Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-14 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wizh ing to 4peak at any Rearming CommLu 4 Lon meeting .us encouraged to do 4o. I you do w,czh to zpe_ak, peeccze tcize and aver you have been necogn-.zed by the Cha,vc., give your name and comp2.ete addne44. you wile then be a towed to 4pealz. Pfea e note that pub.?,Le testimony may be imLted by the Chan. and no/matey ,us not cdlowed a j .teh the pub!.%c hecx ing has been c.eoz ed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 14, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, Oregon. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: regular meeting of August 10, 1983 TII. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing Ordinances for compliance with LCDC Goals. B. PLANNING ACTION #83 -69 is a request for a Flag Partition to divide the existing tax lot at 667 Park St. into two separate parcels of approximately 22,792 and 17,956 sq. ft. each. The larger lot will be accessed by the flag drive. There is an existing single- family residence on the smaller parcel which fronts on Park St. Comprhensive Plan designation: High Density Resi- dential. Zoning: R -3 (High density, Multi- family Residential). Assessor's Map 15AA. Tax lot 5700. APPLICANT: George Ward C. PLANNING ACTION #83 -71 is a request for an Ordinance Variance for placement of a sign on a frontage other than the legal business frontage of Artisan press located on the walkway at 154 E. Main st. Comprehensive Plan desig- nation: Commercial Downtown Overlay. Zoning: C -1(D) (Commercial Downtown Overlay). Assessor's map 9CB. Tax lot 600. APPLICANT: Artisan Press D. PLANNING ACTION #83 -72 is a request for Annexation and Zone Change for approx- imately 48 acres located north of Nevada and west of Oak Streets. The property is currently designated as RR -5 by the County and would be rezoned as R- 1:7.5. Comprehensive Plan designation: Open space. Zoning: RR- 5(County). Assessor's map 4BB 5. Tax lot #'s: 200, 300, 400, 500 100. APPLICANT: City of Ashland E. PLANNING ACTION #83 -73 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a Bed Breakfast in the existing structures at 333 N. Main St. which is currently approved as professional offices. The proposal consists of three guest units in the main structure, 2 in the lower portion of the carriage house and an owner's apartment in the upstairs of the carriage house. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2, (Multi family, low density residential). Assessor's map 5DD. Tax lot 3300. APPLICANTS: Janice Allan Pinkul F. PLANNING ACTION #83 -74 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing laundromat at 1662 Siskiyou Blvd. into a full service dry cleaning business in addition to the laundromat. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial. Zoning: C- 1(Commercial). Asses- sor's map 15AB. Tax lot 8200 APPLICANTS: Richard /Eva Varney G. PLANNING ACTION #83 -75 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to use the existing structure at 165 "B" St. as a writer's studio for a theater group. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, Low density residential). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot 12900. APPLICANT: New Playwright's Theater H. PLANNING ACTION #83 -76 is a request for a Conditional use Permit and Site Re- view for the proposed construction of an office complex, warehouse, and outdoor storage facility. Comprehensive Plan designation: Employment. Zoning: E -1 (Employment). Assessor's map 14A. Tax lot Part of 1104. APPLICANT: U. S. Forest Service. IV. SIAFI- BUSINESS: A. Amendments to zoning ordinance regarding mechanical equipment (i.e., satellite dish antennae solar collectors) and freeway sign code. (Public hearing on both items scheduled for 10- 12 -83) B. Joint Study Session with CPAC on 9 -28 -83 re: UGB revisions, R -2/R -3 zone code amendment and Performance Standards revisions. C. Request for volunteer liaison to Tree Commission. V. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Vice Chairman Don Greene. In attendance were Tom Owens, Mary Ann Alston, Mike Slat- tery, Betty Lou Dunlop and Carlyle Stout. Also in attendance were Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the meeting of August 10, 1983, were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE LCDC GOALS 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report noting that pertinent changes requested by LCDC involved Chapter 12 (Urbanization) and specific- ally page XII -4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Section headed by Special Cases. Fregonese read the proposed change to this Chapter and explained the reasons for its addition to the Commission. He next pointed out the revisions to the definitions of Single Family Reserve, located on page 11 -5 and explained the reasons for this revision. Relative to the Ordinance amendments, he explained that the purpose for the changes to the Performance Standards was that LCDC had felt that the existing language was ambiguous and could be subject to abuse. He then noted the proposed changes to 18.84.030 5B and 18.88.030 5B. CPAC had reviewed the proposal the previous even- ing and had recommended changes to the proposed text. The recom- mended changes would create a reading, "Conditions may not be placed which would exclude needed housing as defined in the Comprehensive Plan or cause an unreasonable decrease in density." Fregonese con- curred with CPAC's judgment in this, stating that the previous proposed wording is too vague. 2) Stout asked whether the wording was that of LCDC's or Frego- nese's. Fregonese stated that he had decided on the wording for the changes after intensive negotiations with LCDC. The changes would have no effect on City operations. He then stated that these were the only changes necessary to the Comprehensive Plan to receive compliance from LCDC with the exception of the question of the Woodland Residential Zones and the revisions to the Urban Growth APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 1 Boundary. 