ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Chapman at 1:40 p.m.
|Commissioners Present:||Russ Chapman, Chair|
|Council Liaison:||Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Hearings Board meetings to avoid conflict of interest)|
|High School Liaison:||None|
|Staff Present:||Mark Knox, Associate Planner|
|Sue Yates, Executive Secretary|
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
The minutes of the February 10, 2004 Hearings Board were approved.
Findings for PA2004-004, 1249 Ashland Mine Road (Dresner & Fox) were approved.
Findings for PA2003-150, 22 Scenic Drive (Ryan) were approved.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTION
PLANNING ACTION 2004-028
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 496 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 332 OTIS STREET.
APPLICANT: MARK & MARTY DENNETT
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-031 IS A REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE AN
EXISTING LOT INTO THREE PARCELS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
STRAWBERRY LANE AND WESTWOOD STREETS. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: RURAL
RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 08 BD; TAX LOT:
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
This action was called up for a public hearing.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2004-029
REQUEST FOR A TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS FOR THE PRORERTY LOCATED AT 650 OAK STREET. THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW THREE PARCELS TO TAKE LEGAL ACCESS FROM THE ADJOINING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY.
APPLICANT: MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Kistler had a site visit. Fields is familiar with the property. Chapman saw Larry Medinger on the site and asked him a couple of questions about Jessica Lane. That was the only discussion they had about the application.
Knox said the application is for a single lot partition for a Performance Standards partition. Typically flag driveways have a minimum of two lots accessing off a driveway. There is a provision in the ordinance that states there can be three when there is some uniqueness to the property. In this case, there are four. Typically, Staff does not apply the first driveway when the lot can easily and legally meet its access requirements, so the front house is not included off the flag drive.
This is a long lot that abuts the Jessica Lane development. Jessica Lane meanders toward the back end of this property. The applicant was the developer of the Jessica Lane property. He thought this property could be eventually accessed by Jessica Lane, but something was never recorded and there is a three foot gap extending from their roadway to the property that is owned in common by all the Jessica Lane property owners.
The zoning is R-1-5. The applicant is proposing two lots of approximately 20,000 square feet. There is a long flag drive, a fire truck turnaround and a building envelope. The radius on the fire truck turnaround will need to be adjusted to meet the turning radius requirements for the Fire Department.
Staff met with a couple of the neighbors on the site. One issue to resolve is the screening requirements along the flag drive. They are required to have a six foot hedge or fence along the drive. There is a mature fence and hedge all the way along the south property line, but there are big gaps. A Condition has been added to remedy that.
The other issue from Staff's perspective is the location of the building envelope and how it stretches down the hill and encompasses Jessica Creek. It is on the National Wetlands Inventory as a waterway, not a wetland. Staff is asking the applicant that the envelope now measuring approximately 60 feet by 120 feet, allowing a 7200 square foot building envelope be pushed away from the creek about 40 feet to be consistent with other similar developments the City has encountered. It is consistent with the topographic boundaries with the adjacent properties. Staff feels the request is justified because the applicant is requesting a Performance Standards development. The purpose and intent talks about using a creative design or a situation where we are being efficient with the land use. We want to make sure the purpose and intent is applied and not a way just to add a lot off a flag drive.
Knox said a Condition 10 should be added: "That the proposed building envelope be reduced by about 40 feet to an elevation of 1807. The applicant can adjust the setback on the existing last house. The Conditions also show this is just a structure line. From the 40 feet line, it is reasonable for disturbance area for garden beds or other landscaping activities. It is consistent with the neighboring properties. Staff is asking that from the applicant's current line all the way to the end of the parcel be identified with the conservation easement, making sure no structure of any kind will be built in that area.
DAVE HARD, Fire Marshall, clarified the Fire Department requirements. The applicant has one of two options. He can provide a fire hydrant within 250 feet of the complete edges of the building envelope (near fire truck turnaround) as required by the fire code. The other alternative is to provide a sprinkler system in the home and have a fire hydrant within 600 feet. If they choose to have a private fire hydrant, it would be right by their house. The fire truck turnaround does not meet the standards. The dimensions are correct except for the entrance portion where they show it being 15 feet. That portion needs to be 20 feet, but it is usually correctable on the building plans.
