Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-12 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:OO PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes: 1. January 8, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 2. January 22, 2008 Study Session Minutes V.PUBLIC FORUM VITYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION #: PA-2007-01941 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM LAST MONTH SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1070 Tolman Creek Rd APPLICANT: OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture AIA DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 52,163 square foot elementary school on the Bellview School site located at 1070 Tolman Creek Road. The application proposes partial demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new 42,678 square foot elementary school facility. The 9,485 square foot original Bellview School building (circa 1929) is to be retained and renovated as part of the proposal. Also included are requests for a Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces to allow 33 bicycle parking spaces where 68 spaces are required; and Tree Removal Permits to remove three Oak trees and one Sequoia greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). The application includes the removal of six smaller trees; because these six trees are less than 18-inches (d.b.h.) and located on public school property they do not require Tree Removal Permits. \[The Planning Director has determined the proposal is not subject to the Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands because the applicants have provided a survey establishing the floodplain Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 14 CA Tax Lot #4700; boundary as outside of the proposed area of disturbance.\] Zoning: R-1-5; Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Applicants: OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture AIA 1. Adoption of Findings PLANNING ACTION #: B.PA-2008-00053 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 201 Mountain Av S APPLICANT: Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture AIA / School District #5 DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 19,375 square foot auxiliary gym and music suite addition on the Ashland High School campus located at 201 South Mountain Avenue. The application proposes demolition of the existing 10,800 square foot auxiliary gym building and of the 5,600 square foot music suite; renovation of the 22,024 square foot main gym building; and a reconfiguration of the parking area located to the east of the existing gym building. The application also In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. requires a Variance to the required sideyard setback along South Mountain Avenue; the applicants propose to construct a ramp, stairs and landings to the property line where a minimum ten-foot sideyard Map & Tax Lots: Zoning: setback is required. 39 1E 09DA & 09AD Tax Lots #:100 and 6200; R-2; Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low-Density Multi-Family Residential VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. OTHER IX. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER – Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. a The Grove, 1195 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi-judicial items Michael Dawkins Mike Morris Olena Black John Fields Staff Present: Pam Marsh Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Melanie Mindlin Derek Severson, Associate Planner Dave Dotterrer Angela Barry, Assistant Planner Absent Members: Sue Yates, Executive Tom Dimitre, excused ANNOUNCEMENTS John Fields was not present for the first planning action concerning 165 Lithia Way. He had let the Chair know he would be arriving at the meeting after the completion of that action because he had a potential conflict of interest. Dawkins provided the Commission with a couple of 1970’s Tidings article from his grandmother’s scrapbook pertaining to the building of a controversial condo project built in Ashland in the 1970’s. nd The Planning Commission will discuss the Powers and Duties at the January 22 Study Session. Molnar reported the Council will start their deliberations on the Land Use Ordinance amendments at their meeting on Tuesday. th The kick-off meeting for the Croman Mill Redevelopment will be held on Wednesday, January 30, from 7 – 9 pm at the Bellview Grange. th The Council is scheduled to discuss the Planning Commission Powers and Duties at their February 4 Study Session. The Planning Commissioners are invited to attend that meeting. . APPROVAL OF AGENDA – Mindlin/Marsh m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved. CONSENT AGENDA - Approval of Minutes December 11, 2007 Hearings Board Minutes – Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve. Voice Vote: Approved. December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes – Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve the minutes as amended on Page 7. Dimitre voted “no” not “yes.” Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, asked the Commission if there had been any movement toward an ordinance change concerning garages in E-1 zones. Since this issue first arose in 2004, nothing has been done, but several garages have been built, particularly along Will Dodge Way. He asked they look into this and get back to him. Swales noticed the project at 11 First Street was reviewed at the Hearings Board today, and he was pleased to see the building has been reduced in scale from a three-story development down to a two-story development. He believes there is an historic grain and pattern to our downtown that needs to be respected with regard to bulk and scale, especially on smaller lots. BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, would like to add the following to the list of land use ordinance changes the Planning Commission will eventually review: 1) Sign code – particularly with regard to eliminating the prohibition of signs on more than two sides of a building, 2) using Billings Ranch as an example, determine what percentage of lot coverage we want. The building footprint may be a little bit too large for the lots – shrink the footprint, move square footage up, allowing for more useable yard area, 3) again, using Billings Ranch as an example – the sizable open space would be much more valuable if had been graded flat, and 4) investigate whether 21 feet might be a standard we use as credit for on-street parking. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-01939 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Lithia Way OWNER/APPLICANT: Urban Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct a 16,246 square foot, three-story mixed-use building for the property located at 123 North First Street and 165 Lithia Way. The proposed building will contain basement parking, commercial office space on the first and second floors, and four residential condominiums on the third floor. Also included are requests for modification of Planning Action #2007-00091 to allow the consolidation of two lots and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards’ Downtown Design Standards VI-B-3 to allow recessed balconies on the front of the proposed building. Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit Marsh, Dawkins, Mindlin, and Stromberg have walked and driven by the site multiple times. Black has driven by the site. The aforementioned Commissioners did not have any ex parte contacts. Morris has also walked and driven by the site. He saw Eric Navickas at a Christmas party and Navickas was talking about a 20 foot setback but Morris had no idea this application would be coming before them. Dotterrer had no site visit and no ex parte contact. