Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-17 Planning MINMINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION October 17, 1983 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Lance Pugh. In attendance were Tom Owens, Ethel Hansen, Carlyle Stout, Neil Benson, Lance Pugh, Mike Slattery, and Don Greene. Also in atten- dance were Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -85 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW JOHN TOMPKINS PLANNING ACTION #83 -85 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for the proposed use of a hot dog cart under the canopy at the entrance to Buy Rite Market at 1475 Siskiyou Blvd. The cart will be removed at the end of each day. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's map 15BA. Tax lot #'s: 400, 500, 600. APPLICANT: John Tompkins STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the staff report noting that there are numerous conditions applied to this application to ensure that a level of quality is maintained. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Mr. John Tompkins of Talent spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that he would answer any questions the Commission had of him. 2) Stout asked whether the trash would be emptied on a daily basis. Tompkins stated that it would be. Stout wanted to know how and Tompkins stated that typically what he does is take the refuse home and disposes of it there. APC, 10/17/83, Page 1 As there was no further testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) After further discussion Slattery moved to approve the Planning Action with Owens seconding the proposal. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -84 FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION PLANNING ACTION #83 -84 is a request for final plan approval for a 39- unit Performance Standards Subdivision located above Liberty St., Morton St., and Long Way. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low Density Residential and Woodland Residential. Zoning: R:.5P and WR (Low Density Residential and Woodland Residential). Assessor's Map 16AC, 16BD. Tax lot #'s 400 and part of 100 and 200. APPLICANT: Dave and Rhonda Lewis STAFF REPORT 1) John Fregonese gave the Staff Report reviewing the Conditions from the original Approval of Planning Action #83 -54. He addressed Staff's specific concerns relative to Solar Access, the 20' Perimeter Setback, and the replacing of the culvert at the intersection of Liberty and Lisa Lane. Relative to the condition that no construc- tion be conducted between the months of October and May, Fregonese stated that the areas of construction, particularly for Lisa Lane, are steep and close to the stream and that when the granite gets exposed to the rain, serious erosion conditions can develop. He stated, however, that the applicants wished to modify this condition. He stated Staff would be willing to modify it provided that an ero- sion control plan and drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Engineering Departments. Such plan would have to be submitted prior to any construction taking place on the site. He then showed slides of the area of development noting the proposed road areas, building lots, potential for solar access and ditch area. He then read a letter into the record from the Project Engineer, Roger Kauble. Continuing, he noted that Staff would recommend that the section of Waterline Rd. to the south of the intersection with Lisa Lane not be constructed at this time but that engineering details be provided by the applicant and that the appli- cant shall sign in favor of future improvements to be completed at the time the City deems necessary. 2) Greene asked for a clarification of Condition 14 from the ori- APC, 10/17/83, Page 2 ginal Approval. His understanding had been that road improvements included cuts and paving of the driveways for access to the proposed lots. 3) Benson addressed the limitations imposed on the period of con- struction. His primary concerns involved major slides that affected other properties. He asked Staff whether Bonding by the applicant would cover any potential liability from slides generated by the proposal onto adjacent properties. Fregonese stated that the devel- oper would be responsible for any such damage occurring and that his liability insurance would need to cover such potential damage. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Roger Kauble, the Project Engineer spoke on behalf of the Appli- cation. He reviewed his credentials and background relative to designing projects on hillsides such as this. He presented his analysis of the best route for the Waterline Road and stated that he had gone back to the original proposal since the grades to reach the existing Waterline Road would be too great. In his opinion, it was more important to stabilize the boulders that exist below the Water- line Road than to leave them as is. Continuing, he stated that the original plan creates the least amount of disturbance for the hill- side. 2) Slattery asked for clarification as to why Kauble could not reach the Waterline Road from the proposed access. Kauble stated that the rise in topography is intense at this point and that the distances shown on the map are three dimensional and, therefore, have to be looked at in terms of a vertical as well as horizontal distance plane. 3) Discussion continued between Benson, Greene and Kauble with Kauble defending his contention that the original plan is the best method for access to Waterline Road. 4) Fregonese asked Kauble what the plans were for improvements to Liberty Street. Kauble stated it was the applicants intent to bank off the improvements and to replace the existing culvert which is presently blocked under Liberty Street at the access to Lisa Lane. 5) Benson stated that the covenants, conditions and restrictions seemed a bit vague and noted that particularly the fire management language needed some definition. He suggested that the physical constraints language be used in defining fire management measures. 6) Kauble stated that the CC &R's that have been presented as the original draft and that he is open to suggestions to improve and revise them. He stated, additionally, that the APC, 10/17/83, Page 3 applicants intent is to pave the driveways as a part of the improvements to the access roads. 7) John Chmelir, a Professional Engineer stated that he had been a member of the Physical Constraints Committee when this Ordinance was adopted. It was the Committee members understanding that this Ordin- ance allowed for Engineering details to be submitted which would address the hazards of construction in class C and D lands such as that on the subject property. He commended Staff for recognizing that such engineering details would be appropriate in lieu of preven- ting construction during the months of October to May. 8) Duane Smith stated his concerns about limiting construction to the spring and summer months. He felt that the owner could not market the project during the summer if he isn't able to work the winter time. He felt comfortable with an engineer's ability to alleviate the types of problems addressed in the Staff Report. He, too, had been a part of the committee to develop the Physical Con- straints Ordinance. 