BILL RICHEY, 675 Carole, said he lives across from the property they are talking about. This property is landlocked. How will they get in and how will they get out? They would have to come through the existing park for access. There is going to be a solar problem for his property. He is in agreement with the Fire Department's requirements. Knox said the residence will have to meet the most stringent solar standard Access A and is included as a Condition of approval.
KAREN SMITH, 165 Jessica Lane, said her property backs the driveway. After they carved off two lots prior to this application, they were told by the Planning Department that was the maximum number of units that could be accessed. She disputes the fact that the first lot does not count because the driveway is paved and used as a drive and a berm on Oak Street. Her primary concern is the traffic volume and the overall quality of development. It is very crowded. She is concerned about the terms of the conservation easement. Would that allow a future dwelling? The neighbors want to maintain the overall quality of life. This is a narrow property with very, very limited access. She wants to make sure this would be a single family home built in the envelope, as described, not multiple family units.
Knox said it is for a single family dwelling. He said the intent of the conservation easement is purely for conservation, not building. They can clarify that in the Conditions to prohibit structures.
H. L. BENBOUGH, 224 Jessica Lane, said if the development goes through, will there be some type of a sound barrier fence instead of a cyclone fence or any fence going the entire length of the property. There is about 250 feet of barbed wire along that line. Can the owner take care of an old cottonwood tree that fell on the Jessica Lane property? Knox said a six foot sight-obscuring fence or hedge is required along the drive. Medinger would be required to take the fence from the edge of the driveway to the end of fire truck turnaround area. It should go the edge of Benbough's house. He said the tree is a matter between the property owners.
BERT HINMAN, 587 Carol Street, said when Medinger originally wanted to do put a driveway through his (Hinman's) driveway, Hinman would not agree to it. Why can't the house on the map be further up to the left where the fire truck turnaround is placed so it is less offensive to the neighbors? It is a skinny piece of property for a home and it will look out of place.
Knox said the Planning Commission can impose Conditions as long as they are intended to meet the purpose and intent of the ordinance. As proposed, the application meets the purpose and intent. Extending the driveway might be an issue for the Fire Department. The individual property owner would have asphalt in the front and in the back of his/her property. Knox said just the applicant's building envelope will move. In order for the applicant to still achieve his need to separate the house from the fire truck turnaround, yes, everything could be shifted 40 feet, but it is not a requirement. Fields suggested Hinman talk to the applicant.
Kistler wondered if a compromise could be made with the Jessica Lane neighbors and Medinger to share a fire truck turnaround. Knox said it would be so beneficial if everyone could understand that by not working it out, we are adding more asphalt.
Dave Hard is hearing they want to move the building envelope forward and put the fire truck turnaround behind it. That can be done. The key thing is a driveway longer than 250 feet has to provide a way for the truck to turn around.
Smith asked about the criteria, item A, "future use for urban purposes not be impeded". That is why, in part, she was concerned about the conservation easement. Does that have some longer lasting effect on the remainder of property? The development of any adjoining land will not be impeded? She disagrees with Benbough. She would prefer a chain link fence as long it is permanent and the height can be four feet.
Knox said the fence is shared.
Knox suggested wording for Condition 3 for the for the conservation easement. Continue the sentence to read: " and in no case shall structures be built within the easement."
Chapman wondered what Medinger would have to do to change the Condition. Knox said Medinger would have to petition the City Council to remove the easement in order to build within that general area.
Add Condition 10 to pull the building envelope back to the 1808 foot topographic line.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Knox said the only discretionary item in the application is with the first lot off Oak Street. We have always said a lot can be legally accessed from the street even though we would prefer them to take access off the flag drive because additional conflicts are not being added. Why not just share it and not get penalized?
Fields believes the only negotiated part of the proposal is if there was some way to share a turnaround. That would require dissolving the property line and making it all one piece. Because no one is interested in that we are stuck with this.
Fields moved to approve PA2004-029 with the change to Condition 3 and the addition of Condition 10. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT- The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
End of Document - Back to Top