ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 13, 2006)

MINUTES

JUNE 27, 2006

CALL TO ORDER- Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR  97520.

APPROVAL OF FINDINGS – This item moved to the end of the agenda.

TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00078

REQUEST FOR AN OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER 18.88 TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 20 LOTS INCLUDING 17 LOTS FOR NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, TWO LOTS FOR OPEN SPACE PURPOSES, AND ONE LOT TO CONTAIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 247 OTIS ST.  AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW A MEANDERING SIDEWALK ALONG THE OTIS STREET FRONTAGE TO PRESERVE EXISTING MATURE TREES. 

OWNER/APPLICANT: SAGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC      

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – Fields had a site visit and has read the minutes and viewed the video from the last meeting.

Olena Black had a conversation with the Water Master who defined a spring as when water voluntarily comes to the surface.  If it is pumped from underground, it is a well. A well log was required for well maintenance deepening or well drilling beginning in 1955, and was to be filed with the Water Master.  The well log was done by the certified well driller.  A ground water right is a requirement, with exceptions.  A well for personal use is allowed to pump1500 gallons per day without having to get a ground water right.  There has to be some metering on the water resource well to determine the gallons per day. 

STAFF REPORT

There have been two public hearings: March 14, 2006 and June 13, 2006.  This action was continued from the June 13^th meeting. 

The applicant has submitted a Condition 33 addressing all the issues the Planning Commission raised.  Staff has reviewed and revised the Condition and believes the Planning Commission can approve it as revised if they wish to do so.  The last sentence of revised Condition 33 refers to a maintenance agreement because the well becomes the responsibility of the homeowner’s association.  It is hard to project how much the costs will be for insurance or maintenance.  Harris continued that under the modification, there would be a water feature fed by the natural spring on a common open space owned by the subdivision.  She assumed if the water feature is not on Lot 18 and not owned by the homeowners’ association and the land under it, it would be the maintenance responsibility of Lot 18.  She said the conservation easement would say the water resource is protected in perpetuity and the well can’t be destroyed or damaged.

PUBLIC HEARING

CHRIS HEARN, 515 E. Main Street, said the water feature meets the criteria as an existing natural feature. The applicant does not have a problem with Condition 33.  If the owner wants to cover it up, he knows of nothing that would prohibit them from doing so, but the owner wants to preserve it. 

This is Outline Plan, not Final Plan.  They want what is in the best interest of the community.  They want a wellspring on the common area to allow the competing interests of the generational owner to continue – the owner to have her swimming pool filled up as it has been for generations, as long as she is guaranteed that amount of water – and, for the homeowners’ association to enjoy the water resource to the greatest legal extent possible. 

DEVIAN AGUIRRE, 970 Clover Lane, believes the maintenance Condition is appropriate and can be executable in this language.  Aguirre said they would be metering the pool and exploring the geothermal, along with researching many other unanswered questions.  

Marsh wondered if the applicant would be willing to add something about giving the homeowners’ association the first right of access to the full water resource, if and when Lot 18 is developed.  Aguirre is willing to look at it.  

Stromberg asked how large the open space will be around the wellhead.  Aguirre said the size is noted in their second submittal.  There will be a landscape easement with some green space so it will feel like a congruent area 

It was noted the applicants will be bringing back more detailed information at Final Plan.

LIJA APPLEBURY, 704 Willow, said she is more confused tonight than at the last meeting. 

KINDLER STOUT and A GENTLEMAN yielded their time to ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower.  He passed around a handout and renewed his objection to the hearing.  He noted six procedural errors as outlined in his submittal of June 22^nd contained in the record.  Tonight’s handout lists new allegations of error beyond the first six.  Assignment of Error 7:  The Commissioners are looking at a negotiated condition of approval.   No findings have been submitted concerning the water source.  There is a conclusion without findings or logic (referred to Dolan v. Tigard).  The burden of proof is on the applicant.  Assignment of Error 8:   He asked the Commission to make a finding that the water feature is existing and natural, but is also significant and therefore falls under 18.80.030.c.  Assignment of Error 9:  What does the word “enhance” mean?  The significant natural feature needs to be protected.  Assignment of Error 10:  Under Outline Plan, we at least need to see lot lines. They in essence have a Lot 21 as a Condition but a plan without a Lot 21. 

