City of Ashland, Oregon / City Recorder / City Council Information / Packet Archives / Year 2005 / 02/01 / Mtn. Pines
Mtn. Pines
Council
Communication
Appeal of Planning Action 2004-105 - A Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
of a Seven-Lot Subdivision, an Exception to the Street Standards, a Tree
Removal Permit, a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit
and a Variance to Off-Street Parking Requirements for the Properties Located
at 759 and 769 South Mountain Avenue
|
| Meeting Date: |
February 1, 2005 |
|
Primary Staff Contact: |
Maria Harris, 552-2045 harrism@ashland.or.us |
| Department: |
Planning |
|
Secondary Staff Contact: |
John McLaughlin, 552-2044, mac@ashland.or.us |
| Contributing Departments: |
|
|
|
|
| Approval: |
Gino Grimaldi |
|
|
|
Statement:
The appellant submitted a brief providing further information on the grounds
for appeal and related approval criteria. Staff has reviewed the material,
and addressed the items in the body of this report. The record was distributed
to Council on January 21 to provide additional time for review, and the timeline
of the application was included in a Council Communication as the cover for
the record. The appellant's brief was received on January 24, and is being
distributed with this communication. |
| 0 |
Background:
The Staff report included in the record provides a detailed description of
the proposal, and the issues raised. See pages 36-48 of the record for this
report, and pages 15-26 for the findings.
A timely appeal was filed by Randall Hopkins on December 30, 2004 including
thirteen issues as the grounds for the appeal. On January 24, 2005, the appellant
submitted a brief providing additional information addressing the issues
raised on appeal. The brief contains eight objections on pages 4 through
20, and Staff has provided information pertaining to the objections by the
order used in the appellant's brief.
|
Objections 1 and 2
Regarding Objections 1 and 2, the Prospect Street improvement approved by
the Planning Commission meets the street standards for driving surface width
and we believe that the applicant has provided the necessary information
and evidence necessary for an Exception to the Street Standards to install
a curbside sidewalk. In addition, the Planning Commission felt the Prospect
Street improvement is proportionate to the additional ten trips per day,
visitor parking use and additional pedestrian trips that would be generated
by the proposed subdivision.
The Planning Commission found Prospect Street improvements to meet the criteria
for an Exception to the Street Standards to provide a five-foot wide sidewalk
on the south side of Prospect Street. The standard for a Neighborhood Street
requires a seven-foot wide parkrow between the curb and the sidewalk with
a five-foot wide sidewalk. The approved curb-to-curb width, or driving surface,
meets the required widths for a Neighborhood Street. With the approval of
the Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk, the
Planning Commission found that the right-of-way width to be adequate. As
a result, the Planning Commission found that a street dedication was not
required.
Four parcels currently have access from Prospect Street including three developed
lots and one vacant lot. As approved by the Planning Commission, Prospect
Street would provide pedestrian access to seven parcels and automobile access
to five parcels. The Planning Commission found that the approved curbside
sidewalk improvement was adequate to serve relatively low pedestrian volumes
generated by seven homes. Additionally, given the relatively low number of
vehicular trips generated by five homes, the Planning Commission felt the
buffer to pedestrians provided by a parkrow was not critical as compared
to higher volume street such as South Mountain Avenue.
Finally, the discussion of the Planning Commission recognized the nexus between
the additional use of Prospect Street by the proposed development and the
level of required improvement. The proposed subdivision would use Prospect
Street for vehicular access for one lot, visitor parking for up to three
lots, and pedestrian access for three lots. As a result, the proposed development
would add an average of ten trips per day to Prospect Street and potentially
some pedestrian traffic. The applicant would be improving an unpaved street
without pedestrian facilities to the widths required for a Neighborhood Street,
and provide a sidewalk on the south side of the street. Additionally, the
applicant proposed a vehicle turnaround to address concerns regarding the
current use of the carport on the north side of Prospect for maneuvering
vehicles. The discussion of the Planning Commission recognized that concerns
raised by neighbors regarding Prospect Street are existing, and that the
additional ten vehicle trips per day, on-street parking use and additional
pedestrian trips would not significantly exacerbate the current situation.
Subdivisions completed under Chapter 18.80 are subject to the street standards
in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options (18.80.030.A.1). The street
standards in Chapter 18.88 provide an exception process (18.88.050.F). The
Exception to the Street Standards is a process that allows the applicant
to propose an alternative street design to the components required in the
Street Design Standards for new and reconstructed streets. The Exception
process was designed to allow flexibility to adjust to natural conditions
such as preservation of mature trees, slopes, wetlands, drainages and creeks,
and rock outcroppings, and to address areas where adjacent development has
occurred prior the street improvement. The exception process was included
in the Street Standards to provide a mechanism to respond to topographic
constraints in Ashland, to provide a balance with the emphasis of City goals,
policies and regulations on preservation of natural features and in recognition
that development could occur in areas with an existing street network.
