Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-09 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wi4h i.ng to .peak at any Rearming Commimion meeting us eneowuiged to do 4o. 14 you do wL h to 'speak, pPe.az e iLiz e and c i t'L you have been neeogn.Lzed by the Chain, give. yours name and comp.2e -te addne4i. You witt then he a92.owed to 'peak. P.P_eaice no that pub!,%e. .es.thnony may be fi;mited by the Chain. and nonmaLP.y not aU.owe.d Welt the pubLie healing ham been eLued. IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, ftegon II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of October 12, 1983 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLANNING ACTION #83 -79 is a request for Annexation and Zone Change of 6.5 acres located on the west side of Tolman Creek Road approximately 1/4 mile north of the Highway 66 intersection. Current County zoning is RR -5 and the parcel would be designated as R -1:3.5 upon annexation. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single- Family Residential. Zoning: RR -5. Assessor's Map 11C. Tax lot #'s: 1300, 1400. APPLICANT: Steve Shapiro, et al 2. PLANNING ACTION #83 -88 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a 3 -unit, owner occupied Traveler's Accomodation at 80 Hargadine and concurrent Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan designation change. Exist- ing zoning is R -1:10 (Single- family Residential), current Comprehensive Plan designation is Single- family Residential. Proposed change is for R -2 zoning, (Multi- family, low density) and Comprehensive Plan designation of Multi- family Residential. Assessor's map 9BC. Tax lot: 4900. APPLICANTS: Philip /Sharon Thormahlen 3. PLANNING ACTION #83 -89 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to use a portion of the existing rental center at 645 Tolman Creek Road as a Transmission repair business. Customer car storage will be to the rear of the building. Comprehensive Plan designation: Retail Commercial. Zoning: C -1. Assessor's Map 14B. Tax lot: part of 700 APPLICANT: Jeffery L. Mellema 4. PLANNING ACTION #83 -91 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Temporary Use of the property located at the NE corner of "C" St. Pioneer Sts, for a Christmas tree sales lot. The applicant is proposing to use the lot for the month of December only. Comprehensive Plan designation: Retail Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Retail Commercial). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot: 11500 APPLICANT: Gary /Barbara Mumblo 5. PLANNING ACTION #83 -92 is a request for final approval for "Weller Lane," a 23 -unit PUD located south of 536 Ashland Street, The project is to be developed in 4 phases. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential /Low Density Residential. Zoning: R- 1:10P /RR -.5P. Assessor's Map 16AB. Tax lot 2100. APPLICANT: Ed Joann Houghton 1. PA #83 -90, final plan approval for Applewood Subdivision, Prim St. V. STAFF BUSINESS: A. NO STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER B. Request for Hearings Board volunteers November 18 22 at 4:00 PM. C. Lithia Park Village update VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Lance Pugh. In attendance were Don Greene, Mike Slattery, Betty Lou Dunlop, Neil Benson, Tom Owens, Carlyle Stout, 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 October 12, 1983, were approved as written. PLANNING ACTION PA# 83 -79 ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE STEVE SHAPIRO ET AL PLANNING ACTION #83 -79 is a request for Annexation and Zone Change of 6.5 acres located on the west side of Tolman Creek Road approximately 1/4 mile north of the Highway 66 intersection. Current County zoning is RR -5 and the parcel would be designated as R -1 :3.5 upon annexation. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single family Residential. Zoning RR -5 (Single- family Residential). Assessor's Map 11C. Tax Lot #'s: 1300, 1400. APPLICANT: Steve Shapiro, et al. STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report. He expanded on the report by giving an overview of the Growth Management Subcommittee Findings that were submitted to the Council on July 22, 1983. He concluded the Staff Report by noting the Applicant's Findings complied with the Findings suggested by the Subcommittee. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. APC, 11/9/83, Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING 1) Craig Stone, Planner for the applicant 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, spoke on behalf of the proposal. He stated that the appli- cation is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and that the Comprehensive Plan had mandated that 83 acres of the R -1 :3.5 zoning be provided within the City Limits by the year 2000. None presently is available. He reiterated Staff's comments that presently no development plans for the site were available. He stated, however, that it was his client's intent to submit plans for a Performance Standards housing development for the elderly within a years time. He continued by noting that the previous annexation request had been withdrawn due to circumstances dictated by the City's inability to provide water to the development. It had been his experience that other cities do not typically require development plans at the time of annexation. He then asked for a clarification of the recommended Staff Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5. He questioned when the applicant would be required to comply with these conditions. He concluded his testimony by requesting a waiver of the annexation fees, in this case $14,000, until the time of development of the property. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Pugh asked Staff to clarify the conditions. Fregonese stated relative to the postponement of development fees that this question should be resolved prior to the time the City Council reviews this annexation request. The question is technically a Council and Budget Committee issue. 