Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-10 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wizhLng to 4peak at any Reaming CommbsAion meeting encowcaged to do 4o. 4 you do w.i6h to 4pea}z, ptec4e nice and aitex you have been tceeogn.Lzed by the Cha-vc, g.%.ve yowe name and eomp.2ete addn.eo4. you wi_U. then be attowed to 4peah.. Pteuse note that public te.timony may be tim ted by the Chalk and nanma 1 y Ls not a towed a{ the pub.P_,ic hecuc,%ng haz been c.2o4ed. I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, Oregon II. T 11 ,'1 A 0 U GS A APPR III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 1983 Regular meeting of July 6, and July 27, 1983 1. PLANNING ACTION #83 -63 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and Or- dinance Variance to divide the existing parcel at 1390 Tolman Creek Road into 3 separate tax lots. The Variance is required for creating a lot wider than it is deep. The newly created lots would also access off the existing driveway. Comprehensive Plan designation. Single family Residential. Zoning: R- 1:7.5. (Single- family Residential). Assessor's map 23BA. Tax lot: 101. APPLICANT: Richard Hansen 2. PLANNING ACTION #83 -64 is a request for an Ordinance Variance for the proposed construction of a carport addition at 121 Union St. directly on the side property line in lieu of 6' as required by Ordinance. Com- prehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low- density, Multi- family Residential). Assessor's map 9CA. Tax lot: 2000. APPLICANT: Gerald Sessions IV. A. Proebstel rezone request /Mountain Siskiyou Blvd. Council Action report, possible R -2, R -3 zone amendment B. Satellite Dish Ordinance Discussion C. Performance Standards Set date for study session for revisions D. Sign Code Slide presentation regarding neon signs /downtown area V. ADJUURNMENT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Chairman Lance Pugh. In attendance were Commissioners Tom Owens, Neil Benson, Lance Pugh, Don Greene, Betty Lou Dunlop and Carlyle Stout. Also in attendance were the Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes and Findings Orders of the meetings of July 6, 1983 and July 27, 1983 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -63 MINOR LAND PARTITION AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE RICHARD HANSEN STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, explaining the topography of the site and the condition of the creek bed presently used as the TID ditch. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 1983 1) Richard Hansen, 1390 Tolman Creek Road, applicant, stated that he had been in contact with Fire Chief Leroy King regarding the condi- tion relative to the access improvement. He asked whether staff had received a memo from King relative to these improvements. Staff had not. Hansen stated that he had met with King on Monday, August 8, at the site for an inspection. King had at that time informed him that he would bring a pumper truck down to test the potential capacity of the cattle guard and to determine whether it could handle the weight of such a vehicle. He told Hansen should the cattle guard pass this test, that this would meet the standards established by the Fire Department. In addition, King had informed Hansen that no additional fire hydrants would be necessary. Hansen then then read a letter into the record from Eddie Hanscom of Hanscom and King Logging. Hansen then addressed the situation of flooding, stating that lot #2 had the largest meandering stream running through it. Prior to this APC Minutes, 8/10/83, Page 1 time, the drainage way had been properly ditched, but during the flood of 1973, debris had collected on the fence and has never been cleared. He then stated that lot #1 did not flood in 1973 and is not subject to the meandering path exhibited in lot #2. He felt that particularly for lot #1, the 80' setback requested by staff was inordinantly severe. His plan is to work with the TID and to pro- perly ditch lot #2. 2) Greene. suggested that it would be appropriate for the applicant to work with an engineer for the design of the drainage way an lot #2. 3) Fregonese wanted to set the record straight, he stated that on official maps, the creek is designated as Hamilton Creek, that it is a natural drainage ditch with a free flowing stream and that it is presently used by the TID as a ditch. He stated further that there is much vegetation and wildlife in the existing ditch area and the setbacks had been set by staff to protect this natural wildlife habitat since severe ditching would endanger the ecosystem in this area. 4) Hansen maintained that the ditch area does need to be drained, but that his wishes are only to control the flow as it was in the past. He stated that he does wish to retain the park -like setting in this area. 5) Fregonese stated that there exists a natural break about 90' from the roadway. He is concerned that an engineer would say to culvert it and cover it over with fill. He then stated that he felt a 50' setback from the right -of -way would be appropriate to protect the vegetation in the area. Such setback would be required as well to be a minimum of 5' vertically above the base of the culvert. 