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Barry described the site and the proposed building as outlined in the Staff Report. This proposal involves Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision and the building is proposed to be set back 20 feet. It is a three-story, mixed use building with parking underneath the building. The Historic Commission reviewed the project and believed it met the Site Design Standards. They recommended approval with the condition that the revised plans with architectural details are submitted for review of the full Historic Commission prior to submission of the building permit application. They strongly recommend the review of the revised plans during the early design development phase. Their recommendations are included in the record. The applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance to the Downtown Design Standards to allow for two recessed balconies on either side of the front. The application states that since there are no adjacent buildings on either side at this time, the balconies would create a variation in building height and give a staggered street front appearance that the Downtown Design Standards call for. The Historic Commission agreed with allowing the Variance. Overall, Staff believes the proposal meets the approval criteria for Site Design. There is a minor change to the findings (8.C.) that addresses the timing returning the plans to the Historic Commission based on their recommendation. There was a condition on the original subdivision that said the minimum size for treewells along Lithia Way would be four feet. The Public Works standard for treewells is five feet. The Commission may want to consider a condition reiterating that standard. Stromberg questioned the 12 feet allocated for parkrow and sidewalk. Barry said it would be 13 feet if they add the condition stating the treewell is five feet. Stromberg said the Street Standards say that in commercial areas, the standard is a minimum seven foot parkrow and eight foot sidewalk. Wouldn’t the applicant need some kind of Variance? Stromberg referred to Page 25 of the Street Standards where it talks explicitly about arterials in commercial areas. Molnar said when the local street standards were developed, they were primarily looking at new streets and residential areas and not a lot of thought was given to commercial sidewalk standards. The table in the Street Standards refers to seven to eight foot parkrows with a footnote that states: “a hardscape parkrow with treewells shall be used in commercial areas.” The Planning Commission has applied this when there is a commercial sidewalk standard, whatever the adopted width of a tree grate is (five feet), that is essentially the commercial parkrow because the remaining portion from the edge of the tree grate towards the building is the sidewalk (pedestrian travel area). Stromberg referred to Page 22 – Boulevards – It explicitly talks about treewells and hardscape, but it doesn’t say anything about reducing parkrows to the width of the treewells in commercial areas. If we are going to deviate from our own standards, we should require a Variance. Stromberg would like the applicant to respond. PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204 and JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, project architect. KNOX is excited that the Historic Commission unanimously approved the application. The building is well articulated and fits well into the Downtown Design Standards zone even when you include the issue about the arterial setbacks. The plaza space has been designed to allow the setback to move forward or if nothing occurs, the building still works well. The south elevation is very symmetrical. To the west side, the space orients to the project’s open space that is user-friendly and visible from the street sidewalk. There are a lot of human scale and pedestrian elements going into the front and the side. The east elevation will butt up to a future building, hopefully, within the next year. It’s presumed it will be at least a two-story building. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES JANUARY 8, 2008 The applicants are in agreement with all Historic Commission recommendations except one. The applicants are proposing to do Hardie Panel Siding on the east elevation because eventually a building will butt up against it. The Historic Commission thought they should be using stucco. There is a big cost difference between Hardie Siding and stucco, especially for a temporary situation. Knox discussed the proposed eight foot pedestrian pathway that cuts between the buildings. They can easily bulk up the column instead, as suggested by the Historic Commission. However, they would like to encroach into their own easement by about six inches on each side. White explained that the Historic Commission wanted the façade to be three equal bays and that is difficult to achieve. If they could have some flexibility to encroach into the easement, then they can accommodate what the Historic requested. Mindlin wondered if there could be a security issue with someone hiding behind the corner with the larger column. Knox thought just a six inch encroachment would safely work. White said part of the intention of having it wider would be to allow more light and air into that area. But he is comfortable with narrowing the opening to achieve what the Historic Commission would like. WHITE said, in reference to Stromberg’s question about the sidewalk and treewells, that they can move the sidewalk three feet. However, the subdivision showed four foot treewells and an eight foot sidewalk. They have room to move it if that is what the Commission wants. Knox said if the Commission feels that’s what they want to do, they can move the planter beds in a little so a Variance would not be needed. Marsh asked if they knew who their tenants would be. Knox said they have two local businesses that are interested. Both need to operate on a single level. White said that is why it became necessary to combine the two lots. Both businesses needed 4,000 to 5,000 square feet each on a single floor. Dotterrer asked, regarding the Administrative Variance, what the unique or unusual aspects are with the balconies. Besides addressing this in their findings, White continued that the balconies help articulate the building’s horizontal straight line when seen from the street. Knox added that the Exception to the Downtown Design Standards example is specific to decks. During the development of the Standards that became a very important issue. Everyone on the committee loved the Alex’s Restaurant balcony. They did not want to preclude that opportunity. In the case of this proposal, with the 20 foot setback, it is not your typical building right up on the street so it can allow for some flexibility with some of the deck areas. Black asked if it would be possible to extend the basement over to Lots 2 and 3. Knox said that is possible. They do not want to preclude anyone from being resource efficient. White said they will not be able to connect up to Lot 2’s parking because an elevator would be in the way. DANA GREAVES, 900 Strawberry Lane, CEO of Vortex, and future tenant of the building, said he plans to employ 42 people (in the next year) upon completion of the building. Part of the success of their business around the United States has to do with their customer service. They need to work very closely together internally. One location, one floor makes a lot of difference. He is excited about this opportunity. COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street , expressed his concerns that the building be built for a single tenant. Even if there are space requirements, they could probably be built with fire code doors between them. When the subdivision was approved, one of the nicest things about it was the way the lot was divided was hopefully going to provide the typical grain that we’ve had for our historic development in downtown. Here we have two lots and the result, even without the 20 foot setback, the building is wider than it is deep. It’s the same situation we had with Northlight. He would like the Planning Commissioners to see the minutes of the Historic Commission meeting because he understood there was discussion about asking for a recessed entry in the front of the building. The minutes might also reflect the Historic Commissions’ feelings about the plaza space out front and how it relates to our arterial setback in our downtown. Swales has been struck by the huge amount of excavation that has been going on in that lot. The drawing contours submitted back in January show a very gradual slope from the front to the back of the site. The applicants have subsequently submitted another grading plan. The excavating is quite dramatic. How will handicap accessibility be provided from the parking in the back to the front? Does the excavation match what has been approved by the City? He has a concern with the mutual easement. Rebuttal K -nox said there was a preliminary grading plan presented to the Planning Commission on January 12, 2007 that showed the drop-off in grade. The narrative discussed the possible undergrounding of the parking. White added said in order to work with the proposed design and entry, they had to modify the plan slightly. The plans were submitted and approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES JANUARY 8, 2008 Knox said in most cases, he would agree with Swales that you wouldn’t want to design a building for one user. The building has been designed for recycling hopefully for over 150 years. White said they have not shown any floor plans because it is intended to be flexible and allow for other entries. They could have three tenants. Fire code does not allow you to put doors through property lines. . Knox said the discussion came up at the Historic Commission meeting regarding a recessed entry in order to step it back and make it a little more pronounced. White said the Design Standards say “ground level entries are encouraged.” It is not mandatory. White said with regard to accessibility, they provide handicap parking and a gently sloping ramp. Knox said the property slopes 13 feet from the lowest part of the property to the sidewalk. Knox said they chose to have the pedestrian corridor. It lines up with the corridor next to the Jasmine Building and Key Bank, leading right into downtown, near the Varsity Theater and then back to the City’s parking lot. Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record. Staff Response – Molnar said if the Commission would like to strike any of the recommendations made by the Historic Commission, they need to make sure it is part of the motion. Severson said the pedestrian easement has not yet been recorded. They will be required to give us the details of the easement, their method of closing the passageway, and approval by the Fire Department. He thought with the method of closure they propose there will likely be some encroachment. Appicello added that the subdivision approval for the passageway was eight feet. The Commission could acknowledge there could be adjustments in order to address the Historic Commission recommendation. COMMISSIONERS’ DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION Discussion Items: 1) Deviation from Historic Commission recommendations regarding eight foot passageway. The Commissioners decided to leave this the architectural detail, size of the passageway and the encroachment between the Historic Commission and the applicant with Staff oversight. Marsh registered her plea to the applicant to not lock the passageway. It will provide connectivity to the whole Railroad District. She would hate to see it locked at night. Dawkins shared Marsh’s sentiments. 2) Sidewalks and parkrow. There was no further discussion on this item. 3) Materials (temporary) on the side of building – Hardie Panel Siding vs. stucco. Molnar said Staff is looking for consistent materials around all four sides. The east side is a very visual side of the building. The concern is how soon the next building will be built. The Hardie board panels are 4’ x 8’. Morris did not believe there was much difference between Hardie board and stucco. There was general consensus that the Planning Commission would agree to allow the Hardie board on the east elevation. 4) Administrative Variance for recessed balconies. Stromberg accepted that they met the unique circumstances because the front yard building setback is at 20 feet, it’s in the Historic District, and it’s a desirable feature for the building. Morris/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2007-09139 with the Conditions outlined in the Staff Report, but modifying 8)c) to not include the east elevation Historic Commission recommendation. Add a Condition that the pedestrian easement shall be modified to allow for minor architectural encroachments to respond to the recommendations of the Historic Commission. Add a Condition clarifying the tree grate standard that will be modified to comply with the five foot tree grate standard. Marsh said there is nothing to complain about in this application. The building is beautiful; it has wonderful connectivity with the neighborhood and has been produced to meet the letter of the law. Yet, if we had a line of these buildings in a row on Lithia Way we would not be producing the kind of environment that we want to have there. The problem is the rules as specified and as designed to in this building in an overall context are not going to produce the kind of environment we’d like. As we approve this, it is more and more incumbent upon us to look quickly at the rules we have in place to see if we do want to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES JANUARY 8, 2008 make changes to them so the environment that is developed around this building takes advantage of what has been placed on the ground, builds on that, but is developed under rules that we should amend. Black also feels this building is following all the rules and she regrets the Downtown planning initiative never followed through. We haven’t done it and this is the kind of project we get left with. Roll Call: The motion carried with Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Black, Stromberg and Mindlin voting “yes.” nd Adoption of Findings – The Findings will be adopted at the Study Session on January 22. PLANNING ACTION# PA2007-01941 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1070 Tolman Creek Road OWNER/APPLICANT: OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture AIA, Ashland School District DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 52,163 square foot elementary school on the Bellview School site located at 1070 Tolman Creek Road. The application proposes partial demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new 42,678 square foot elementary school facility. The 9,485 square foot original Bellview School building (circa 1903) is to be retained and renovated as part of the proposal. Also included are requests for a Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces to allow 33 bicycle parking spaces where 68 spaces are required; and Tree Removal Permits to remove three oak trees and one Sequoia greater than 18 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). The application includes the removal of six smaller trees; because these six trees are less than 18 inches dbh and located on public school property they do not require Tree Removal Permits. \[The Planning Director has determined the proposal is not subject to the Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands because the applicants have provided a survey establishing the floodplain boundary as outside of the proposed area of disturbance.\] Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit Morris had a site visit and attended Bellview School in 1965 and 66. Stromberg, Mindlin, Dawkins had site visits. Dotterrer, Fields, Black, and Marsh had no site visits. No one had an ex parte contact. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Severson explained the applicant’s request and described the site and history of the building as outlined in the Staff Report. The Historic Commission lobbied for the retention of the 1929 Bellview School building and have been actively involved in the public design charrette to insure the street presence and form of the building are both preserved and respected and that the bulk, scale and mass of the new building are compatible. The Historic Commission recommended approval with the condition that final architectural details be submitted for review by the full Commission prior to submission of a building permit; Site Circulation – As part of this proposal, the applicants are proposing to construct a separate bus loop to isolate the bus traffic (as they did at Helman School) off Siskiyou Boulevard to accommodate the five buses that serve the school in the morning and afternoon. Staff believes it is important to that the bus loop be restricted to buses only in order to eliminate potential traffic conflicts that would be created on Siskiyou if automobile traffic were allowed. They have recommended a condition to that effect. The pedestrian walkway adjacent to that bus loop is shown extending only partway to Siskiyou Boulevard. Staff has recommended conditions to require that the walkway be extended the full circumference of the bus loop and out to Siskiyou Boulevard, and that Siskiyou sidewalks be extended to the southeastern extent of the bus loop. He recommended that at the end of Condition 8 that the applicants sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for future improvements to Siskiyou in lieu of completing the improvements to the full 750 feet of frontage. Severson discussed the location of the drives from Tolman Creek Road. Public Works has recommended that both driveways be limited to one-way traffic, with traffic coming in at the southernmost driveway and exit out the northern driveway. A condition to this effect has been added. Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces The applicants are requesting a . Severson gave a detailed explanation that can be found on Pages 9 and 10 of the Staff Report. Planning Staff does not believe the application meets the required burden of proof for a Variance. Tree Removal & Protection – A Tree Protection Plan has been provided showing tree protection for the trees to be retained. In a report from Donn Todt, Ashland Parks and Recreation Department, Todt states that the trees in the grove along Siskiyou Boulevard “should receive the utmost in protection from construction activities. Fencing should extend as far as possible beyond the canopies, and cuts and fills with the canopy zones should be made only when all other options have been explored ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES JANUARY 8, 2008 and exhausted.” Staff is recommending a condition requiring a revised arborist’s report with the building permit submittal to address any special tree protection measures to insure their survival with the installation of the bus loop. Overall, Staff is supportive of this request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permits. Staff is unable, however, to support the requested Variance for the bike parking spaces as we believe that providing a significantly lesser number of bike parking spaces could have the affect of discouraging students from bicycling and would run counter to the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Commission decide to concur with Staff by approving the Site Review and Tree Removal Permits and denying the Variance request, we recommend the list of Conditions in the Staff Report. Black/Dotterrer m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. Severson said the two conditions he is recommending adding are: 1) That the applicant sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for future improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard, including, but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow plantings, curbs, gutters, and storm drainage, and 2) Incorporate a Condition 5.K), a Fire Department condition, referencing the memo dated January 8, 2008 from Margueritte Hickman. Mindlin is particularly concerned with the pedestrian and bicyclist access. Has there been any discussion about moving the bike parking to a different location on the east or south so it wouldn’t conflict with the automobile parking at all? Severson said there had not been any discussion. He would assume if the Variance is not approved, they might move some or all of the parking. PUBLIC HEARING Juli D’Chiro, Superintendent of Schools, 885 Siskiyou Boulevard, said they are pleased to have the opportunity for our community to build a new school. They are looking forward to replacing an antiquated and historic building, and they listened to the suggestions of the Historic Commission. They want to take advantage of the views of the mountains. They also want to separate the modes of transportation. They are trying to have as green a building as possible. They are using all the LEED design criteria. DAVID WILKERSON, OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture, 2950 E. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, said they have designed the school to the basic Site Review Standards. The factors limiting and driving the design were working around the existing Bellview Grange, the unbuildable area on the site (ball fields), the existing historic Bellview School, and light and prime views to the east. With regard to the bike parking Variance, they made a case in their findings. He has some additional data given to them by the Bellview Principal, Christine McCollum. There are seven kids who live out town and 50 kids who live across town or out of the normal attendance zone for Bellview. There are 49 kids that live across the freeway, and 19 kids who live in the mountains. He would ask for a slight reduction in bike parking if the Commission is not willing to give the full Variance. It seems odd that the same standards are in place for high school students as for elementary schools. They are proposing safe passage for bikes to get to bike parking. They proposed moving the bike parking or augmenting with bike parking adjacent to the library. Wilkerson explained the school’s floor plan. Wilkerson explained the traffic circulation. They want to separate bus drop-off activities from the automobiles. The kids will all be funneled through the main entrance. It is their strong desire to havea limited number of building entries. Parents of kindergarteners can park their cars and walk their children into the school. Wilkerson described the building design and materials. EGON DUBOIS, 381 W. Nevada Street , has been teaching bike safety for eight years. He believes bike education promotes a healthy lifestyle for kids and encourages the kids and the families to adopt this alternative means of transportation to school. Bellview School has been the only school in Ashland that has not benefited from a bike safety class in the past. He understands the way Tolman Creek Road has significantly changed and it is much safer along with Siskiyou Boulevard. He deplores both the reasoning for the bike parking Variance and apparent lack of interest of making cycling to Bellview School appealing to parents, students and staff. It is safe to assume gas prices will not be dropping and that would be an additional incentive for students and their families to commute on bikes. The number of students that have been used to calculate how many students could ride to school are numbers that are from the present and past, however, things change. If there is bike ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES JANUARY 8, 2008 safety instruction and any other encouragement, kids tend to ride their bikes to school. He thinks the one in five ratio in the ordinance takes into account the kindergarteners and first graders. KAT SMITH, 276 B Street, #2, said she is a bike safety instructor with Rogue Valley Transit District and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance. By the end of her two week long bike safety course the kids are wearing helmets, biking around their school, biking out into their neighborhood and practicing signals – how to safely ride around their schools. After teaching a course in Eugene, the ridership increased so much that the school had to retrofit their bike parking to add more spaces and create a bike lane. She asked the Commission to take into consideration now instead of later the bike parking and future ridership. The Bike and Pedestrian Commission did not support the Variance for many good reasons. She hopes the applicants can find a way to work this out. DUBOIS summed up by saying that 68 bike parking spaces could seem excessive considering there are typically about a dozen bikes parked at the school currently. He would like to think that providing more than what will be required will not be a waste of money but an incentive for kids to ride more. He sees it as an investment. Dawkins/Black m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. The applicants waived their right to rebut. Fields/Dotterrer m/s to close the public hearing and begin deliberating toward a decision. Black believes this is an important building and we can expect it to last for 150 years. She does not want to rush to a decision. Fields/Morris moved to call for the question. Voice Vote: Approved with Black abstaining. Roll Call on the motion to close the public hearing: The motion carried with Mindlin, Fields, Dawkins, Stromberg, Dotterrer and Morris voting “yes” and Marsh and Black voting “no.” The record and the public hearing closed. COMMISSIONERS’ DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION Bike Parking Variance – Marsh supports Staff’s recommendation. She agrees that the population of the school will change over time and we have no way to predict where those students will be coming from at a future time. It is important the public schools are a model for the community. Dawkins, Morris, Fields, Stromberg and Black agreed with Marsh. Dotterrer is fine with a partial Variance but will go along with the others. Bike parking location and access – Mindlin is very concerned about the convenience and safety of bicyclists approaching the building. Mixing bikes with any kind of street and parking lot driveway access into the school is just asking for problems. Dawkins believes the whole corner at Tolman and Siskiyou is a problem for pedestrians. Stromberg agrees with Mindlin about the problem and the goal. Dotterrer is not comfortable with where the bicycles are parked. Mindlin said the bike access should be separated from the driveway and parking lots completely and should connect in design fashion with crosswalks. Morris said the major transportation issue is with cars. Marsh said there is already a Condition that states there needs to be a separated circulation for bicyclists for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. She suggested adding a recommendation that the bicycle parking area be in more and different locations throughout the site. The architect has indicated they could do that. And, require the circulation for bicycles on the site to those various parking areas be part of the Staff approval. Design Layout - Black has objections to the site plan and the incorporation of the historic building. It looks like we are shoehorning something onto a past identity. Severson said there is a standard in 18.72.100 referenced in the Staff Report that the Planning Commission can require the preservation and restoration of historic buildings in keeping with the Comp Plan. That’s the direction Staff and the Historic Commission gave the applicant early on. Black is concerned about the east facing classroom layouts. She doesn’t see anything explaining energy efficiency in the site layout. Where are they are taking advantage of north light and southern exposure? Fields said with regard to accepting the historic building, the school got feedback and they responded to it. He thinks there has been a lot of oversight involved in this process and we shouldn’t walk in from this distant minimal purview and say what they are doing is all wrong. Morris agreed there was a lot of input by the faculty, teachers and the school board. Marsh doesn’t believe we should be holding schools and their functions to a higher standard than we would software engineers. We aren’t telling them to look at how the light comes in at their computer screens. We should be leaving kindergarten teachers to figure out how they manage their classrooms. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES JANUARY 8, 2008 Morris/Dotterrer m/s to approve this application, giving direction to Staff to define the bike access and the parking and to deny the Varian Mindlin would like to discuss the circulation of cars. Marsh agreed this is an important issue and she did not hear enough from the District as to why they don’t want to change it to a one-way circulation. Roll Call: The motion failed with Stromberg, Mindlin, Black, Marsh and Fields voting “no” and Morris, Dotterrer and Dawkins voting “yes.” Fields/Morris m/s to reopen the public hearing and allow further testimony and rebuttal. The public hearing will be re-advertised and re-noticed. Roll Call: The motion was unanimously approved with Fields, Black, Mindlin, Stromberg, Dotterrer, Dawkins, Marsh and Morris voting “yes.” ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINTUES JANUARY 8, 2008 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 CALL TO ORDER . Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at The Grove, 1195 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Michael Dawkins Mike Morris Olena Black John Fields Pam Marsh Staff Present: Dave Dotterrer Melanie Mindlin Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Tom Dimitre, arrived at 7:10 p.m. Maria Harris, Planning Manager Absent Members: NoneSue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to amend the agenda to include the Public Forum. ANNOUNCEMENTS Dotterrer gave an ODOT Citizens Advisory Committee meeting report regarding rebuilding of overpasses, in particular o Interchange 14. There are two pieces to what ODOT is doing: 1) The bridge upgrade and 2) the Area Management Plan and all the connections that go around the plan. The decision has been made that ODOT will not be replacing the overpass at Interchange 14. It is structurally sound enough that they can upgrade it. They are going to have a three-lane bridge with ten feet on either side of the travel lanes for bike lanes and an eight-foot sidewalk, making it significantly wider than it is now. With regard to the Area Management Plan, he sees the decisions we make around it, particularly the Croman property, will have an impact. ODOT will have recommendations to the City on short term traffic management changes immediately around the interchange area. Time Length for Planning Commission Meetings – The Commission asked Staff to bring them wording to modify the Rules o of Conduct in order to carry the public hearing an additional half hour, when necessary. Stromberg is having Staff and the City Attorney approve a simplified version of the statement that is read before a public o hearing. Black notified Stromberg of a discrepancy in the terms of office of the Planning Commissioners. She made her report, and the o Commission authorized her to move forward by checking the information with the City Recorder’s office. There will be a City Council Study Session on February 4, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers to discuss the o relationship between the Planning Commission and City Council. Later tonight, Dotterrer will talk more about this (Powers & Duties and Goals). Following this discussion, the Council is holding a Special meeting to deliberate the Land Use Ordinance Amendments. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Findings – PA2007-01939, 165 Lithia Way, Urban Development Services, LLC Ex Parte Contacts or Conflicts of Interest Dimitre was absent and is abstaining from the vote. Fields had recused himself from the hearing (not present) due to a potential conflict of interest because he might possibly be involved in the construction of the buildings. He recused himself from the approval of the Findings. Black, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Stromberg, Marsh, Morris and Mindlin reported no ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Marsh/Morris m/s to approve. Roll Call: The motion carried with Dawkins, Dotterrer, Stromberg, Marsh, Morris and Mindlin voting “yes,” Black voting “no” and Dimitre and Fields abstaining. ARTERIAL SETBACK PRESENTATION by Maria Harris and Bill Molnar - Draft Ordinance Language Molnar said this is the fourth opportunity for the Commission to talk about this. Hopefully the Commissioners and Staff have become better informed about the issues surrounding our Street Standards. There is a connection between our Street Standards document and some of our other design standards. They are all important and not necessarily in conflict. We are often faced with balancing multiple standards. The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to review the rough draft ordinance language that is included in the packet. The approach Staff has taken could easily be applied to the other arterials if that is how the Commission wishes to proceed. Molnar recommended the Commissioners not get hung up on the exact wording but focus on content and whether or not Staff’s approach has addressed the issues that have been raised. When the City Attorney, Richard Appicello gets the ordinance, he will reformat it, reworks words but not disturb the content. Staff took a little different approach with the draft. They are not proposing to repeal the 20 foot front yard requirement. Rather, they are looking at allowing some flexibility in that requirement (General Exception). If certain provisions are met, the Commission could grant a reduction in the requirement. It presents an option to a property owner. One option would be to build to the 20 foot requirement. The other option provides an opportunity to reduce the 20 foot requirement but still provides leverage to the community to insure that public improvements that are considered in the best interest of the community. For example, widening the street for the purposes of accommodating larger street tree grates in a larger sidewalk would allow a reduction in the setback. Staff has laid out three factors: 1) That the applicant reserve the space to accomplish the street improvement (sidewalk and street trees), 2) That often the applicant will be required to install the requirements to City standards, and 3) A requirement to enter into an agreement that acknowledges that the reduction or the general exception to the front yard setback is being allowed because of the reservation of space and the installation of improvements. Staff is offering another item that would allow them to consider, in some cases, not only reducing the 20 foot setback only to allow for the accomplishment of the street trees and the wider sidewalks, but in some instances, to allow for less than a complete reduction in order to preserve some public spaces. For example, when there are no other public spaces within a block. Staff is hoping tonight to get some direction to move forward to a public hearing with some draft language. Molnar asked the Commissioners to remember, that even if there is a public hearing, other issues can come out and hearings can continue to subsequent meetings. Harris said other issues that came up during Planning Commission discussions were existing language referring specifically to the setback from the front property line. The Council made an interpretation in May of 2006 that in a Downtown Design Standard zone that corner lots, regardless of which lot line was technically the front property line by definition, that the front property line on an arterial would be considered the front lot line. In this draft Staff has eliminated the front property line language and changed it to “yards” to capture side yards as well as front yards. To go further, there are some cases where there are rear yards on arterials. Harris said the other issue is the commercial parkrows. They have added draft language concerning how wide a commercial parkrow is supposed to be. They suggested five feet; the standard tree grate width. Staff believed that was the intent of the original ordinance. QUESTIONS Marsh referred to an e-mail sent by the Chair this week referring to bike lanes on Lithia Way. Are there bike lanes on both sides of Lithia Way? Harris said they were only on one side because it is one-way. The section from Oak Street where it transitions to North Main is the section of Lithia Way that is missing a bike lane. Mindlin thought the main intent of this process was to set a desirable design standard that we would pursue and that everything should be set back 15 feet. It seems we are stepping back from that now with the exception process. Once again we are in a place where there could be a couple of different standards and we aren’t clean about which we are trying to do. Why did the original intent change? Molnar said they heard different views from Commissioners. They could have just repealed the language, however, Staff