2) Pugh then asked about the Signal Assessment District for Tolman Creek Road. Fregonese noted that this had been a requirement for all the Planning Actions in that area including the YMCA, Taco Bell, Les Schwab and others in the neighborhood. He continued by noting that the signal is not yet needed and will not be installed until develop- ment in the area warrants such installation. Greene stated that relative to Condition 4, it had been his understanding that previous approvals had required improvement of Tolman Creek Road rather than the signing in favor of the improvements. Fregonese responded by noting that this could be done at the time of development, however, it is in the City's best interest to have developers sign in favor in as much as typically only those frontages in question would be improved. Signature in favor would provide improvements in a comprehensive manner. 3) Stout asked for a clarification of the problems relative to the water moratorium in this area. Fregonese stated that the Bond Issue recently passed had corrected this and that the new reservoir is currently under construction. APC, 11/9/83, Page 2 4) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the Application with the recommended conditions with Dunlop seconding. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA 83 88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW, ZONE CHANGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION CHANGE PHILIP /SHARON THORMAHLEN PLANNING ACTION #83 -88 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a 3 -unit, owner occupied Traveler's Accomodation at 80 Hargadine and concurrent Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Designation change. Existing zoning is R -1 :10 (Single- family Residential). Proposed change is for R -2 zoning (Multi- family, low density) and Comprehensive Plan Designation of Multi family Residential. Assessor's Map 9BC. Tax Lot 4900. APPLICANTS: Philip /Sharon Thormahlen STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting that the Historic Commission had recommended approval of the application on the condition that the sign size be limited to 3 square feet. He noted further that it was Staff's opinion that the rezone was appropriate but that the units should be limited to two traveler's accomodations since the area of the site would prohibit four units including the owners. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Sharon Thormahlen spoke on behalf of her application. She stated that the parcel was abutted by multi- family and commercial usage and that the property had originally been zoned R -3. She reinforced Staff's comments by noting that this was not going to be a bed and breakfast, that only lodging would be provided. She continued by noting that she and her husband had rented units during the Chamber program in 1977 and from business generated at that time feels that the location is still in demand as a traveler's accomodation. She noted further that handicapped access is being provided since both of the proposed units would be on the ground floor. She concluded her comments by noting that the structure has been placed on the National Register and that their intent is to maintain the residence in its present condition with no exterior changes anticipated. 2) Stout asked how many individuals would be allowed in each unit. APC, 11/9/83, Page 3 Thormahlen stated that she anticipated up to four would be able to stay in each unit. She then stated that she and her husband would remain as owners in residence. 3) JoAnn Patton of 115 Fork Street asked Staff to address the impact on future development of the neighborhood. Fregonese stated that he anticipated little change, if any, in the nature of the use at the site. Complaints have been highly uncommon on any of the other bed and breakfasts previously approved. He concluded by noting that approval would be only for a yearly use for the first three years. Patton then stated that her concern revolved more around the zone change issue. Fregonese stated that the application was for only the Thormahlen property. He felt it would be difficult for others, particularly up Fork Street, to justify a zone change request in the future. After further discussion, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Benson asked whether other traveler's accomodations had been approved without food being served. Fregonese stated that to his knowledge the B Street House was not a bed and breakfast nor was the Palm Motel. 2) Pugh stated that his friends wanted to know how to get a room there those times that they had passed the house. He felt that the location and facility was a natural for the use proposed. 3) Greene asked Thormahlen whether she felt comfortable with the three square foot sign. Thormahlen replied in the affirmative. After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the application with the recommended conditions and the revision to Item 2 that 11 off -site parking stalls be provided at 96 Fork St. and a revision to Item #3 that the sign be limited to 3 square feet in size. The vote was unanimously in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT JEFFERY L. MELLEMA PLANNING ACTION #83 -89 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to use a portion of the existing rental center at 645 Tolman Creek Road as a Transmission Repair business. Customer car storage will be to the rear of the building. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Retail Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's Map 14B. Tax Lot part of 700. APPLICANT: Jeffery L. Mellema APC, 11/9/83, Page 4 STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting Staff's primary concerns with screening of the storage area and the installation of appropriate grease traps at the facility. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Henry Mellema, owner of the Taylor Rental building stated that his son would be opening the shop and utilizing only 400 square feet for the transmission service and that he expects to relocate in the future. He continued by stating that his son is graduate of a transmission school and that he would be providing a necessary service to the community. 