Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-09 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 DECEMBER 9, 2008 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. November 6, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting 2. November 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting B. Adoption of Findings for 2200 Ashland Street, PA #2008-00911 V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2300 Siskiyou Blvd. APPLICANT: Steve Asher DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct thirteen condominium units for the property located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Also included are requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow tree removal and parking space installation on Flood Plain Corridor/Riparian Preservation Lands adjacent to a culverted section of Clay Creek; Tree Removal Permits to remove 36 of the site’s 78 trees; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks and curbs along Siskiyou Boulevard frontage. (The approval of this application would replace the previous Performance Standards Options subdivision approval from PA #96-131). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 14 CA; TAX LOTS: 7700, 7800, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, 7805, 7806, 7807 and 7808. 1. Adoption of Findings B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01517 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 232 Vista Street APPLICANT: Kerry KenCairn DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Land Partition, a Type II to Variance to the requirement 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. that the new lot have a paved 20-foot wide access or an unpaved 20-foot wide access with less than 10 percent slope, and a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for development and tree removal on Hillside Lands. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09BC; TAX LOT: 7500 VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Select Planning Commission Representative for the Interchange 14 Bridge Design Review Committee. VIII. 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 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: John Stromberg, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Mike Morris April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Dave Dotterrer Michael Church Absent Members: Council Liaison: Tom Dimitre Cate Hartzell Debbie Miller ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar reminded the Commission of their December 18, 2008 Study Session. He also announced the City Council Public Hearing on the Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance has been tentatively scheduled for January 20, 2009. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance Staff noted the following items were submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting: Memo from Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson which listed questions and concerns about the use of herbicides, equipment weight restrictions, vegetation replanting requirements, and annual reviews. Email from Eric Bonetti questioning where the centerline would be measured for creeks with more than one channel. Email from Councilor Hartzell regarding the herbicide issue. Emails from Commissioner Miller. Stromberg noted the discussion outline that was used at the last meeting and clarified they would pick up where they left off. Enforcement & Penalties Planning Manager Maria Harris stated language was added that references the General Penalties section of the Ashland Municipal Code, which outlines the procedure for citations and fines. This section also includes language requiring an owner to re-establish the natural condition when a water resource protection zone is illegally altered and language that allows the court to impose additional fees for enforcement costs incurred by the City. Ashland Planning Commission November 6, 2008 Page 1 of 5 Comment was made questioning how this would be enforced, and whether penalties for intentional violations would differ from accidental incidents. Suggestion was made that staff should attempt to work with the property owner to remedy the situation before issuing a citation. Mr. Molnar clarified this ordinance would be enforced by the City’s Code Compliance Officer. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the General Enforcement section of the Ashland Municipal Code and clarified the maximum fine that can be applied according to the City Charter is $500; however, the Commission could set a minimum fine for intentional activities if they desire. The Commission discussed the proposed language. Concern was expressed with the requirement that regardless of the violation, the property owner is required to submit a mitigation plan prepared by a natural resource professional. Staff acknowledged the Commission’s concerns and suggestion was made to modify Section 18.63.140(B) to read, “Within thirty days (30) of notification by the City of Ashland Planning Division of a violation of unauthorized alteration of native vegetation or disturbance of land, mitigation shall be required, and the staff advisor may require a mitigation plan prepared by a natural resource professional.” The majority of the Commission indicated support for this section as modified. Removal of Invasive Vegetation Ms. Harris noted Ecologist Jeannine Rossa’s testimony that it is safe to use glyphosate without surfactants in the riparian area, and Mr. Robertson’s concerns that this ordinance might prohibit the Parks Department’s use of herbicides. Staff indicated a compromise might be to allow use of this type of herbicide only if it is applied by a trained professional. Ms. Harris noted the report on Managing Himalayan Blackberries that was sent out to the Commission and clarified the findings indicate the most effective treatment for blackberries is mowing or cutting down the canes and then treating them with herbicide. She stated this report makes the case that it is better to remove blackberries in riparian areas and replant with native vegetation since blackberries do not provide significant shade, have shallow roots, and don’t allow any new trees or shrubs to be established in the area where they have taken over. Dawkins voiced his opposition to the use of herbicides and commented that DDT is a good example of a product that was suppose to be