Bullock referred to a separate document (part of tonight’s handout) that is related to the traffic issue.   

CYNDI DION, 897 Hillview Drive, said she is confused about whether the well is proposed to now again be part of homeowners’ association owned property or is it still retained as part of Lot 18.  Harris explained the applicant proposes putting the well on a parcel owned by the homeowners’ association.  There is no map or delineation.

Dion favors a conservation easement on the well feature, but would also like to see the conservation easement continue over the poolside.  It is not fully understood what is going on with the pool.

With regard to Condition 15 in the Staff Report Addendum II, Dion said there is runoff from the pool that should be considered as part of this application.  The runoff is currently being culverted into a 24 inch storm drain that eventually dumps hot water into Bear Creek.  DEQ will be talking to the Public Works Department concerning their sewage treatment affluent being too hot for Bear Creek.   There are many unanswered questions and more information is needed before establishing a conservation easement.

DON RIST, 260 Joy Drive, Talent, OR, said (in response to Dion’s e-mail to the City dated June 14, 2006) the pool bottom is concrete, not sandy.  He submitted a letter for the record from the property owner confirming same.    

Rebuttal - Hearn asked the Commissioners to keep in mind this is Outline Plan.  It would be expensive to come in with final specifications for Final Plan at Outline Plan.  The well wouldn’t meet any Dolan standards because the nexus is not there.

Aguirre said they have struggled with the issues that are interpretations of the code.  The natural resource should be protected through appropriate steps. 

FIELDS CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.  He said Bullock asked that the record remain open for an additional seven days.  The public has seven days in which to respond and the applicant then has seven days beyond that to respond to new evidence.  The public hearing is closed but the public record will remain open.

Molnar said he discussed leaving the record open for seven days with the City Attorney, Mike Franell.  He felt it would be best to honor Bullock’s request (as indicated on the Citizen Speaker Request Form).  The record will remain open for seven days for anyone to submit information based on the new evidence (Condition discussed tonight).  The applicant will be allowed at least seven days to make arguments but cannot submit any new evidence.  A new notice will be mailed stating the meeting will be on the July 11, 2006 agenda and the Commission will be deliberating toward a decision.  The July meeting can begin with deliberations.

The applicants granted a 180 day extension (October 18, 2006).

Fields announced the Planning Commission will conclude their deliberations at 7:00 p.m. on July 11, 2006 at the Council Chambers.

The record is only open for seven days in response to any new information. 

APPROVAL OF FINDINGS

PA2006-00284, 631 Clay Street, Kula Ohana.  Harris said there should be adjustments to Condition 9 because they might not build a bridge.  The first sentence to read, “That any new creek crossing…” and the third sentence “That any new creek crossing...”  And, the following sentence:  “The appropriate crossing shall be located on the subject site ‘or a conveyance granted’…”  This will give some flexibility.  Voice Vote:  The Findings were approved as adjusted.

PA2006-00278, 31 North Mountain Avenue, Archerd & Dresner LLC.  Voice Vote: The Findings were approved.

PA2006-00454, 825-857 North Main Street, Jerry Toney and Urban Development Services, LLC.  Voice Vote:  The Findings were approved.

OTHER

Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to create a committee to review the Land Use Ordinance.  Those appointed to the committee were:  John Fields, Mike Morris, Kate Jackson and John Stromberg.  Voice Vote:  The committee and appointments were approved.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to the Joint Study Session with the Housing Commission.

Respectfully submitted by

Sue Yates, Executive Secretary