2) Mellema then stated that there is a 36' x 108' paved parking area to the rear of the building that is designated for stored vehicles and that he would anticipate no more than two vehicles to be stored there at a time. Relative to the condition of a grease trap at the facility, Mellema stated that such provision was installed when the building was constructed. There were no changes anticipated to the structure at this time and the building has already received the Fire Life Safety Inspection. 3) Stout asked Mellema where the storage for the inoperable vehicles would be. Mellema stated this would be either in the building or at the rear of the building as shown on the plan. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) After further Commission discussion, Slattery moved to approve the Planning Action with the attached conditions. Benson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. APC, 11/9/83, Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -91 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GARY /BARBARA MUMBLO PLANNING ACTION #83 -91 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Temporary Use of the propert oca property at the NE corner of "C" St. Pioneer Sts. for a Christmas tree sales lot. The applicant is proposing to use the lot for the month of December only. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Retail Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Retail Commerial). Assessor's Map 9BA. Tax Lot 11500. APPLICANT: Gary /Barbara Mumblo STAFF REPORT 1) Pugh asked Staff whether there were any changes to this application from the previous year's approval. Jannusch stated there were none. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Barbara Mumblo, applicant, stated that she was available for any questions the Commission may have. As there were no questions for the applicant, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) After brief Commission discussion, Benson moved to approve the Application with Slattery seconding. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -92 FINAL APPROVAL WELLER LANE ED JOANN HOUGHTON PLANNING ACTION #83 -92 is a request for final approval for "Weller Lane," a 23 -unit PUD located south of 536 Ashland Street. The project is to be developed in 4 phases. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single- family Residential /Low Density Residential. Zoning: R- 1:10P /RR -.5P (Single- family Residential /Low Density Residential). Assessor's Map 16AB. Tax Lot 2100. APPLICANT: Ed Joann Houghton APC, 11/9/83, Page 6 STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report clarifying the areas on the site plan for the Commission where the original Forest Street stub had been located relative to the newly proposed stub location. He requested that an added condition be incorporated in the approval to read that "an erosion control plan be submitted for Staff approval for drainage during and after construction," to be submitted prior to any construction on the site. He then read two letters into the record from Mr. Keevil and Mr. Badger. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) John Chmelir of 650 Thornton Way spoke on behalf of the Houghtons as their engineer. He agreed to condition #5, that the access to lots 20 and 22 be redesigned so there is not more than a 20% grade. Relative to condition #6 he requested that this not apply to condition #10 of the original approval since adequate parking was being provided on Weller Lane. Relative to changing the name of the street, he stated that Forest Street is a plotted City Street and that Weller is Mrs. Houghton's maiden name. He felt it would be appropriate to retain this name since the developer wished to retain the association of their family name with the Subdivision. 2) Keevil stated that he and Badger were concerned with changing the Forest Street stub name to Bear Gulch Road. 3) Chmelir stated that the location of the stub had been determined by his agreement with the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director through the original approval of the Planning Commission. He felt that moving it would make the lots less desirable. 4) Slattery asked whether the road could be split around the trees such that one lane would be on one side of the trees while the other would be on the opposite side of the tress. 5) Chmelir stated his concern about requiring the devloper to design the road to satisfy the needs of the adjacent property owners. He felt that the road location would not impact the adjacent properties unless those properties were developed. He stated that if the street must be relocated, that the cul de sac should be retained as is and that the stub for Forest Street only should be moved. He then indicated the proposal on the contour map. Fregonese stated that this road could be installed to a minimum of 20' width. 6) Greene asked Chmelir how the stub would make the transition to the other property based on the topography of the site. Chmelir he was not sure how such a transition would take place. Greene then asked Chmelir how the open space would be maintained as a part of the APC, 11/9/83, Page 7 homeowners association. Chmelir stated that the open space proposed is primarily a gravel based walking path and that not much real maintenance would be required for such a path. Greene then asked whether the landscaping was to be irrigated or not. Chmelir stated that the picnic area proposed and the island in the cul de sac were to be irrigated but that the paths would probably not be. He then cited the Mountain Ranch Subdivision in which he lived for a while noting that assessment for each unit was $90 a year for the maintenance of four acres. 7) Greene then asked Chmelir whether John Hardy was doing the surveying and staking of the project. Chemelir stated that he was. He stated, however, he would be supervising the construction at the site himself. 8) Duane Smith of 639 Prim Street stated that it was important that the neighbors remember that the trees would not be cut unless they develop their properties. 