6) Hansen then asked whether the setback applies to the Location of the driveway or only to the structure. Fregonese said that it would be only to the structure. Fregonese then noted that the Commission could grant approval to the proposal provided the memo by Chief King be favorable. 7) Stout asked whether lot #3 was out of the City limits to which Fregonese replied that it was. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Stout stated that the application appeared appropriate with the attached revisions. 2) Greene then asked for a clarification of the amendment relative to the setback. Fregonese reiterated this should read that no build- APC Minutes, 8/10/83, Page 2 ing should be placed any closer than 50' from the right -of -way line and no closer vertically than 5' above the creek bed. 3) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the Planning Action with Benson seconding the proposal. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -64 ORDINANCE VARIANCE GERALD SESSIONS STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, noting that there are few places left on the parcel that the applicant could have covered parking. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Gerald Sessions, 121 Union St., spoke on behalf of his proposal. He stated he felt that staff had said everything necessary but that he would answer any questions the Commission had. 2) Stout asked for clarification on the provisions acceptable to the Building Department. Jannusch explained that the Building Official could provide a waiver provided the applicant was willing to sign a document stating that the Building Division would not be held liable if a fire developed at the site at a later time. 3) Fregonese noted that building codes require a 6' separation from buildings and that in this instance the actual distance was approxi- mately 10'. 4) Benson asked whether this meant since the structure was open that a 1 hour fire wall would not be necessary. Fregonese stated that this question could only be answered by the Building Official. Ben- son then asked whether the applicant would have to come back if he wished to enclose the carport. Fregonese noted that this request was only for the carport and if approval were granted, a fifth condition could be imposed stating that the applicant would be required to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of enclosure of the carport if and when he decides to do this. 5) Greene asked whether Mr. Sessions had a problem with this. Ses- sions stated that he did not have any desire at this point to enclose the carport since it would hurt the view from his structure. At this point, the public hearing was closed. APC Minutes, 8/10/83, Page 3 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Stout stated that it was in his opinion that the fifth condition should be so included in the approval. 2) Owens questioned the exceptional extraordinary circumstances presented in this application. He felt that the Findings were vague. He did state, however, that he was supportive of the proposal since the only affected property owner was in favor of the application. 3) Fregonese stated that it was his belief that the size of the lot and the pre- existing use of the parking area provided good justifica- tion for the request. The amount of proof necessary to be demon- strated was proportionate to the request and that this request should not create a major impact on anyone in the neighborhood. 4) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the application with the additional condition with Owens seconding. The vote was unanimous to approve the application. ADJOURNMENT The meeting then adjourned to the Study Session. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC Minutes, 8/10/83, Page 4 PH r63 YES NO PH Y3 -64 YES NO Greene Owens Benson Pugh Greene Dunl op 0 PH Slattery Alston Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Dunlop Owens Greene TOT PH Dunlop Slattery Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Alston Greene Owens TOT G WINNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD Owens v Pugh Benssoon, V v Dunlop TOT Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Slattery Alston TOT Owens Greene Slattery Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Alston Dunlop TOT PH e> 2 YES NO PH Pugh V J V Dunlop Greene Owens 4.110110 v/ Benson le /2) TOT Pugh S1 attery Greene Owens Dunlop Alston Hansen Benson Warr TOT Pugh Alston Greene Owens Dunlop Slattery Hansen Warr Benson TOT e /we- Benson rn Dun op Owens Greene Pugh TOT YES NO YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Pugh Dunlop TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Alston S1 attery Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh TOT