thought some Commissioners were concerned about using the 20 foot setback as leverage to insure the improvements are reserved and installed according to the City’s standards. Oftentimes the projects we are seeing are infill projects. Along Lithia Way, we currently don’t have the right-of-way behind the curb to accomplish the current City’s street standards, sidewalk width and planting strips as well as the standard we are proposing. The Planning Commission often requires a dedication and at times that is not a big issue. But generally when requiring a reservation of space and a dedication, it has been found through court cases (Nolan and Dolan), proportionality needs to be shown in terms of what is being requested. Staff’s feeling is that the City has a 20 foot setback standard and most applicants would look for a reduction to the point where they can accommodate the new standard, ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2009 assuming we will always have the ability to get a dedication. We are recognizing one of the purposes for having the standard to begin with was for street widening. The values have changed. We are not looking at it so much for reserving street widening to extend the curb but for the widening of a pedestrian improvement standard that has evolved since the ordinance was adopted 40 years ago. They are still noting the purpose is to improve upon the width of the street but for the purpose of street tree and pedestrian-scape. Staff was thinking about this post-Measure 37 to provide leverage. Don’t give things away without insuring the public interest is protected. Fields is hearing Staff say that we are trying to retain our setback and allow us to have some flexibility. Stromberg added that by retaining the 20 foot setback requirement, we can do an agreement that says we will let the applicant out of that portion of the 20 foot front yard in exchange for the applicant dedicating the full 15 foot sidewalk and parkrow. Harris said the required street improvement has to be proportional to the impact the development is going to make. By making it a volunteer option and working it out through an agreement, we don’t have to deal with Nolan/Dolan issues. Molnar reminded the Commission we are just talking about Lithia Way right now. We review these options if it triggers a planning application. It would involve someone coming forward with a commercial project. Harris said the Street Dedication section (pages 7 and 8 of the draft) goes through dedication issues. Dawkins wondered why the Jasmine building, the Elks and Trinity Labyrinth don’t seem to follow the same standard that has been required for other developments. Molnar said the Elks landscaping was not a planning action. The Trinity Church submitted a long-term master plan for their campus showing a building at the corner in a future phase. The labyrinth was an interim offering of a public space. It was a decision made around that planning action. Mindlin asked about “Definitions – Back of curb” (page 1). Harris said generally the parking bays take the place of the parkrow. If there is a parking bay, extend an imaginary line from the back of curb through the parking bay and measure from there. Molnar said this would be easiest to put in a plan view. Fields referred to page 7, Section 7 – Plaza or public spaces. What is a public plaza and where are they? Is the Trinity Labyrinth public space or the area in front of the Jasmine building? He sees a need to identify all the existing public spaces. There are certain areas where we will want public spaces and several issues involved in how we get those. Molnar said there is a lot of redevelopment potential along Lithia Way. There are opportunities if these blocks develop in smaller, narrower buildings consistent with other parts of Main Street. Most often those buildings will be less than 10,000 square feet and won’t trigger public space requirements. The Jasmine and the Labyrinth would all qualify under the current standard. They are trying to get one public space per block. Black asked what goal in the Comprehensive Plan is addressed. Molnar said the adopted Downtown Plan speaks to the merits of having public spaces or small stopping off spaces and identifies a number of places. The Comp Plan has general wording giving the merits of how these spaces add to a downtown, but doesn’t get to the specifics of identifying any on the north side of Lithia Way. Dotterrer asked why with regard to plazas and public spaces the word “may” was used instead of “will” or “shall.” Harris said they were trying to provide flexibility for the Planning Commission to look at the issues. Staff was concerned if a plaza already existed on the block, would we want another one? If there are two properties next to each other that were vacant or re- developable, there might be an opportunity for a shared plaza between lot lines. Dotterrer wondered what happens if the Planning Staff was giving one direction to an applicant and the Planning Commission asks for another direction. Is that a concern? Molnar said it is a valid concern. Harris said to keep in mind the way this is written is to preserve the 20 foot standard unless there is an agreement that can be reduced for some reason and one of those is meeting the new set of plaza requirements. Stromberg asked if the Historic Design Standards apply to Lithia Way. Have the standards been extended to apply to commercial properties? If that is true, what is its relationship to the sidewalk and parkrow requirements of the Street Standards? Molnar said in the Site Design and Use Standards there are Historic District Standards. A lot of the graphics resemble residential buildings. When we did our Downtown Design Standards we incorporated a lot of the residential standards in the Downtown Standards with the idea of maintaining the historic façade of building to the property line. That is included in both documents. From a legal standpoint, Molnar understands that regardless of the graphics that accompany the residential district standards, they are binding on all projects in the Historic District regardless whether it is a commercial project or a residential project. There have been ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2009 discussions at the Historic Commission since adopting the Downtown Design Standards, that should we suggest an ordinance change that those standards reflecting residential buildings should only apply to residentially zoned Historic Districts. That has not happened. But, just like in any application in the Downtown, both sets of standards apply. Neither standard trumps the other; neither takes precedence. (Molnar used the Kendrick building on Lithia Way as an excellent example of applying both standards.) Stromberg noted in the Street Standards we typically specify minimum and maximum width for parkrows and sidewalks. But it seems every time it is applied, we always do the minimum. What are the criteria by which we can determine whether the minimum or maximum or something in between is required? Molnar said just the range is given in the Street Standards. There are no criteria specified. He thinks the range is given to maintain some flexibility to accommodate for different types of commercial streets. In some instances along Lithia Way, some consideration has been given regarding flexibility because the minimum is still going to provide for a larger public improvement from the curb to the building than anywhere along East Main Street. It is providing a wider improvement than we have in more of our existing areas. AUDIENCE COMMENTS MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204, said the way he’s seeing this now, it seems like we are still asking for the 15 feet of pedestrian way and still saying there is another 20 foot requirement along Lithia Way. It seems like we are going away from the idea and value we have been talking about to this point (streetscape, human scale elements, etc.). Hopefully it will be described with graphics. Questions & Suggestions: - What is the definition of street furniture? Does that include newspaper racks, planter beds, bench seating, etc.? What is the special baseline setback (page 2)? Is it from the centerline of the street? What if the centerline is not in the center of the right-of-way? - Properties abutting arterials (page 2) – the wording is too confusing. He’s reading it as “all four yards.” - Under “Plans required” it states everyone must get a survey if they require a planning action or building permit. What if someone wants to upgrade their HVAC system that would require a building permit? Would that person have to get a survey? - He likes the intent under II-C-2g (page 6) regarding the public spaces. It seems very discretionary. If we had a map that shows where plaza spaces are needed, it would be a lot easier for the property owner and planner to design something a particular way. He doesn’t want the applicant to be subject to redesigning. - Is the requirement for additional plaza space in addition to the ten percent