9) Pat Wolf of 650 Forest Street stated that she had concerns about the extension of Forest Street and because of these concerns had consulted Everett Swain for professional aid. She stated that it was similar to the plan Fregonese had proposed. She continued by noting that she would hate to have the road go through her backyard once Forest was improved and that Badger's and Kievel's plans do not always jive with hers. 10) The Commission then looked extensively at options for the extension of Forest Street. Everett Swain showed his proposal developed for Pat Wolf. A lengthy discussion between Commissioners, 'Staff and the public ensued while attempting to determine the most likely location for the extension of Forest Street. Wolf asked whether conditions would be placed on her property for future sale. Fregonese stated that this would only take place at the time her property was developed. 11) Thomas Keevil submitted a drawing noting that the proposed stub does not coincide with any property lines in the area and that by extending Forest Street a sub standard lot would be created based on the half acre zoning for the subject parcels. He stated that he had bought his property many years previous and that nothing had been located close to his property. Now with the recent developments in the area, Waterline Road borders his property and it may be necessary to improve Forest Street at a future time as well. He felt that this specific stub location would make his property undevelopable. Stout then clarified the property lines on Keevil's drawing. 12) Rodney Badger of 610 Ashland Street stated he agreed with Keevil's assessment of how his property would be devalued by the location of the Forest Street stub proposed. He stated that this stub location determines the future location of any street APC, 11/9/83, Page 8 extensions and that the placing of the stub between the Badger and Keevil property lines would be the most preferable in his estimation. He did not feel that Chmelir's argument that moving of the stub would create a lot with a funny street frontage held much credence and also that the splitting of the street around the trees was not pratical. He urged the Commission to consider the relocation of the stub for future connection to Morton Street. 13) Chmelir stated that the record should show that the developer is generous and benevolent. He stated that in posing the street stub he had honestly not considered the property lines adjacent. He felt it would be approriate to move the stub to the property lines between lots 16 and 18 of the development. He then asked if making these changes he could receive approval of 23 lots with the 24th lot to receive approval as a Type I Planning Action. He noted further that the moving of the street stub would cost the developer more in engineering fees and stated that at some time in the future they wished to approach the Keivels about tying into their waterline. After further discussion, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Pugh asked Fregonese whether the applicants could prohibit satellite dishes on the site. Fregonese stated that this was a condition of the developers on the Homeowner's Association and it was his perogative to impose such a condition. Benson asked whether physical constraints would dictate that wood shingles could not be used in certain locations. Fregonese stated wood shingles would be prohibited on Class E land. After further discussion, Stout moved to approve the Planning Action with the recommended conditions and the added condition that an erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Staff and the Public Works Department for erosion mitigation and drainage during construction and upon completion of construction. Such plan to be submitted prior to any construction on the site and an 8th condition that it is understood that the applicant move the Forest Street stub to straddle lots 16 18 to create less of an impact to the properties to the east. Benson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS 1) PA #83 -90, final approval for Applewood Subdivision. Greene asked Fregonese whether the statement that a curb should be located on the lower end of the road was a recommended condition required by Staff. Fregonese stated that it was but that it had not been in- cluded in the original approval. After further discussion, the Commission approved the Planning Action. APC, 11/9/83, Page 9 2) Staff requested that volunteers be named for the Hearings Board to review Planning Actions in the fourth week of November. Slattery, Pugh and Owens volunteered. 3) Fregonese stated that the Cooper project on Granite Street had received a stop work order from the Public Works Director since the roads had not been installed pursuant to the approved plans and that no satisfactory erosion control measures had been taken for alleviating runoff from the site. He stated that a letter had been sent to Mr. Cooper issuing an ultimatum requiring action within ten days. Because of this, the situation was out of the Planning Depart- ment's hands. Benson asked Fregonese whether the Commission could require that Cooper obliterate the temporary road that he had con- structed onto the property outside the development. He asked who would have control over the installation of this road. 4) Fregonese stated that Physical Constraints does not cover this installation since it was not a part of the approved development. He felt it would be appropriate to have a subcommittee meet with the Director of Public Works and the City Administrator to discuss revisions to Physical Constraints Ordinance. 5) Slattery gave a report on the Tree Commission. He stated that the Tree Commission wishes to have input on all the development that comes through for Planning Commission approval. Fregonese stated that a meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 16, 1983 with members of the Tree Commission to establish some procedures insuring the review of such projects. Stout then asked whether the Tree Commission could impose binding conditions on Site Reviews. Fregonese responded in the affirmative. ADJOURNMENT After the further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 11/9/83, Page 10