The appellant has raised the issue of street dedications required under Chapter
18.82, Street and Greenway Dedications. The purpose of the chapter is in
Section 18.82.010 stated as follows.
| -- |
To provide timely and orderly improvement and enlargement of the City
street and greenway system through the dedication of land by property owners
upon development of their land. |
The intent of the chapter is to address future street dedications in undeveloped
areas rather than improving undeveloped existing public streets. |
|
- |
|
|
Objections 3 and 4
Regarding Objections 3 and 4, we believe that the proposed sidewalk and parkrow
improvements to South Mountain Avenue and the sidewalk improvement to Prospect
Street can be accommodated through a public pedestrian easement. An easement
retains the property in the ownership of the respective lots, is not a
right-of-way dedication, and therefore does not reduce the lot size.
Subdivisions performed under the Performance Standards Options in Chapter
18.88 are not required to deduct land dedicated to the public including street
improvements from the density of the project. Additionally, the Planning
Commission can waive the minimum lot size requirement for dedications of
property for public use as street right-of-way (18.76.190) for Land Partitions
performed under Chapter 18.76. Installation of improvements such as sidewalks
on existing dedicated streets has been considered a benefit for the neighborhood
as well as the development. As a result, any right-of-way dedications are
not deducted from minimum lot size to provide an incentive to install sidewalks
with development proposals. |
|
- |
|
|
Objection 5
Regarding Objection 5, we believe that the applicant has provided the necessary
information and evidence to address the appellant's concerns regarding lot
size.
The issue of lot size for Lots 4, 5, and 6 was not raised during the previous
hearings in front of the Planning Commission.
The appellant has referenced a staff response dated 02.25.03. However, the
current application was not filed until 07.15.04, therefore, staff's comments
were made regarding a previous plan that is not part of this record.
Review of the submitted plan shows that while the applicant has shown the
lot areas for lots 4, 5, and 6 including the flag drive areas (11,950, 12,099,
and 12,895 sq. ft. respectively), when the flag portions are deducted from
the lot area, all lots are a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. The appellant has
indicated that if you include the paved drive as well as the flag pole portion
of the lot, then the lot sizes drop below the required minimum. However,
the ordinance states that the flag drive shall not be included in the lot
area calculation, but does not include other paved access areas.
The City has historically only excluded the flag pole portion of a flag lot
from the calculation of lot area. Standard lots contain vehicle access and
driveways which are not excluded from lot area calculations. The purpose
of the flag pole exclusion is to ensure that the someone could not propose
a long flag drive (for example, 300' in length by 15' in width) encompassing
4500 sq. ft., then only a very small building lot at the end.
Staff believes that the lot configurations comply with the City's ordinances. |
|
- |
|
|
Objection 6
Regarding Objection 6, the Planning Commission found that the provision of
on-street parking and an above-grade sidewalk were necessary to improve the
existing parking situation and provide safe pedestrian access on the section
of Prospect west of the proposed turnaround.
It is Staff's understanding that the owners of the two parcels at the dead
end (west end) of Prospect , 1036 Prospect and 1043 Prospect, have had a
disagreement related to on-street parking adjacent to their properties.
Currently, the west end of Prospect is signed no parking. The applicant presented
an option for on-street parking at the west end of the street with an "at
grade" sidewalk. Comments were received by the Planning Commission regarding
the necessity for parking west of the turnaround, the concern that emergency
vehicles will be able to negotiate the turn to access the property at the
west end of the street if on-street parking is permitted, the preservation
of the trees on either side of the street, and the need for a separated above
grade standard sidewalk. The owners of 1036 Prospect Street and of 1043 Prospect
Street have submitted letters for the appeal proceedings.
Staff recommended the following condition of approval which was deleted in
the Planning Commission decision. The condition was tailored to allow the
provision of on-street parking if it could be demonstrated that adequate
area for vehicle maneuvering and emergency vehicle access is provided. Since
the issues are existing and are beyond the impact area of the proposed
development, the Council may want to consider attaching the previously suggested
condition.
| -- |
14) |
That the proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround
shall be improved as proposed with 22 feet of width and on-street parking
on one side if the following conditions are satisfied: 1. a vehicle turnaround
easement is obtained from the property owners of 1036 Prospect for use of
their driveway for a turnaround area, 2. it is demonstrated that it is possible
for a vehicle parked on the north side of Prospect on the west end to turnaround
in the driveway and exit out of Prospect Street in a forward manner, and
3. the Fire Department determines that a emergency vehicle can negotiate
the turn into 1036 Prospect with automobiles parked on the north side of
Prospect on the west end. If the before mentioned conditions are not satisfied,
the Prospect Street improvement shall be reduced in width and on-street parking
shall not be permitted west of the turnaround. The engineered drawings shall
be revised accordingly. |
In addition, the installation of the above grade sidewalk as required by
the Planning Commission does extend the area of construction impact at least
five feet closer to the cluster of trees in the northwest corner of the parcel
to be preserved. The Council may want to consider retaining an at grade sidewalk
as proposed by the applicant to lessen the impact to the trees. If Council
chooses this direction, Staff recommends the following revision to condition
8 of the Planning Commission Findings dated November 9, 2004.
