that all options are being considered in determining the best method of drainage for the proposal. Fregonese then stated that this and those concerns relating to lot #39 should be made a part of the approval and then he suggested that the application for final approval be subject to a Type II hearing. 17) Greene stated that he had problems with the manner of obtaining the density bonuses. He did not see how the applicant could claim these bonuses relative to the maintaining of the natural contours of the parcel when much of the roads run perpendicular to these con- tours. In addition, he expressed concerns about the recreational area calculations expressed inasmuch as the figures posed were on the high side. 18) Fregonese stated that the applicant could cut these density bonuses in half and he could still maintain the number of units proposed. Relative to the maintaining of the contours, his opinion was that the applicant has done everything reasonably possible in accessing the property. The actual disturbance is less than 30% of the land. He then compared this development to Thunderbird Heights where there was 100% disturbance and virtually no remnants of the natural vegetation nor contours. 19) Benson then questioned the $70,000 figure used in computing the retail sales level of each of the units. Greene asked whether this deflated price would affect the density. The answer was, no. 20) Fregonese stated that it would probably be appropriate to cut the actual bonuses to 35 This was the general consensus of the Commission. 21) Greene asked for a summary of the revised conditions. These included revision of condition #4 to include permission to cut trees over 6" in diameter for a fuel breaks and appurtenant structures and that no healthy tree in excess of 24" in diameter could be removed without the approval of the Homeowners Association. 22) Greene then stated that a 12th condition should be applied, requiring that either a conventional storm drain system be proposed for the development or that should the applicant propose to retain the drainfield concept that an analysis be provided by a qualified soils engineer for the review and approval by the Department of APC, 7/13/83, Page 8 Community Development and Public Works Department. 23) Owens asked why this was necessary rather than the engineer in the field providing this study. Benson felt that the soils engineer would be better qualified in designing and reviewing such a system. Owens contended that the project engineer should have the final say. 24) Fregonese stated that though this area is different from some of the geology of California previously alluded to in testimony, The Sana Monica Mountains where a number of the disasters happened during last winter and spring, contain similar geology as that in the subject area. He then stated that it would be appropriate for the project engineer to stamp all the plans submitted including those by the soils engineer. 25) Greene wanted to emphasize that the system presented was not acceptable to the Commission. He then stated that it would be appropriate to put knock down gates on the Water Line road for public egress. Fregonese felt that this would be more appropriate when it was determined exactly where the road would be located. 26) Greene then stated his concern regarding the cut and fill areas relative to the proposed Water Line road alignment. He felt it would be more appropriate to retain the boulders adjacent to the TID ditch and to retain the Water Line road on its existing road bed. 27) Slattery mentioned that maybe it would be an option to not put in the Water Line road. Greene responded by stating that this was possible, but not pursuant to previous Planning Commission policy. Fregonese stated that this would require relocation of some of the units as well as cross sections be provided by the applicant for cuts and fill detail for the new road proposed intersecting at the T and at the big boulders. Condition #13 would read that a detail be submitted for the cut and fill section on Lisa Lane and for the intersection of Lisa Lane and Water Line Road on the final plan. Condition #14 would read that all driveways shall be paved to the lots proposed. Condition #15 would read that final review of the plan be subject to a Type II hearing. Conditions #16 would read that the proposed lot #39 be left as open space and should the applicants wish to have 39 lots on the proposal, it be relocated in the development such that it would have ample public facilities and access to an improved public right -of -way. 28) Fregonese then stated that all of the stubs proposed on Morton would have break away barriers but that the outside maintenance of the Water Line road and the placement of the barriers for public egress would be subject to Council approval. 29) Fregonese then stated that the Physical Constraints Ordinance would require revegetation along Lisa Lane and that the plantings made would cover the hill within a few years in those areas that APC, 7/13/83, Page 9 drainage were controlled off the side of the road. The Physical Constraints Ordinance would also require that the fill be engineered and compacted correctly. 30) Greene then asked what about lot #39. Fregonese reiterated that this should be placed in open space, but that the applicants did have the options listed in condition #16 of the proposed approval. 31) After further discussion, Benson moved to approve the Planning Action with the 16 amended conditions. Hansen seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. 32) Greene directed the Staff to recommend to the City Council that the Water Line road be properly maintained and provided with knock down barriers where it accesses onto public property. 33) At this point, Pugh assumed the Chair. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -55 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW DON GREENE PLANNING ACTION #83 -55 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the existing duplex at 546/548 Scenic Drive into condominiums. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, Multi family residential). Assessor's map 5DA. Tax lot 5301 APPLICANT: Don Greene Being the applicant,Don Greene abstained. STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, noting that he forsaw no problems with the proposal except for some building code questions to be resolved. After further discussion, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) As there was no public comment, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Benson moved to approve the Planning Action with Dunlop seconding the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. APC, 7/13/83, Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -57 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW NAIDA MCDERMITT PLANNING ACTION #83 -57 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing dwelling at 150 N. Pioneer St. into a retail fabric sales and quilt instruction shop. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low- Density, Multi- family residential). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot 11800 APPLICANT: Naida McDermitt STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting a revision to condition #2 requiring that signs in this zone under such a proposal be no greater than 3 feet above grade and that they be a maximum of 6 sq.ft. in size, made of wood and non illuminated. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Naida McDermitt, applicant, stated she would answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 2) As there were no Commission questions and no testimony in opposi- tion, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene moved to approve the Planning Action with Benson second- ing. The vote again was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -58 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW CHRISTINE /WAYNE BURNS PLANNING ACTION #83 -58 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the lower level of the existing dwelling at 955 Glendower St. into a Montessori pre school. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single- family Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 (Single family residential). Assessor's map 5AA. Tax lot 100 APPLICANT: Christine /Wayne Burns APC, 7/13/83, Page 11 STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, explaining the proposal noting in addition, the request for parking in the front yard setback area. 2) Greene asked Staff if the other school on Cambridge St. was presently in use. To Jannusch's knowledge, it was. 3) Greene stated his concern about future applications such as this in the area. Jannusch stated that future such proposals should be fudged on their individual merits and upon the public need. 4) Hansen asked what the enrollment proposed for this facility was as well as the existing one. Jannusch indicated that both facilities proposed to offer schooling for no more than 15 students. Hansen stated that in her opinion, there were more children in the area than even these two facilities could accommodate. 5) Benson asked about the landscaping plan. Jannusch noted that though there was a minimum amount of existing landscaping, the proposed site plan showed extensive improvements relative to landscaping. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Wayne and Christine Burns, applicants, stated that they were present and available for answering any questions that may arise. 2) There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene suggested that an additional condition requiring review within a year's time to consider the future merits of the proposal would be appropriate. Jannusch noted to the applicants that this review would take place in May, 1984. 2) After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the application with Greene seconding it with the amended condition and condition #9 stating that approval of this application would be subject to a no charge review of the facility in May of 1984. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -61 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION PLANNING ACTION #83 -61 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Review for the proposed addition of a supplies storage APC, 7/13/83, Page 12 building at the Oregon State Highway Division's Ashland Maintenance Station at 706 Tolman Creek Road. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1:5 (single family residential). Assessor's map 14BD. Tax lot 100 APPLICANT: Oregon State Highway Division. STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report explaining the site improvements anticipated including landscaping and screening from adjacent proper- ties. The public hearing was then opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) As there was no public testimony pro or con, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene suggested that the proposal with the attached conditions would upgrade the existing site. 2) After further discussion, Benson moved to approve the application with Greene seconding. The vote was unanimous to approve. 3) Jannusch noted that condition #6 should be changed to read storm drain existing on the east portion of the parcel. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -62 MINOR LAND PARTITION AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE KELSO REALTY /VAN VLEET REALTY PLANNING ACTION #83 -62 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and Ordinance Variance to divide the existing tax lot on Otis Street, near ELizabeth St. into three separate parcels. The Variance is necessary for creating lots deeper than 150'. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single- family Residential. Zoning: R -15P (Single family residential). Assessor's map 5AD. Tax lot 500 APPLICANT: Kelso Realty /Van Vleet Realty STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report, noting that the request for only three lots in this zoning jurisdiction was not strictly to expedite approval through the Planning Commission process, but that the applicant preferred larger lots than what the minimum zoning required. APC, 7/13/83, Page 13 At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Don Rist and Ron Kelso were noted as present to answer any questions. