ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 8, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Other Commissioners present were John Fields and Russ Chapman. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Brandon Goldman, Maria Harris and Sue Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
The minutes of the December 11, 2001 will be approved at this evening’s meeting.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2002-001
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING LOT INTO THREE PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 CLAY STREET.
APPLICANT: GREG GARGUS
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-002
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF AN EIGHT LOT, EIGHT UNIT MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 472 SCENIC DRIVE
APPLICANT: KIRT MEYER AND VADIM AGAKHANOV
This action was approved.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2001-113
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE TWO EXISTING LOTS INTO FOUR PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 849 AND 865 GLENDALE. THE TWO REAR PARCELS WILL BE SERVED BY A SHARED FLAG DRIVE. ALSO INVOLVES PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES TO ALLOW FOR SHARED DRIVEWAY.
APPLICANT: JONATHAN LANDES
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Chapman and Gardiner had a site visit.
Goldman explained that the applicant is proposing to divide the existing two lots at 849 and 865 Glendale Avenue into a total of four parcels as outlined in the Staff Report. A flag drive will extend between the two existing homes to the two proposed flag lots (Parcels C & D). Fourteen feet of the existing garage at 849 Glendale will be removed along with two feet off the north portion of 865 Glendale to accommodate the flag drive and the required six foot side yard setbacks. The lots are designed to minimize impact to the neighborhood.
Each flag lot will be required to have three parking spaces configured in a way that will enable cars to exist onto Glendale in a forward manner. The applicant has shown that this can be accomplished, however, no building design is included for these newly created lots. They will be required to show the parking at the time a building permit is applied for on Parcels C and D. Parcel A will have a parking space installed at the rear of the house that will be accessed along the flag drive, and will utilize one on-street parking credit along Glendale. Parcel B will utilize one on-street parking credit and the other required off-street parking space is existing on-site.
Neighbors have raised objections to the installation of sidewalks. Staff contends the neighborhood is urbanized and a Condition has been added to add a five foot sidewalk and a seven foot parkrow.
The rear parcels will be held to solar standard A.
The lots meet the minimum width and depth standards for the R-1-5 zone.
Condition 10 has been added to insure that excavation is minimal around each tree's root structure that is located in the area of the proposed sidewalk. Two large stature pines could be affected by the installation of a sidewalk. Staff believes a meandering design could work.
Condition 16 addresses the requirements of the Fire Department regarding a fire hydrant or sprinkling.
JONATHAN LANDES, 800 Liberty Street, said he would prefer not to install sidewalks to leave the nature of the neighborhood as it is now and that he does not want it to be an the expense of the owner. He would prefer to sign in favor of future improvement.
LES ZIMMERLEE, 848 Glendale, said his main concern, as a neighbor that lives directly across the street, is that the driveway is straight across from him. He said 849 Glendale has between five and seven cars parked there right now. By crowding the houses, there will be less room for cars to park on the property. If they put the street through, where will those cars park? He is concerned with safety. The houses seem to get rented to four or five college students and they each have a car.
BARBARA HANSON, 888 Glendale, addressed the parking. She read from the ordinance that no more than two lots can be served by the flag drive. It appears Parcels A, C & D are going to be served. This seems inconsistent with the rules. The off-street parking standards state there shall be no parking within ten feet of the flag drive entrance. She calculates there will only be 42 feet of uninterrupted curb, not 48, as required by ordinance. Goldman said the ten feet was included in the 48 feet.
Goldman responded that there three lots being served by a flag drive, however the flag is not 849 Glendale's sole access. Molnar said the flag drive ordinance was developed because of the Fire Department. No more than two lots should be "served" by a flag drive where fire apparatus would have to be stationed. Fire apparatus can be set up in the street to service the houses along Glendale. No more than two new lots can be serviced by way of a private driveway.
Hanson said the ordinance did not say anything about fire equipment access. She thought the traffic up and down a particular easement would be a consideration. She wondered if there was anything in writing as to how this ordinance had been interpreted in the past. Molnar said there is not a concern on the part of Staff because of traffic. There are public alleys in the city limits that service perhaps a dozen garages that are narrower in width than this driveway.
Hanson added that the neighborhood will be impacted by the additional development.
Gardiner explained that for safety reasons, one cannot park within ten feet of a flag drive curb cut. Hanson feels parking on the street creates a hazard for backing up. Gardiner explained the city is trying to eliminate the number of curb cuts by consolidating them as they have done in this development.
Goldman said if the Commission finds parking a problem, they can ask the applicant if he would be agreeable to adding a parking space.
Hanson read from the Comprehensive Plan under the Land Use Policy that property values are to be stabilized. In this instance, Hanson believes property values will decrease as lot sizes decrease. She sees a decrease in the livability of those already living in the neighborhood.
Hanson asked about location and type of screening of the flag drive. Goldman said that was included in a Condition of approval that the applicant will be required to screen or put up a bond for the improvements before the signature of final plat.
GAYLE MORRIS, 873 Glendale, said she lives next door to 865, and is concerned about property values. She has just had her backyard landscaped and a two-story house could affect her privacy. She understands they did a traffic count at Siskiyou and Glendale. Her neighbors next door have six cars. They always go down the street when they leave the house. The traffic is not from Glendale to Siskiyou but it goes down to Highway 66. That is concern for her. She definitely does not want sidewalks.
Goldman said Glendale is 36 feet curb-to-curb and is adequate to handle the additional vehicle trips.
Molnar said when Staff or the Planning Commission reviews land use applications, there are no specific approval standards for property values.
Chapman asked about the off-street parking situation. Goldman mentioned that the area where cars have historically parked will be eliminated by the installation of a flag drive.
Landes said the group with five cars will be moving as of February 1st. He invited the neighbors to call him when there are problems. He said two off-street parking spaces exist for 865 Glendale. There is a pad for two cars. If it exists now, that is the way it will remain.
COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Fields wondered if the pedestrian path from the street to the parcels is asphalt or will it share the driveway or be delineated? Goldman thought the pedestrian path would share the driveway.
Gardiner said the applicant has brought up the possibility of delaying the sidewalk for formation of a future LID. Molnar said Staff does not necessarily see this as an option. The transportation policies require sidewalks in all subdivisions. The Council has directed sidewalks to be installed at the time of land division. The new LID resolution is not intended to defer the costs to future property owners. The money can be put up now, but generally, it should be done at the time the lots are created. The Council wanted to get away from contentious LID problems. There can be an exception if there is a natural feature, but it would still require setting the money aside. He can understand the neighbors wondering if other linkages will occur or if this is a sidewalk to nowhere. It takes time, but ultimately linkages will occur. In this situation, there are no physical constraints.
Chapman moved to approve PA2001-113 with the attached Conditions. He added that this sort of development complies with the ordinances, which reflect the Comprehensive Plan. This is the direction of development the Council wants the community to take. There is nothing in the application to warrant a denial. Fields seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT- The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Gardiner re-opened the meeting.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS- Findings for PA2001-113 were approved.
ADJOURNMENT- The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
FINDINGS TO APPROVE
Voted unanimously to approve findings for this planning action.