required for large scale development? Knox will forward his notes to Harris for her review. COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, sees that vision, light and air and protecting arterials have been scrubbed from the amendment. Questions and Suggestions: - Definitions –Part of the Siegel Report said the Definitions should all be in one place. The draft ordinance is another set of definitions in this one section. If they apply in this section, they should apply throughout the code. For example the word “adjacent” has been used in different places. In this draft it means “abutting.” It was redefined at one time to mean it could involve properties that are spread out down the block. - Dedication of private property to the public – With any residential subdivider, sometimes 20 percent of a small lot is dedicated as public right-of-way. It is good through this process to get some dedicated public right-of-way where it is currently lacking. - When the ordinance says there should be no building or improvements within the reserved space, does that include basements underneath the surface? - What is a side yard and what is a front yard on a corner lot? - What is a side yard and what is a front yard? (Used DeLuca project as an example.) - Incorporate changes into R-1 and also multi-family zones. ERIC NAVICKAS, 363 ½ Iowa, said as an elected representative, he is very discouraged by this proposal to give up the public right- of-way in part or in whole. He read from a book, The New Metropolis about New York City from 1840 to 1857 by Edward Spann. The book discusses New York City’s spatial growth. With regard to the current ordinance, he finds it disturbing that the clause “to permit or afford better light, air and vision” has been removed. We will miss the opportunity for plaza seating and public space along Lithia Way. This could become a trellised or landscape zone that could add a nice public plaza area and café seating along the front of that part of the City and provide a transition from the harshness of the street and the harshness of the buildings. There is also the opportunity of future transit. We very well might be looking at a light rail in the future and this could be an excellent place for a transit stop. He sees the public right-of-way as the public commons. It’s unfortunate that the American ideal of individualism, free market capitalism and a disdain for the commons is manifest in our built environment. Cities in American are nearly devoid of public space. His feeling is the Planning Commission should not agree to this ordinance at this point, but should ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2009 look at a larger study and contextual plan of our Downtown. And, to send a message to Council that they would first like to see a Downtown Plan and secondly a Transportation Plan, before we give up this public right-of-way. Stromberg commented that when we have good planning processes, then we create something that is not only good for the public but it is good for commercial interests. As our elected official, Stromberg said to Navickas that he will be giving the Budget Committee his assumptions and guidance soon and he can push for the Downtown Plan as Navickas probably has more influence than the Planning Commissioners. Hartzell thought schematics for the draft ordinance would be useful. She would like an explanation of the dimensions of how the sidewalk café table ordinance will get protected in this proposal. Dimitre said, assuming someone came in for a planning application and there is a 20 foot setback from the property line, what is it we would be getting from a developer for us to give up 20 feet? Molnar responded that if there was property that followed Dimitre’s scenario, we wouldn’t be getting anything. It would be an exception Dimitre asked the mechanism to get a sidewalk to 15 feet. Molnar said the most common way to make it standard, would be for the applicants to dedicate any additional right-of-way so that the entire sidewalk improvement from the curb to where it ended is either in public right-of-way or public easement. Dimitre asked what would happen if someone wanted to go 15 feet from back of curb and can’t meet the requirements listed (Exception to Street Standards - page 12), does this mean they could get an Exception? Harris noted on page 2, the last sentence of D1.a states it could be processed under the Exception to Street Standards. She said it is practical to have ways for people to come up with alternative designs. Dimitre asked for specific examples “…no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Street Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site…” Harris said there is a notation that this was an approach suggested in the Siegel Report. Molnar said this clause is like a relief valve. They are trying to give decision makers a method to weigh and balance the purpose. Is there demonstrable difficulty or is there a better approach to meet the standard? Dimitre’s concern is that we may end up getting nothing from the applicants because they can go to the Exceptions section and do nothing. He would like to get something tangible, for example, affordable housing. He would like something to make it a more equitable transfer. Marsh asked Dimitre what he thought we are giving up. Dimitre said we would be giving up open space for potential café seating or other space. Marsh said it would be private open space. Morris said the ordinance states “equally or better achieves” the stated purpose of the Street Standards. Richard Appicello, City Attorney said Staff has explained the options. He added that Exceptions are a certain standard and Variances are another standard and if they don’t want to approve an Exception or a Variance, just state that. Molnar said if the Commissioners wish to move forward, they will come back with draft language and visuals. If they insert the visuals they used a couple of months ago, it is very clear up front that the applicant has to agree to certain performance measures. Is it worth trying to consider public spaces by using a map or rework it to make it more absolute and less subjective? In addition, Molnar said they are trying to anticipate other long-range work items. This is coming to the point of making a decision. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM EACH COMMISSIONER Fields is feeling ambivalent. All of it is subjective and we are in a place of not having a vision and not really knowing where we are going. If we do this piecemeal, we are going to create other problems. We are still stuck with discretion. Light and air does play a part. We don’t want to create canyons. Mindlin said Fields’ comments make a lot of sense to her. What are we getting? What are we giving up? She was looking for something more definite so applicants would know what to do. She’s feeling like “why bother.” Morris would like to at least see this go forward for a public hearing. Right now we are trying to control development so it happens a certain way. It’s odd to try and design a town this way. We are looking at trying to define everything on Lithia Way and he doesn’t think we can write a process, procedure or ordinance to define every part of it and make it work. He would like to see flexibility. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2009 Marsh would very much like to see this go forward, particularly for Lithia Way. It could make a significant difference in the pedestrian quality and development we will get along Lithia Way. Referring to Navickas’ testimony, she said she visited Manhattan recently. The buildings are right up against the sidewalk and it is the most vital, interesting, compelling pedestrian environment in the entire world. It is by far the most energy efficient city in the world. She would like to see us get rid of the ridiculous 20 foot setback on Lithia Way. She is afraid we are going to wind up with an office park that will be 20 feet of setback. It is important to leave the ordinance as flexible as possible. She has reservations about the plaza issue and would leave setback exemptions as flexible as possible. We want to see people have the ability to build things that really engage pedestrians and give them the ability to insert some creativity into the process. Dotterrer would like to go forward with this. This is meant to be for guidance and not directive in nature. He likes the flexibility in that he doesn’t want it to be stamped out and cookie cutter. He agrees that Lithia Way is the street that is of particular concern. He is perfectly comfortable doing away with the 20 foot setback. He doesn’t believe we are giving up anything. We are taking less of something that we were taking before and we were taking it for an insufficient reason. Dawkins does not object to going forward. He believes we have never really decided what Lithia Way is going to be when it grows up. He appreciates the density part of the argument. There is nothing on Lithia Way currently besides office space. He doesn’t find anything on Lithia