| -- |
8) |
That the sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Street shall be a minimum
of five feet in width in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards as
required in 18.80.030.A.1. In addition, west of the turnaround, the sidewalk
shall be a standard curbside rather then at the same level as the driving
surface and incorporated into the total curb to curb width of 22 feet as
shown in the application. The sidewalk shall be connected through the turnaround
area by providing wheelchair ramps and installation of the at grade sidewalk
in the turnaround. Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement
shall include the increased sidewalk width, standard curbside sidewalk west
of the turnaround, and crossing area, and shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Ashland Engineering and Planning Divisions. |
|
|
- |
|
|
Objection 7
Regarding Objection 7, Staff reviewed the tree protection bond provision
in Section 18.61.250. Section 18.61.250 states:
The City may require the permittee to post with the City a bond, or other
suitable collateral as determined by the city administrator, ensuring the
satisfactory completion and maintenance of the tree protection plan. Suitable
collateral may be in the form of letters of credit, certificates of deposit,
cash bond, or bonds issued by an insurance company legally doing business
in the State of Oregon."
The issue of posting a security bond for the tree protection plan was raised
and discussed at the November 4, 2004 Tree Commission meeting. Specifically,
the applicant's history on other projects was raised in a letter from the
appellant to the Tree Commission. After the letter was read by a neighbor,
a Tree Commissioner questioned the applicant on his history of tree protection
on projects outside of the application. Staff cautioned the Tree Commission
from considering evidence other than merits of the application that was
presented. Despite Staff's recommendation, the applicant chose to respond
to the line of inquiry. In the final recommendations of the Tree Commission,
a requirement for a security bond was not included. |
|
- |
|
|
Objection 8
Prior to the opening of the public hearing at the November 9, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting, the appellant raised the issue of ex parte contacts by
Planning Commissioner Dave Dotterer. Two Commissioners (Dotterer and John
Fields) declared ex parte contacts that occurred directly after the October
12, 2004 meeting. The Commission reviewed the declarations. The Commission
felt the Commissioners were not biased and could participate in the proceedings.
Staff is not aware of, and has not received evidence of any other ex parte
contacts by Commissioners, other than the comments in the appellant's brief
which do not specifically state the name of the commissioner, the nature
of the conversation, nor the content of the ex parte contact.
Staff presented a report on the materials submitted to address the issues
raised at the October 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. The Chair of
the Commission also allowed the applicant to speak at the beginning of the
continued public hearing to address the new issues. |
|
| - |
Council
Options:
The Council may approve, approve with modifications and conditions, or deny
the application. |
| 0 |
Staff
Recommendation:
The decision of the Planning Commission had two components. First, the Commission
found the Preliminary Plat for the Subdivision, the Exception to the Street
Standards for Prospect Street and the Tree Removal Permit complied with the
applicable ordinance requirements. Second, the Commission found the Conditional
Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit, Variance to Off-Street Parking
Requirements for the Accessory Residential Unit and the Exception to the
Street Standards for South Mountain Avenue did not meet applicable ordinance
requirements.
The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for the Subdivision,
Exception to the Street Standards for Prospect and Tree Removal Permit by
a 7-1 vote, and unanimously denied the Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory
Residential Unit and Variance to Off-Street Parking Requirements for the
Accessory Residential Unit. Condition 27 of the Planning Commission findings
dated November 9, 2004 on pages 15-16 of the record required the installation
of a parkrow on the South Mountain Avenue sidewalk improvement.
After review of the new information and the concerns raised by the appellant,
Staff supports the decision of the Planning Commission and recommends the
Council approve the request (with the denial of the CUP and Parking Standards
Variance) with the attached conditions as stated in the findings on pages
15-26 of the record. The Council may wish to attach other conditions that
they deem relevant to the criteria for approval. |
| 0 |
Potential
Motions:
Move to approve the application for the Preliminary Plat for a Seven-Lot
Subdivision, Exception to the Street Standards for Prospect Street and a
Tree Removal Permit included in PA 2004-105 with 28 attached conditions as
approved by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2004; and move to deny
the application for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential
Unit, a Variance to Off-Street Parking Requirements for the Accessory Residential
Unit, and an Exception to the Street Standards for Mountain Avenue included
in PA 2004-105.
Move to approve the application as submitted.
Move to deny the application as submitted. |
| 0 |
| Attachments:
*Exhibits Submitted
at February 1st Council Meeting:
Exhibits
1-15 /
Exhibits
16-17
|
End of Document - Back to Top
|