9) Bob Alston spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that he has common boundary for approximately two to three thousand feet to the southeast of the proposal. He said that though he questioned that the access was too steep to the existing Waterline Road he would defer comment to the expertise of the engineer on the job. He stated he has walked this property extensively and feels he is not convinced that access to the existing Waterline Road is impossible. He stated, further, that this area has experienced serious flooding and erosion problems in the past. All the proposed property has drained naturally onto his property and in the past has taken out numerous utilities. At the time the ditch was gunnited the vehicles travers- ing across his driveway ruined the accessway. He felt we may be due for another flood similar to that of 1974. He objected strongly to proceeding on the project without a complete storm drainage plan. He felt there would be no way to protect the properties below against sudden heavy rains. He wondered whether the construction workers would be taking appropriate measures for mitigation of erosion on a nightly basis. Alston continued by expressing concern about the Park Estates sign. He stated that no one who lives at the end of Liberty Street wants it there or close to the base of his driveway. He wondered, further, whether the extension of Liberty Street would be necessary with the construction of Lisa Lane since, in his opinion, Lisa Lane would be adequate for further development to the east of the project. He stated further that the City Engineer had told him it would be his preference not to build any hillside roads during the winter months. He concluded by requesting that a road building moratorium be imposed for the entire 700 acres along the hillside during the winter months. He felt it was a necessity to hold approv- al on the project until additional information could be submitted. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. APC, 10/17/83, Page 4 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery addressed the revegetation of the area of construction. He asked whether Staff had seen any details on the proposal for hydromulching and revegetation. Fregonese stated that details were shown on the plans submitted. Slattery asked whether the revegeta- tion would be taking place on an ongoing basis. Fregonese said he wasn't sure and that this plan would have to be clarified for Staff's approval. He said that there would be some possible alternatives to the interim measures to mitigate the erosion such as diverting the runoff, placing bales of hay in strategic locations, jute netting over the hill slopes and /or temporary pipes placed where necessary. 2) Pugh asked for Staff's opinion relative to the moratorium between October and May. Fregonese responded by stating that the proposal was for this project only and was not a moratorium for the whole City. 3) Pugh reiterated the concerns the Commission needed to address He explained the necessity of weighing the hazards of a fire season versus the hazards of an erosion season and though all factors are taken into account, that no guarantees could be given with regard to creating a negative impact would be created. The situation calls for the weighing of the delicate balance between the two seasons and that the decision must be a reasonable one. He concluded by stating that though the primary rainy season is during the winter months, that summer thunder storms could be equally disastrous in this area. 4) After continued discussion, Owens moved to approve the Planning Action with the amended condition that Item 1B be deleted from the approval. Slattery seconded the motion. 5) Stout asked what guarantees could be provided for erosion controls if Item 1B were eliminated. Fregonese stated that this recommendation had been based on a discussion with the Engineering Staff since this period is rainy and there is limited vegetative growth typically during this season. Stout asked if they advised not to construct this road during the wintertime. Fregonese said that they had but with an appropriate erosion control and drainage plan for the interim period they would be willing to accept such construction. Jannusch concurred. 6) Stout asked if Item 1B were deleted what types of controls could be applied on the development. Fregonese felt comfortable with Item 1A covering the Commissions concerns. Stout then asked if there was any protection against the extra wide cuts taking place as had occurred in the Cooper development. Fregonese stated that, in his opinion, the subject applicants had taken a more professional approach and would not be making the same mistake. He explained further that in the Cooper development the bulldozer operator APC, 10/17/83, Page 5 misread the marking stakes and this is why the road had been cut too wide. 7) Greene asked whether Staff was satisfied that the applicants are unable to meet the criteria of retaining the Waterline Road on the existing roadbed. Fregonese said yes. After further discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the Planning Action. TYPE I PLANNING ACTION PA #83 -86 12 MONTH EXTENSION OF MLP ORDINANCE VARIANCE ON PRIM ST JOHN CHMELIR PA #83 -86, 12 mos. extension (until 9/84) of prior PC approval of a MLP and Ord. Variance on Prim St. Applicant: John Chmelir The request was discussed briefly and approved. STAFF BUSINESS 1) Fregonese stated that on October 7, Ashland became an acknowledged Jurisdiction except for the changes necessary to the Urban Growth Boundary. He stated that a Public Hearing would be set up for the month of December to go over the proposed Urban Growth Boundary revisions. 2) The Study Session to be held jointly between the CPAC and the Planning Commission was established for October 26, 1983. At this time, revisions to the Street Dedication Map will take place. 3) Fregonese then stated that since the road cuts had been beyond what was approved for the Cooper project, that he would be sent a letter requesting a revision of the plan under a Type 1 hearing. The proposal should include landscaping, specifically street trees on 30' centers with irrigation and the planting of some sort of ivy or equivalent planting material to cover the rock faces along Marklyn Drive. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned at 9:15 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 10/17/83, Page 6 Slattery Alston Hansen Stout Benson Pugh Dunlop Owens Greene Dunlop Slattery Hansen Stout Benson Pugh Al ston Greene Owens TOT PH t rY rS' YES NO Owens Greene Pugh Benson Owens Stout Hansen Slattery IV Greene Hansen Stout Pugh L/ Owens Als,ton Benson Benson v Slattery _ttcmpl:Gsp..., Pugh Stout 1640wa. Owens Slattery r/ Hansen v Hansen Greene Greene 11n Stout Slattery Benson Pugh TOT h TOT TOT TOT PH YES NO PH Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh Benson Stout Hansen Slattery Alston TOT TOT PH YES NO PH PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD /07/ 7 /j3 e_u< Ciit. /D /Z3/kt,` f PH 3 YES NO PH YES NO P YES NO Owens Greene Slattery Pugh Benson Stout Hansen Alston Dunlop TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Pugh Benson 31attery Stout Greene Hansen Owens Alston Dunlop Slattery Alston Owens Hansen Greene Benson Pugh Stout Dunlop TOT TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Pugh Benson Alston Stout Greene Hansen Owens Alston Dunlop Slattery Slattery Owens Hansen Greene Stout Dunlop Benson Pugh TOT TOT