Way he wants to walk by – real estate offices, title companies, etc. If we have the 20 foot setback, we have the opportunity to guide some of what the development may or may not be. He can’t visualize the 20 feet. He’d like a field trip or some way to clarify what the 20 feet is, showing property line, sidewalk, setbacks, etc. Dimitre echoed Dawkins comments. He has plenty of questions tonight and needs answers. He would support doing a Downtown Plan before giving up the 20 foot setback. Black feels like “why bother.” We are trying to solve a piece of bureaucratic ordinance making a design problem we haven’t tackled. It has larger implications than just the setback. With regard to giving and taking, she believes we are giving applicants a vibrant community. By taking 20 feet from them is in the interest of a positive Downtown influence. She feels the 20 foot setback is holding the line to something. She believes we need to deal with light and air and how the north side of Lithia Way is going to develop. It is a transition area. Stromberg said we are past due re-conceptualizing what should be happening in this critical heart of town that runs from the park all the way to the Railroad property. If we could get a vibrant, creative conception for all of that, then the more technical details would have the right context and it would all work well. He feels the town needs to a new conception. He is willing to move this forward and not add any more complexity than needed. He would let go of the plaza and not put any more work into that. On the other hand, he would favor an 18 foot parkrow/sidewalk (the maximum our Street Standards envisions). He likes big street trees and sidewalks broad enough that allow some excitement and playfulness for people when they have some room. The positive option on the Exceptions is worthwhile, but he believes it would be an experiment at this time. Morris/Dawkins m/s to direct Staff to move forward to prepare language for a public hearing. There are no changes to the draft tonight. Any comments from the Commissioners will be considered by Staff. Molnar said they have heard a lot of comments. They will come back with another draft ordinance so the Commissioners will have options, for example, whether or not the public plaza is deleted. Dotterrer suggested the Commission review the changes before the next meeting and come prepared enough to make a motion, discuss and vote on any well-thought out changes. Molnar said they are writing the ordinance specifically for Lithia Way, but they are trying to use a format that could be adaptable to other arterials. Dimitre/Black m/s to amend the motion to draft language for Lithia Way only. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. Roll Call vote on the amended motion: The motion carried with Dimitre, Stromberg, Morris, Dotterrer, Marsh, Fields and Dawkins. Mindlin and Black voted “no.” POWERS AND DUTIES Dotterrer explained that a few months ago he, Fields and David Stalheim, former Community Development Director, went before the Council and presented their recommendations on changes to the Planning Commissioners’ powers and duties. They listened to the Council, and what is front of us tonight is based upon what they (Stalheim and Martha Bennett, City Administrator) believed ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2009 they heard. It includes a lot of thoughts from many Councilors. There was no attempt during their discussion to have any consensus. It was just discussion. The general concern of the Council was that the draft the Planning Commission had put together gave too much direct power to the Planning Commission over land use planning without discussing the Council’s role. Dotterrer remembered when the Commissioners began writing the powers and duties; their goal was to tackle the overall land use issues of the City of Ashland. The question is: Do the words in the powers and duties still meet their goal while addressing the concerns of the Council? Dotterrer’s personal opinion is that he intends to stick to his views. If we think the new words don’t meet our goal and intent, we need to say so. th Stromberg said on February 4, 6:00 p.m., the Planning Commission will talk to the Council about powers and duties as well as Planning Commission goals and Council goals. How is the relationship and delegation of power to work between them? He is hoping for a good conversation. He thinks the Council now has a better sense of who they are as a body and where they are going. Molnar has recapped the work plan into a goals format. COMMENTS: Morris does not find anything in the powers and duties document presented tonight that is worth spending time on. He is looking at the changes and it has been pretty watered down. The current powers and duties are probably adequate. It would be good, however, to have a discussion with the Council. Mindlin thinks it makes some sense to meet with the Council to discuss their relationship. She does not see how changing anything in the powers and duties document changes what they can and cannot do. The relationship that’s been established between the Commission and the Council is historical. What’s written in a document makes little difference. Fields said it’s just words. What happens is what individuals think we should do. It would be good to build a relationship with the Council. Who cares what the document says? He thinks we can accomplish what we want with or without the document. Dimitre finds the changes troublesome. There are some things that can be salvaged such as sustainability and more involvement in regional planning. He is hopeful that it can give us some new direction Black said her big issue is that the Comprehensive Plan is out of date. The relationship of the Planning Commission to the Comp Plan and the document is saying the Planning Commission is advisory to the ad hoc committees. The Council is not giving us the big plan and the larger policy issues the Council needs to be dealing with are not being addressed. Marsh said this is about our desire to exercise leadership in the area of land use planning. Leadership and exercising leadership doesn’t emanate from a document. If we want to move forward on issues we can do that, at least until the Council tells them otherwise. In a bit of self reflection, we have spent the fifth meeting talking about the same issue (arterial setbacks) and the dominant sentiment is ambivalence about where we are. We have a ways to go if we want to be leaders. Stromberg said the Planning Commission as he has known it, has primarily been a reactive group. He sees planning being a much more active thing. Part of our job is engaging the community in thinking about its future. The Croman Mill Redevelopment is an exciting opportunity. Hartzell thinks the Planning Commission and Council have had a number of study sessions over time and those kinds of meetings are important. She would encourage the Commissioners that more than being concerned about the words, there is a good role for leadership at this level and she has seen it exercised in a number of ways. With regard to the Comp Plan, the Council is thinking about doing some things in advance about visioning. Before that happens, the community can do some shared learning on a variety of topics. The role of the Planning Commission is under state law and does give them the authority to do what they are doing. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2009 ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW February 4, 2008 PLANNING ACTION #: PA-2008-00053 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 201 Mountain Av S APPLICANT: Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture AIA / School District #5 DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 19,375 square foot auxiliary gym and music suite addition on the Ashland High School campus located at 201 South Mountain Avenue. The application proposes demolition of the existing 10,800 square foot auxiliary gym building and of the 5,600 square foot music suite; renovation of the 22,024 square foot main gym building; and a reconfiguration of the parking area located to the east of the existing gym building. The application also requires a Variance to the required sideyard setback along South Mountain Avenue; the applicants propose to construct a ramp, stairs and landings to the property line where a minimum ten-foot sideyard setback is required. Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 09DA & 09AD Tax Lots #:100 and 6200; Zoning: R-2; Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low- Density Multi-Family Residential Recommendation: 1) Tree Commission recommends the applicant consider removal of the Elm tree at the Northeast corner of the gym building due to the invasive growth pattern of this type of tree. The tree removal shall be mitigated on-site. 2) The Tree Commission supports the applicants revised landscaping plans. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5350 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us