really good, but turned out to be harmful. He also disagreed with the proposed removal approach and stated in his experience, the most effective way to eradicate blackberries is to cut them down and dig out the roots. He also shared his concerns regarding bank instability once the blackberries are removed. Stromberg noted the email submitted by Councilor Hartzell and asked if the Commission would allow Hartzell to share her input. Staff recommended the public hearing be re-opened if the Commission wants to allow her to speak. Stromberg re-opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Councilor Hartzell noted the testimony from Rick Landt who told the Commission about successfully removing blackberries manually. She also noted a study that found that blackberries can come back after herbicide application. She clarified her email spoke about toxicity and how it affects waterways and noted the proposed ordinance is suppose to protect the water and habitat; blackberries should not be the main objective. Stromberg asked if anyone else wished to provide testimony and then closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. The Commission continued their discussion on whether to permit herbicide use. Mindlin noted the ordinance requires a Type I application approval before herbicides can be used. She commented on trying to find a compromise to the issues raised and suggested the ordinance be modified to include the following: 1) only allow glyphosate without surfactants herbicides, 2) application of the herbicide could only be done by a certified professional, 3) include a limitation on the number of herbicide re-applications, and 4) include language that encourages repeat mowing as a method for removal. Dawkins indicated he is against the use of herbicides, but is willing to compromise and is Ashland Planning Commission November 6, 2008 Page 2 of 5 comfortable with Mindlin’s suggested amendments. Staff clarified the Parks & Recreation Department would be required to file an application; however, it may cover a longer period of time. It was also clarified the cost for a Type I application is approximately $900. Dotterrer expressed concern with this cost. Marsh commented that this would discourage homeowners to use herbicides to remove a minimal amount of blackberries, but would allow herbicide use in the more extreme situations. Comment was made questioning how the Parks Department applies herbicides and some concern was expressed with spraying rather than dabbing on the product. Mr. Molnar commented on the expenses associated with a Type I approval process, including the noticing requirements and the staff time spent responding to citizens. He also noted there is a provision in the ordinance that allows the fee to be reduced for restoration enhancement activities. Ms. Harris re-stated the four proposed amendments outlined by Commissioner Mindlin and the majority of the group indicated support for this section as amended. Hardship Variance Ms. Harris indicated the ordinance is required to include a hardship variance. It was clarified this would be a Type II action and would come before the Planning Commission for approval. Creeks with More than One Channel Staff was asked to respond to Mr. Bonetti’s email questioning where the centerline would be measured for braided creeks. Staff indicated the ordinance is currently silent on this issue, but they could include language if the Commission desires. Mr. Molnar commented on how other communities address this issue and stated in these instances measurement is typically taken from the center of the braid. Support was voiced for clarifying this in the ordinance. Mr. Molnar noted there are situations were there is a dominant channel, and there may be a need for judgment in some cases. Suggestion was made to include language that indicates where there is an unusual creek bed, staff will visit and evaluate the site. The Commission voiced support for including language to this effect in the ordinance. Setback Issues Stromberg reviewed the setback issues listed in the discussion outline. Staff clarified the reduction provision associated with 18.63.080 states up to 50% and only the minimum amount needed would be granted. Comment was made questioning whether staff would be allowed to take the size of a house into consideration when determining the appropriate reduction. Mr. Molnar clarified staff generally does not take into account the size of the house, but evaluates the size of the buildable area outside the protection zone. He added the ordinance states any adjustment to the protection zone would only be the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the use. Ms. Harris commented on the Top of Bank issue and clarified the ordinance was amended to include physical characteristics to help identify top of bank. Activities Issues Stromberg reviewed the activities issues listed in the discussion outline. Ms. Harris clarified the replanting standards were changed to indicated a minimum plant size of 4 inches for ground cover, the ¾ in. caliper for tree size was removed, and the requirement to identify the plant sources and suppliers was removed. She added staff did not make any changes addressing the canopy tree planting configuration. Recommendation was made to include language that provides staff the ability to approve a different configuration so long as the canopy issue is addressed. Ms. Harris noted the previous language that was inserted into the ordinance and suggested they reinsert the following statement, “Canopy trees shall be planted at 20 ft. intervals or such other interval as required to install materials required for tree mitigation …” Support was voiced for replacing this language as suggested by staff. Council Liaison Hartzell left the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Comment was made questioning the ability for backyard food production in the riparian zone. Staff clarified this would be permitted in the 50/50 zone. It was also questioned if a property owner would be permitted to protect this area with fencing. Mr. Molnar commented on the floodplain regulations and stated solid fences are restricted within 20 ft. of the floodplain. It was questioned if other types of fencing might be acceptable in riparian areas. Ms. Harris stated the idea Ashland Planning Commission November 6, 2008 Page 3 of 5 is for fencing to be generally prohibited, but