3) Greene asked why the conditions established originally relative to the unreasonable cost or delays" was ambiguous. Fregonese stated that this was necessary because developers feel that any delay in their development is unreasonable, even when the Planning Commis- sion has something of considerable concern to them, developers have considered that those delays generated by those concerns are unreas- onable and the Code already requires a decision within 90 days. 4) Stout asked whether it was necessary to include the term "unnec- essarily decrease density Fregonese concurred and stated that the working should be changed such that the final sentence in this phrase should read, "conditions may not be placed which would exclude needed housing as defined in the Comprehensive Plan or cause an unreasonable decrease in density." 5) Owens asked whether the "needed housing "was defined in the Com- prehensive Plan. Fregonese stated that it was in the Housing element of the Plan. 6) Greene asked whether the housing needs were defined broadly enough for innovative housing. Fregonese stated that definitions were developed for all those types that Staff could think of. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Inasmuch as there were no comments generated from the audience, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Owens stated that the changes looked good, particularly those suggested by CPAC and felt that this approval should be granted if the Staff concurs with CPAC amendments. 2) Slattery asked Stout to read the change. He did so. 3) Slattery then moved to accept the recommended changes with the amendments as suggested by Stout with Owens seconding it. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -69 FLAG PARTITION GEORGE WARD PLANNING ACTION #83 -69 is a request for a Flag Partition to divide the existing tax lot at 667 Park St. into two separate parcels of APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 2 approximately 22,792 sq.ft. and 17,956 sq.ft. each. The larger lot will be accessed by the flag drive. There is an existing single family residence on the smaller parcel which fronts on Park St. Comprehensive Plan designation: High Density Residential. Zoning: R -3 (High- Density, Multi- Family Residential). Assessor's map 15AA. Tax lot 5700 APPLICANT: George Ward STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, noting that the Staff had proces- sed this application as a Type I and the Findings submitted in the Staff Report were generated from the hearing and the neighbor di- rectly to the north of the parcel had called the application up for a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Bridgette Blankenstein, 635 -653 Park St., spoke in opposition. She stated that she was not against the partition, but that she was against the proposed driveway. She stated that her property was 3' lower than the driveway and that runoff is a problem for her parcel. She requested that a retaining wall and a fence be included in the conditions of approval to protect her from the drainage and the visual impact on the adjacent lot. She also stated that since there are springs located on the site that these springs should also be taken care. 2) Greene reviewed the conditions of approval established by Staff. Blankenstein still insisted that a retaining wall be provided and that the spring be taken care of to the back of the parcel as well. 3) George Ward, owner of the subject property since 1956, stated that the parcel is just over 1 acre in size. All the properties from Normal to Park St. have drainage problems and there are no springs located on his property. He stated that Ms. Blankenstein's property had been cut when the apartments were built. He did not feel that it should be his responsibility for the retaining wall since he was not the one lowering the driveway on the adjacent parcel. He stated further that there is not enough room on the other side of his lot for the driveway due to existing structures. 4) Blankenstein stated that witnesses have seen the springs. She further stated that the cut was already there when she bought the place, that she did not, in fact, do the cutting. She then showed the Planning Commission where the driveway was located relative to the site. 5) Stout asked Blankenstein when she had bought the property. She said in 1969. He asked her then whether she had built the apartment development. She had not. He asked whether she had noticed the APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 3 drainage problem when she first moved in. She said, no, that it was not until three years after she was there that she noticed a problem with the drainage. 6) Jim Conklin, 107 Oak St., spoke on behalf of the proposal. He stated that he had managed the property last winter and that the water that is being sent into the Blankenstein's property was being created by the lots above and not this parcel. He said that the problem is a natural problem that worsens as the fall increases as it approaches Highway 66. He stated further that it was the intent of the owner to put in a proper drainage system for the proposed devel- opment. 7) Stout asked what "proper drainage" meant. Fregonese stated that typically, drainage is diverted to the center of the driveway and then to the street. He continued by stating that natural drainage is not a liability. In continuing, he noted that when the back parcel does develop, it would probably be multi family. The parking lot and drainage would be reviewed during the Site Review process. In addi- tion, screening would be provided adjacent to the driveway as a condition of the flag drive ordinance. 