ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 2004
|I.||CALL TO ORDER|
|Mike Morris called the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings
Board to order at 1:35 p.m. on December 14, 2004 in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
|II.||APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES|
|Douma/Morris m/s to approve the minutes of the November 9,
2004 Hearings Board meeting.
Morris announced that PA2004-148, 248 Patterson, was called up for a public hearing. Planning Action PA2004-154, 180 Lithia Way, will be heard next month as a public hearing.
|III.||TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS|
|PLANNING ACTION 2004-137
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AT 610, 620 CLAY STREET INTO TWO PARCELS.
APPLICANT: JON C. NELSON & RODNEY A. NELSON
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-148
This action was called up for a public hearing.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-149
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-154
This action will be heard next month as a public hearing.
|IV.||TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING|
|PLANNING ACTION 2004-140
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT TO CREATE A THIRD PARCEL FROM PORTIONS OF TWO EXISTING PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 679 CLAY STREET AND 714 GLENDALE AVENUE. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT, ALLOWING FOR A 3.5 FOOT SIDE YARD RATHER THAN SIX FEEET AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE AS WELL AS MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUS CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT RESTRICTED FURTHER DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY.
APPLICANT: ERIN MCNULTY & MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION
Site visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by Morris and Dawkins.
The current application is to use portions of the 25,508 square foot parcel and of the 9,487 square foot Glendale parcel to create a third 12,200 square foot flag lot behind the Glendale parcel. The proposal meets minimum width, depth and lot area. They plan to move one parking bay of the garage and removal of the one bay necessitates the 3.5 foot sideyard Variance. The 3.5 feet is adjacent to the flag drive. Landscaping and screening of the flag should mitigate the impacts of the reduced sideyard. The newly created parcel is accessed off Glendale rather than Clay, keeping with the intent of the original deed restriction.
The Physical and Environmental Constraints permit portion of the application involves an existing culverted riparian land drainage at the rear of the Glendale parcel. They are proposing to cross that with the flag drive. The remainder of the drainage is to be daylighted and restored to a natural state.
This was originally approved as a Type I. Six letters were received from neighbors expressing concerns.
As a whole, Staff believes the applicant's proposal adequately addresses all applicable criteria and represents a compromise over earlier proposals.
Staff felt the size of the Clay Street lot represented a unique and unusual circumstance in that it is more than five times the minimum required lot area for the R-1-5 zone. The proposal to restore the drainage and its vegetation was a significant benefit as well as the provision for more efficient land use on an oversized parcel. Staff believes it could be found that these benefits outweigh the negative impacts. The situation is not self-imposed because the deed restriction was never recorded and the applicant was unaware of it at the time of their purchase. If the Hearings Board wishes to grant approval, there are 16 attached Conditions.
Harris said the deed restriction was required by the City and part of the request in the application is to go back and modify the deed restriction.
They have gone ahead with the proposal because it was the Planning Department's best advice to seek another way to find access to the Clay Street property.
Dawkins said regardless of the intent in 1975 or how it is looked at today, he believes a lot of what happened in 1975 was right. There is a strong pull by the Council and Commission for infill, however, he feels there are other values including all the open space. He believes in a strict UGB. That aside, he does not like the idea of taking part of the garage off to build a road to the back. It is too close to the neighbor's house. There is an example up the street of a wider drive. Visually it is so confined. He would tend to stick with what was written in 1975.
Douma asked if they could resubmit the proposal with the garage removed. He doesn't like the driveway running next to someone's house.
Medinger noted that none of the six letters mentioned the driveway.
Mike Schilling, 731 Glendale Avenue, is opposed to the application. His concern is this will create a driveway with the street in very close proximity. There are people going up and down the street constantly and he sees this as a dangerous situation. This property is their open space. Their neighborhood is their open space. The subdivision was set up in the 80's by the Toney's so there wouldn't be any more building unless the owners said it was okay. He believes it will change entire lower Glendale.
Caroline Lindstedt, said there are not unique or unusual circumstances because the lot is on Glendale. The Variance affects the neighbors on Glendale. There is already access on Clay. It doesn't make sense to punch in a new driveway.
Perry Standard, 687 Clay Street, is strongly opposed to the development and Variance request. He believes it should be denied. The deed restriction might not have been placed properly but the number 4 item in the letter was in fact done - houses to be sited on Lots 2 and 3 so as to make further division of lots difficult. It seems that has been accomplished. He believes the Variance should be denied. He doesn't know if the creation of one additional lot is of benefit.
Brad Kauder, 709 Glendale Avenue, said his concerns are 1) creating the additional roadway as proposed would result in a total of four pathways feeding onto Glendale within a very short span - 50' or less. It is creating a high density of paved areas and pathways (paved). 2) There is a great deal of pedestrian traffic on Glendale. Younger people come sailing down the street on skateboards and bikes. At 699 Glendale there is not good visibility. There are safety issues for anyone traveling down Glendale, particularly pedestrians facing the danger of four ways vehicles could be entering on Glendale. 3) If a roadway were punched through, cars heading out toward Glendale would have their headlight shining right into his home.
Harry Meier, 704 Glendale, lives adjacent to the developed property. The roadway runs 13.5 feet from his bedroom windows. He doesn't know how the construction noise could be mitigated. There is a TID/storm drain ditch that runs behind 714. After a rain, there is a torrent of water coming through. He is concerned about children getting into this. If the setback were reduced, he would request some protection from the neighbors with a brick wall or something.
Bill Slack is opposed to the Variances.
Morris read Bob Harvey's comments in opposition. He lives at 738 Glendale.
Harris said in looking at the proposal, Staff just noticed another Variance for driveway spacing. The current driveway is 20 feet from the neighboring driveway. Our code requires it to be 24 feet of spacing. It is already non-conforming but by pushing it closer makes it even more non-conforming. That component would require a Variance.
Medinger said they wished to withdraw their application.
It was moved and seconded to accept the applicant's withdrawal. Voice Vote: Unanimous. Harris asked Medinger to provide a letter asking for withdrawal.
|V.||ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.|