they could make an exception for deer fencing in specific cases. The Commission discussed what type of fencing might be acceptable and where it could be located. Comment was made that this issue also pertains to people who might want to install fencing for other reasons besides garden protection in the riparian zone. There was agreement among the Commission to prohibit solid wood fencing and Staff was directed to develop ordinance language that would permit open fencing in the 50/50 use area. The Commission continued their discussion of the activities issues and whether the ordinance should restrict a property owner from rebuilding a structure in the same location if it has been damaged by a flood for the second time. Comment was made that such a provision is not necessary and if someone’s house is washed away twice, they are not going to want to put it back in the same place if they can avoid it. Dawkins noted that he can’t remember a single case since 1955 where this has been a problem. Apply Proposed Ordinance to Specific Sites Staff commented on two sites the Commission visited during their site visits. In regards to Mr. Brambacher’s property on Tolman Creek Rd, he will be able to continue to manage his property as is. However if he wishes to make changes to the channel, that would trigger the requirements of the proposed ordinance. And in regards to the Duncan’s property, this ordinance is not going to affect the landscaping work they have already completed. They will be able to leave their landscaping in place and maintain it. General Issues with the Ordinance as a Whole Stromberg read the issues listed on the discussion outline aloud. Staff provided clarification that the concerns raised by the Public Works and Parks Departments have already been addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Molnar added the Planning staff will continue to keep these departments abreast as this ordinance moves forward. The Commission briefly reviewed the remaining issues and no changes to the ordinance were proposed. Commissioners Morris/Dotterrer m/s to extend meeting to 9:45 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Recommended Additional Programs or Actions Mindlin provided an explanation of the stormwater infiltration and rainwater catchment issues and read aloud her proposed recommendation which was submitted to the Commission at their last meeting. Comment was made that this language may be too specific and recommending the Commission make a more general recommendation to the Council instead. Marsh suggested they include a note to the Council explaining this issue came up and the Commission agreed that while this issue is much broader than the scope of the ordinance, it should be placed on the City’s agenda. Mindlin felt this language was too vague and voiced her preference to use the language she drafted instead. Suggestion was made to take Mindlin’s language and add Marsh’s proposed statement to the end. The Commission voiced their support for this combination. Mindlin commented on her second recommendation which addressed the need for ongoing assessment of the native plant requirement. She recommended the City conduct an on-site review of the projects permitted under this ordinance every three years to determine how well the native plants are performing. Church commented that they may want to recommend that the entire ordinance be reviewed, not just the plantings. Dotterrer noted the Stream & Enhancement Guide (which includes the native plant list) will likely be evaluated and updated periodically, and questioned if they could use this instead of a mandatory site visit by staff. Dawkins questioned if there was a way to bring the Parks Department into this since they have the immediate expertise and may be able to help evaluate. Mindlin clarified she is not attached to the methodology of how this is completed, but does believe this needs to be reviewed. Stromberg summarized the intent of this recommendation is to review not only the native plants list, but also the usability of it in actual situations, and somehow involve the Parks Department with this process. Church suggested an additional recommendation that states, “Three years from the effective date of the ordinance, staff will field check all projects that have been subject to the ordinance and report to the Commission on the effectiveness of the provisions.” Suggestion was made to incorporate both of these concepts into one recommendation. Church suggested the language, “Three years from the effective date of the ordinance, staff will field check projects that have Ashland Planning Commission November 6, 2008 Page 4 of 5 been subject to the ordinance and report to the Commission on the effectiveness of the ordinance, including review and usability of the native plants list.” Commissioners Dotterrer/Marsh m/s to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners Marsh/Morris m/s to recommend approval to the City Council of adoption of the ordinance adding Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones to and modifying Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance with the amendments and changes as delineated in the meeting minutes and noted by staff. DISCUSSION: Dotterrer provided an explanation of why he will be voting no on this ordinance. He expressed his concerns with the way this ordinance was developed and felt citizens will find the ordinance confusing and difficult to implement. He voiced his support for staff’s efforts, but does not think this is a model for how they should be doing business. He felt the Commission failed to define what the problem was and wished they would have established water quality baselines so that it would have been possible to determine whether or not this ordinance improves the City’s water quality. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Mindlin, Morris, Church, and Stromberg, YES. Commissioners Dotterrer and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 5-2. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission November 6, 2008 Page 5 of 5 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: John Stromberg, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Mike Morris Angela Barry, Assistant Planner Debbie Miller Richard Appicello, City Attorney Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Melanie Mindlin Dave Dotterrer Michael Church Tom Dimitre (Arrived at 7:25 p.m.; joined the meeting after the first public hearing at 9:45 p.m.) Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Cate Hartzell, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar reminded the Commission there is a Study Session scheduled for December 18, 2008. He also introduced Mike Faught, the City’s new Public Works Director. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to approve Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. October 14, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting 2. October 28, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting B.Approval of Findings for 281 Fourth Street, PA #2008-01526 Church noted an error on the October 14, 2008 meeting minutes \[under Planning Action 2008-01526, Ex Parte Contact\]. He stated Dotterrer is not listed and he is listed twice. Commissioners Miller/Dotterrer m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dotterrer, Church, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris, and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 1 of 8 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS Stromberg read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. A.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01318 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2200 Ashland Street APPLICANT: Coming Attractions Theatres DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to redevelop the existing 5,418 square foot, single-story office building located at 2200 Ashland Street into an 18,791 square foot, three-story office and retail building. The property is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and the development is subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Ashland Boulevard Corridor Design Standards. Also included are requests for: Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards and Exception to Street Standards relating to the reconfiguration of off-street parking between the building and Ashland Street and to Ashland Street improvements, and Tree Removal Permit to remove six trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at- breast-height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 14 BB; TAX LOT #: 300. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Dawkins and Stromberg both stated they performed site visits since the last hearing. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson noted this item is a continuation from the October 14, 2008 meeting. At that meeting, a request was made by Evan Archerd to extend the public hearing so that he could familiarize himself with the project and provide input. Mr. Severson explained the median was the main issue that came up during that hearing and clarified the proposed median would restrict left hand turns from the proposed driveway onto Ashland Street and would also restrict left hand turns from Clay Street onto Ashland Street. Mr. Severson stated the notice area for this planning action was extended and the residents on Clay Street were provided notice of tonight’s hearing. He also commented on the revised findings which were distributed to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting, and noted the modifications that were made to Condition 3(L) and Condition 6. Public Works Director Mike Faught came forward and introduced Marc Butorac with Kittleson & Associates Transportation Engineering. Mr. Faught clarified Kittleson & Assoc. was hired by the City to review the application, findings, and traffic studies for this planning action. Mr. Butorac addressed the Commission and noted the Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management Review Memo that was submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. He explained the intersection of Clay and Ashland has site distance issues and operational safety issues, and stated they concur with the need to restrict left hand turning movements. He commented on where the existing south bound left turning movements from Clay Street would be diverted to if the median were installed, and noted their concern of vehicles making u-turns on Ashland Street without sufficient site distance. He also indicated traffic coming from I-5 would also need to turn around in order to access the proposed development. For this reason, they are recommending a raised median be installed between Clay and Faith Streets which would enable vehicles to make their u-turn at the Faith. He stated this is consistent with the City’s Transportation System Plan and recommended a reimbursement agreement between the City and the Applicant. Tom Dimitre arrived at 7:25 p.m. and indicated he would wait in the lobby until the next hearing. Mr. Butorac commented on the need for an east-west connection between Tolman Creek Road and Clay Street, and stated this connection would minimize the number of u-turns on Ashland Street. He recommended the City review this possibility separate from this application. Mr. Butorac noted the commercial uses in the area and clarified larger vehicles, including buses, moving vans and semi-trucks would not be able to turn around at Faith Avenue due to the width of the street. It was clarified vehicles would still be able to make left hand turns from Faith Avenue onto Ashland Street. It was also clarified it is not possible to restrict left hand turns from Clay Street, but allow left hand turns into the project site because Ashland Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Street is not wide enough to accommodate the vehicle storage space that would be needed. Comment was made questioning if there is an alternative to the u-turn at Faith. Mr. Butorac stated the ideal alternative is the east-west connection, which would significantly reduce the need for making a u-turn at Faith. He clarified the volumes on Ashland Street are not an issue; it is the reduced site distance caused by the overpass that are creating these issues. Church commented that the site distance at the Faith and Ashland intersection is also an issue, and if you add in u-turns that could significantly affect this intersection. Mr. Butorac noted the vehicles making u-turns at Faith have plenty of site distance since they are looking at opposing east bound vehicles, but acknowledged Church’s concerns and stated the site distance issue affects both ends of the overpass. Mr. Butorac commented that the City does not have the most desirable street system in this