8) Mrs. Berg, who lives at the Blankenstein's apartment complex, stated that Ward could not deny that there were springs located on the property. She says the water has rotted timbers and that pre- sently they are working on the property. 9) Mrs. George Ward stated that when their parcel was purchased, the Blankenstein's property was vacant. The previous owner had cut down the driveway to the apartments to the existing level, thus creating a drainage problem which has been ongoing ever since. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Stout stated that he felt that the conditions established by Staff should handle the problems for Mrs. Blankenstein. 2) Fregonese stated that he was familiar with it and that it had been a condition that had existed for years and it is common for ground water to create problems during a heavy runoff period. 3) Slattery asked whether there was any way they could help Blanken- stein. Fregonese stated that the surface runoff would be taken care of at the time of the Site Review or when any development took place on the lot. 4) Owens moved to approve the application with the attached condi- tions, Slattery seconded it and the vote was unanimous to approve. APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -71 ORDINANCE VARIANCE ARTISAN PRESS PLANNING ACTION #83 -71 is a request for an Ordinance Variance for placement of a sign on a frontage other than the legal business frontage of Artisan Press located on the walkway at 154 East Main St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial Downtown Overlay. Zon- ing: C -1(D) (Commercial Downtown Overlay). Assessor's map 9CB. Tax lot 600 APPLICANT: Artisan Press STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report, noting that there is an existing sign on the front of the building. He continued by noting that the proposal should not exceed 60 sq.ft. of sign, including the real estate sign. He stated that his recommendation would be for 20 -25 sq.ft. of sign area for the sign. He noted further that the Historic Commission had approved the concept of the sign but still would like to see the final revision before permits were issued. 2) Stout asked whether the applicant had been so advised. Fregonese stated that he had. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Larry Addington, representing the applicants, stated that Jan nusch had told him that he had adequate material for the meeting. He stated further that he would like to have 40 sq.ft. or 20 sq.ft. on each side. He believed further that the real estate sign was 20 sq.ft. in size. He continued by noting that he would like to have a chance to submit all the data necessary for the application. 2) Jannusch replied that he had informed Addington that he needed to submit additional Findings to justify the Variance. Addington did remember this conversation. Fregonese concurred by stating that additional Findings were necessary. 3) Owens then asked Addington how much time was needed for him to prepare the additional information. Addington replied a few days would be necessary. Owens then suggested that the item be tabled until the next meeting. Fregonese noted that Study Session would be held on September 26, but that in the past, CPAC has requested that no Planning Commission business be conducted during the second meeting of the month which would involve public hearings. If it was necessary to meet at this time, the Commission could meet at 7:00 p.m. that evening or the item could be carried over to the October APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 5 meeting. 4) Addington then presented the color rendering of the sign. Stout asked him whether he had any objection to preparing the Findings for the October meeting. Addington then said, no. Stout then advised him to submit the written Findings for the October meeting, 5) After further discussion, Owens moved to continue the public hearing until the October 12, meeting. Stout seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to continue. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -72 ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION #83 -72 is a request for annexation and Zone Change for approximately 48 acres located north of Nevada and west of Oak Streets. The property is currently designated as RR -5 by the County and would be rezoned as R- 1 :7.5. Comprehensive Plan designation: Open Space. Zoning: RR -5 (County). Assessor's map 4BB 5. Tax lot #'s: 200, 300, 400, 500 100. APPLICANT: City of Ashland STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report, adding a Comprehensive Plan designation for the sewage treatment plant area as Public Facility. He then indicated the area to the Commission on the map. He ex- plained that the purpose for the annexation was to include the area into the City limits thereby making City services available for the City -owned property. He stated that a good deal of the property is designated as Greenway and that it will be turned over to the Parks and Recreation Division within the near future and maintenance would be minimal. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Mary Ann Ealy, 930 Glendower, asked for a clarification relative to lot #100. It was her understanding that the property was owned by the Hardesty's. Staff responded, noting that the tax lot was 100, but the tax map was 5. Ealy was satisfied by this explanation. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) After further discussion, Stout moved to approve the Planning Action with Dunlop seconding it. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 6 PA# 83 -73 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW JANICE AND ALLAN PINKUL PLANNING ACTION #83 -73 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a Bed Breakfast in the existing structure at 333 North Main St. which is currently approved as professional offices. The proposal consists of three guest units in the main structure, 2 in the lower portion of the carriage house and an owner's apartment in the upstairs of the carriage house. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- Family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low- Density, Multi Family Residential). Assessor's map 5DD. Tax lot 3300. APPLICANT: Janice Allan Pinkul STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, noting that the appreciable impact that may be generated from the subject proposal would be that of traffic, since this was a concern that had been raised at the previous Planning Commission approval of the doctor's facility at the site. Upon discussion with the applicant, it had been determined by Staff that the generation of traffic would be, in fact, significantly less than that generated by the doctor's facility presently in operation there. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Janice Pinkul, 333 North Main St., applicant, stated that she would answer any questions that the Commission had. Since there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery asked about the parking facility. Jannusch stated that a seventh stall would be provided. 2) Alston asked whether living on the property constitute an applicant- occupied occupation, though the applicants would not be living in the main house. Jannusch stated that, in fact, both units were going to be used as a traveler's accommodations and that the Commission had interpreted that as long as you lived on the premises, it did not matter whether it was in the main structure or in an accessory structure. 3) After further discussion, Alston moved to approve the Planning Action with Stout seconding. The application was approved by a unanimous vote. APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -74 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW RICHARD AND EVA VARNEY PLANNING ACTION #83 -74 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing laundromat at 1662 Siskiyou Blvd. into a full service dry cleaning business in addition to the laundromat. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's map 15AB. Tax lot 8200 APPLICANTS: Richard Eva Varney STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, noting that Staff was in support of the application provided the concerns of the landscaping and the sign could be alleviated. 2) Greene asked whether parallel parking adjacent to Siskiyou would work. Jannusch stated that this would provide a tight parking area and would not be satisfactory. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Richard Varney, 1911 Crestview Dr, spoke on behalf of his appli- cation stating that he would hate to lose the parking adjacent to the street. He said even though this may comply with the City Ordinance, that in terms of the parking use, often the whole lot is occupied. He further stated that he agreed with the sign conditions and noted that the building will be painted on the exterior. The use would be non polluting since it is a closed system and there would be vir- tually no emissions. 2) Fregonese offered a compromise suggestion that a 10' planter strip be installed with a berm 2' to 3' in height as a buffer with compact stalls to be installed at an angle in this area. Varney stated that this would be acceptable to him as well. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve Planning Action #83 -74 with the amendment that a 10' planter be provided adjacent to the public right -of -way with a berm approximately 3' in height. Stout seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -75 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW NEW PLAYWRIGHT'S THEATER PLANNING ACTION #83 -75 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to use the existing structure at 165 "B" St. as a wri- ter's studio for a theater group. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi Family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low- Density, Multi Family Residential). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot 12900 APPLICANTS: New Playwright's Theater STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting the primary concerns rela- tive to the landscaping and the parking situation. 2) Stout asked whether the facility would be housing play acting and auditioning or just writing. Jannusch stated that it was his under- standing it would be essentially writing. 3) Fregonese stated that the Commission had powers to limit the kinds of uses in operation at the site. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Ruth Wire, 1097 "B" St., spoke on behalf of the application. She stated that she had been in contact with the Valley of the Rogue Bank and that they had not given permission to use the bank parking faci- lities for the one parking stall that would be necessary beyond the four at the site. She stated then that she would be requesting a Variance to the parking requirement established by Staff. Relative to the cutting of the blackberries along the west boundary, she stated that such blackberries were located to the back of the build- ing and that they are not a part of their development. She stated further that they were willing to plant sweet allysum around the junipers at the front of the structure. Wire continued by noting that the landlord refused to purchase a street tree but that they, in fact, had been planted by the applicants. 