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Fregonese expanded on the burden of proof relative to further division of the parcel and the hardship created. 2) Owens stated that in his belief the condition prohibiting further development through a flag partitioning could not be legally binding if added to a deed. He then stated that in his opinion, the requirement of hardship for the Variance may not have been met by the applicant. 3) Greene asked Staff whether the findings were sufficient and if they were, how was this demonstrated. Fregonese admitted that the findings were a bit weak, but that the way the Ordinance was written does create a "Catch -22" for the applicants. He stated further that the Staff does write up the findings for the permanent record. 4) Kelso stated that they were forced to answer the Variance findings only because the lot is over 150' in depth. He felt that this was a contradiction in the Ordinance and that the Ordinance should be reviewed for possible removal from the City codes. 5) After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the Planning Action with Hansen seconding it with the attached condition that the applicants sign in favor of no further division of the lots in question. The vote was unanimous to approve. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS FLANNING ACTION #83 -50, 12 months extension of preliminary approval (PA #82 -24) of Applewood Subdivision on the NE corner of Prim Wiley. 1) Fregonese stated that there was a possible modification planned for the outline plan originally submitted. 2) Duane Smith, applicant, stated that he was not intending on changing the outline plan. 3) Based on this, the Planning Commission approved the extension. APC, 7/13/83, Page 14 PLANNING ACTION #83 -52, final plan approval for Phase 1 (17 units) of a previously approved PUD (PA *83-29) located immediately south of Oak Knoll Dr. and Twin Pines Circle. 1) Fregonese stated that the acoustical engineering report had not as yet been received by the Staff, but was expected within 30 days. This condition and those previously imposed that had not yet received compliance would require compliance prior to the signing of the final plat. 2) Based on this, the application was approved. PLANNING ACTION #83 -56, Site Review for proposed construction of a building to be used for light manufacturing in the Ashland Business Park on Clover Lane. 1) Fregonese showed the elevations and the site plan indicating proposed landscaping for the site. He noted further that Staff had recommended the use of split face block for the exterior elevations of the building. 2) After further discussion, the application was approved. STAFF BUSINESS 1) The letter presented from the County Health Department regarding the Romeo Inn was entered into the record. The letter stated basic- ally that the Romeos are operating a swimming pool and spa without approval from the County Health Department. Staff contact with the Romeos indicated that they were working with the Health Department on resolution of this problem. Pugh stated that the proposal is currently pending to shift responsi- bility for enforcement of such health requirements to the local Building Department. Fregonese concluded by stating that this letter was strictly informa- tional. 2) Fregonese stated that he had been in discussion with Hans Boldt of Ashland Hills Inn. The sign code as it exists does not address free standing signs except for freeway orientation in this zone, thus individuals travelling along Highway 66 directly adjacent to the businesses in this area have a difficult time locating the facilities. The freeway sign zone encompasses approximately a 660' radius from the center line of the overpass. It was Staff's hope that the Commission would consider revising the Sign. Ordinance for this area. The Commission agreed this would be appropriate. 3) Fregonese then stated that Staff had been kicking around the idea of introducing the concept of allowing neon signs in the downtown APC, 7/13/83, Page 15 area provided they would be located in the window area and be no greater than 5 sq.ft. in size. Though there were some grumblings from the Commission, Pugh stated that he has seen some tastefully done neon signs in some larger cities and believes that it could be done in Ashland as well. Fregonese stated that Staff had taken some slides of neon signs in Portland recently and would be providing a slide show for the Commis- sion to consider this as an option to the Sign Code. It was deter- mined that a public hearing should be set for review of this sugges- tion as well as for the freeway Sign Code revision. 4) Fregonese stated that the Staff had been in contact with the satellite dish industry representatives and that ideas had been exchanged. Staff will supply them with the revised draft Ordinance upon completion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Director APC, 7/13/83, Page 16 PH 13.0 YES NO Owen Alston_ Hansen Wirt' Benson Slattery Greene Dunl op TOT Dunlop Slattery Hansen Benson Pugh Alston Greene Owens TOT PH O 3 YES NO Slattery Alston Hansen Benson Pugh Dunlop Owens Greene TOT PH 0 34 7i YES NO PH Greene Owens Slattery Pugh Benson Hansen Alston_ Dunlop TOT PH J7 Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh Benson Hansen Slattery Al ston TOT PH Owens Greene Slattery Pugh Benson Hansen Alston Dunlop TOT PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD ES NO 6, v YES NO YES NO PH f3 -54� YS NO Pugh .1 attery Al ston Hansen Benson TOT Dunlop Greene Owens 17-6 441/1/1/ PH /3 6 Z YES NO Pugh 31 attery Greene Owens Dunlop Alston Hansen Benson TOT PH YES NO Pugh Alston Greene Owens Dunlop Slattery Hansen Benson TOT 7/ Benson Hansen Alston Dunlop Owens Greene Slattery Pugh TOT PH (0-51 YES I✓ F- 6 PH YES NO Benson Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Pugh Dunlop TOT PH YES NO Benson Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh TOT NO