2) Fregonese asked Wire whether she had access to the area where the blackberries were located. Wire replied she did not. Fregonese then stated that it would not be necessary for her to maintain this area. 3) Greene asked how many parking stalls would be readily available to the applicants. Wire stated that there are two spaces provided in back of the building. She noted that two of the writers walk to the facility. APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 9 4) Stout asked whether other uses would be anticipated at the site. Wire stated only with the approval of the Commission. She noted further that the neighbors were in favor of the proposed use of the facility and in the future they had anticipated development of a Children's Theater at the site. 5) Fregonese stated that he had some concerns about other uses at the site. He noted that increase in use of the facility would re- quire significant Variances for the parking in that any plays or even rehearsals for plays would generate a larger crowd than the five people anticipated to be using the site as a studio. 6) Greene asked what the hours of operation would be. He stated concern about having individuals coming in and out of there as late as midnight. Wire indicated that only two of the individuals would be using it this late in the evening. 7) Bradford O'Neil, 469 "C" St., spoke on behalf of the application. He stated that he would speak to the people regarding the garden area with the adjacent residential building at the site and would discuss parking with the owners of the Sentry Market. 8) Stout asked O'Neil what the maximum capacity of the building would be. O'Neil stated that currently there is only one individual at a time using the facility, but that it does have four desks. Stout asked again how many desks could squeeze into the room. O'Neil stated probably up to 15, but that would not happen. Presently there are only 4 and that is the only number of desks that would be taken in due to the number of positions available. 9) Greene asked Staff what the CUP was being granted for. Staff replied that it was for an office use. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Stout asked whether limitations could be placed on the number of desks allowed inside. Fregonese said, yes, this could be limited. 2) Stout stated that he would be in favor of the parking Variance if the number of desks, and number of individuals using the facility at a time were limited. Fregonese stated that perhaps the limitation would be that four individuals at a time, plus the receptionist as proposed. 3) Greene then stated that the proposal could be subject to a one year review. 4) Stout asked the applicants if they had any problem with these APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 10 conditions relative to the Variance. They did not. 5) Slattery recalled a previous Planning Action when a Variance had been requested for parking for a deli on "B" St., he did not see where the difference was between that particular request and the one proposed this evening. Fregonese explained that "B" St. is much wider at this point than the area where the deli was proposed. Se- condly, the area where the deli was going to be located was mostly residential in nature. This is an area of higher commercial activ- ity. In addition, what parking was available for this facility is located off street, whereas the parking that was being made available to the previous facility would have required backing out into the street. Slattery was satisfied with this explanation. 6) Greene stated that he felt the Commission should deal with pos- sible rehearsals and productions being staged at the site. 7) Owens stated that the application was submitted only for writing of plays. No provisions needed to be established for conditions outside the scope of their application. 8) Greene stated that he had a personal conflict with the hours established. Stout stated that this really was no different from students who study late. Greene stated that students typically are not coming and going at this late hour. He then asked Fregonese if he had any problems with this. Fregonese said, no, he did not parti- cularly. Specifically because of the area under consideration. He did, however, say that the approval of the project could be subject to a one year review. 9) After some discussion, Stout moved to approve the application with the Variance for one parking stall with the added condition of Planning Commission review in one year. 10) Owen's asked if a Variance could be granted for the parking requirements at this time. Fregonese stated that the Commission could cite a hardship Variance and establish Findings. Jannusch explained what the hardships were. Fregonese then read the basis for declaring a hardship within the Historic District from the parking Ordinance. After further discussion, Owens seconded the motion ori- ginally made by Stout, the vote was unanimous to approve the applica- tion with the Variance and amended conditions. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -76 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW U.S.FOREST SERVICE PLANNING ACTION #83 -76 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for construction of an office complex, warehouse, and outdoor storage facility for the U.S. Forest Service. Comprehensive APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 11 Plan designation: Employment. Zoning: E -1 (Employment). Assessor's Map 14A. Tax lot Portion of 1104. APPLICANT: U.S. Forest Service STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, noting that the approval could be given in two steps. the applicants could receive a building permit the day following the approval provided the Commission granted appro- val to the Site Review. The two week appeal period would be neces- sary for final occupancy of the outdoor storage facility. 2) Stout asked what the roofing material would be on the storage facility. Jannusch stated that it was going to be composition shingle. 3) Greene asked whether the landscaping plans showed the existing natural foliage. Jannusch stated that the plan provided a general outline of the existing foliage to be retained. 4) Fregonese addressed the energy consumption of the structure, stating that it was important to understand and stress the energy strategy developed by the applicants for the structure. Specific items would include lighting, methodology of heating and air condi- tioning and the extensive glazing on the north elevation. 5) Greene addressed the heat loss calculations that were submitted by the applicants. 6) Fregonese then addressed the applicant asking him what the energy plans were for the structure. Terry Howard, architect for the Forest Service, stated that the Forest Service has a set of specs which address stringent energy requirements which are required by Federal law. Though the floor is not insulated, the finish grade around the foundation would be bermed. R -19 insulation would be provided in the walls with R -38 in the ceilings. Two power vents would be supplied for the underfloor area and a 4' overhang would be provided on the roof of the structure to provide more protection. The windows of the proposed structure would be double glazed with a thermal break. Heat pumps would be utilized for heating, air conditioning and the system would be multi zoned. The public hearing was then opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Since there were no further comments the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 12 1) Alston asked whether the warehouse could be seen from the street. Staff replied that it could be since it was approximately 20' off of Jefferson, though it would be heavily landscaped. Alston expressed concern about the aesthetics of the roof of the warehouse facility. Fregonese stated that the structure should be relatively attractive, particularly by industrial park standards and that by providing a blue tile roof as is indicated for the office structure, would be drawing unnecessary attention to it. Greene concurred. 2) Slattery stated that he thought the design of the proposal was attractive. 3) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve the Site Review portion of the application and Slattery seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to approve. 4) Stout moved to approve the Conditional Use portion of the appli- cation and Slattery seconded the motion. The vote, again, was unani- mous to approve. STAFF BUSINESS 1) The Commission then addressed the selection of a Planning Commis- sion representative to the Tree Commission. Slattery volunteered. 2) Fregonese suggested that review of the R -2, R -3 Zoning Code amendment should be scheduled for the November public hearing. 3) The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding mechanical equipment were discussed as well as the Freeway Sign Code. Public hearings were established to be scheduled for the October 12 meeting. 4) A joint Study Session with CPAC relative to the Urban Growth Boundary revisions and the Performance Standards revisions was established for the September 28 Commission meeting. 5) Fregonese expressed his concerns about developing a Creek Flow Ordinance stating there is presently nothing on the books which provides a strong regulation of filling in the natural drainageways throughout the City. He cited a recent problem which developed on Hamilton Creek where the owner culverted 500' of the existing creek way with a culvert that is capable of handling only 1/4 of the potential flood capacity generated through this swale. In addition, he stated Bellview School had culverted a section of the creek with only a 2' culvert utilizing poor fill. He stated that a Study Ses- sion should be conducted in October to review the possible ordinance. 6) Croman Corporation has submitted a proposal for the construction of a 32,000 square foot kiln. Fregonese stated that this could be reviewed as a Type I hearing inasmuch as it is a permitted use in the APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 13 M -1 zone. He noted, however, that because of the size of this struc- ture, his first inclination was to require a Type II hearing. He asked the Commission what their views were relative to this as a public hearing would take longer for review and the applicants are trying to beat the bad winter weather to construct their kiln. The Planning Commission determined that this could be processed as a Type I. 7) Tree guidelines were to be discussed at the Study Session of September 28. 8) Planning Action #83 -70, a one -year extension for Phase I of Pine Meadows Planned Unit Development on Scenic Drive submitted by Bill Wiley had been denied by Staff under a Type I hearing. The Commis- sion concurred that denial of this application was appropriate. 9) A letter was read into the record submitted by Coco Donahue asking for an interpretation of the Ordinance relative to business frontage and possible placement of a sign on the frontage of the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant where a drive through window is located. The Commission determined that the drive through window did not constitute an entrance /exit to the public, thus a sign could not be located on this frontage unless a pedestrian door was installed there. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned at 10 :15 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC Minutes, 9/14/83, Page 14 .PH YES v Owens Alston_ n -won iitogk Slattery Greene I/ Du lop PH 13173 YES Slattery v Alston V I Dunlop Greene TOT Slattery_ Alston Greene Owe 1 Dunlop P YES NO PLANNING COMM NO PH g3 -0 9 YES NO „amen Owens Slattery TOT Owens Greene Slattery Jgaigh n r H.ac±n Alston Dunlop TOT ligrawn Wow— Alston 1/ Dunlop NO PH p e7S 0 Owens Greene NO op Warr Slattery Alston TOT PH YES ISSION VOTING RECORD PH 83 -7/ YES NO Dunlop Greene Owens Slattery Al ston ZwEr TOT Alston Greene Owens Dunlop Slattery Bin TOT 7 fc..ca.�i�v NO PH F3 -75 YES S1 attery Greene Owens Dunlop '1s TOT Ifikecn iierr Ian_ Alston Slattery Owens Greene Dunlop TOT PH n, -7 YE u Alston Dunlop Owens Greene S le y TOT NO PH YES NO S'L Am— Al ston Slattery rep_ S ,v reene i Dunlop TOT e.) NO PH YES NO PH YES NO