area; however installing a median would diminish the existing safety issue. He stated the system would be aggravated slightly at the Faith intersection, but on a whole, the Applicant is maintaining or slightly improving the current system. However, for future development to occur in this area, he recommended the City create an additional connection between Tolman Creek Road and Clay Street. David Pyles and Dan Dorrell with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) addressed the Commission and summarized their letter that was handed out at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Pyles stated ODOT concurs with the Applicant’s Facts, Findings and Conclusions in their Traffic Impact Study, which identifies the need for a median at this location. He stated the scale of the identified improvement is in proportion to the proposed development. Mr. Pyles noted there has been development in this area over the past several years that has bumped up the need for mitigation in this area. He also noted the potential future development on the north side of Clay Street and clarified with or without this project, there is development pressure that is creating this issue. Mr. Pyles concluded his testimony by clarifying the two key conditions of approval that they have requested are: 1) the condition for the raised median, and 2) the condition for the legal access permit. Dan Dorrell commented on why it is not possible to allow a left hand turn into the proposed development. He agreed with Mr. Butorac’s assessment and stated there is not enough vehicle storage space. He clarified the concern is that the vehicles waiting to make this left turn could back out into the west bound traffic lane. Mr. Dorrell also provided a brief explanation of what the channelized median would look like and clarified it would be signed appropriately to help prevent driver confusion. Marsh questioned if this section of Ashland Street would be included in the study being completed for the Exit 14 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) and asked if the proposed mitigation is consistent with that project. Mr. Pyles stated the IAMP for Exit 14 does not look at an access management strategy west of Tolman Creek Road. However, there may be an opportunity to include this type of system level planning in the final recommendation for the TSP system analysis. Or, it could be done as a follow up, or some type of refinement plan that updates the City’s Transportation System Plan. He clarified this type of system level planning is different from the study being completed for the IAMP. Applicant’s Presentation Mr. Knox agreed to allow a few members of the audience who had time constraints to give their testimony first. Public Testimony Greg Jones/641 Faith Avenue/Stated he is not opposed to the proposed development and believes this is a good thing for the area. However, the proposed median and u-turns that would occur at Faith would make one of the City’s worst intersections even worse. Mr. Jones stated he has spoken to staff, the City Council, and the Traffic Safety Commission about the problems at Faith and he has yet to see any type of study or mitigation for this area. He stated there has got to be another solution and warned them about creating a worse situation at Faith. Robin Jokinen /311 E. Hersey Street/Stated she is a small business owner and does deliveries throughout Ashland. Ms. Jokinen explained she has been using Clay Street for 25 years and has never had a problem making a left turn onto Ashland Street. She noted the alternate routes available and explained she does not use Oak Street because of the speed bumps, does not use North Mountain because of the high school and college students, and avoids Walker because of the elementary and middle school. Ms. Jokinen reminded the Commission of the fatal accident that occurred at the intersection of Faith and Ashland and questioned if the proposed development could be accessed from behind the Oil Stop to prevent the median from being installed. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 3 of 8 Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox/ 485 W Nevada Street/ Applicant’s Representative/Stated the Applicant agrees with the conditions proposed by staff and ODOT and clarified when they are able to obtain an easement through the Bi-Mart shopping center, the Applicant is willing to pave the driveway to make that connection. Mr. Knox noted the amount of time the Applicant, staff and ODOT has spent working on the median issue and stated no one is taking this situation lightly. He stated the Applicant is willing to pay for their fair share of the median and stated the turning movements out of this site are dangerous with or without this application going through. He clarified it is not this application that is creating the problem and noted ODOT could decide to go in and install the median on their own. He clarified this is a safety issue and stated they do not want to put anyone is a position that is unsafe. Mr. Knox clarified where the property line ends and where the fencing would be located. Dawkins expressed concern with individuals not being able to connect to the bike path. He stated people will not be inclined to create a new informal path on the slope and stated it would be great if the Applicant could obtain a partial easement for this. Miller questioned the likelihood of the Applicant getting permission from the Bi-Mart shopping center to access the development site. Mr. Knox noted the informal access that exists today, but clarified they have not yet obtained a legal access from the Oil Stop property. He stated the shopping center is a conglomeration of 17 different owners and it is difficult for this group to come to a decision. Public Testimony (Cont.) Mike McGuire/321 Clay Street #51/Stated he would like to continue to be able to make left hand turns from Clay Street onto Ashland Street. He stated he would like to see this development move forward, and stated if the Applicant could get an easement behind the Oil Stop, this would solve the problem. Helen Leider/321 Clay Street #34/Voiced her concerns with losing access to Ashland Street from Clay Street. She also expressed objection to the noticing that was performed by staff. Ms. Leider stated the proposed median would cause more driving and would affect her quality of life. She noted the upcoming development on Clay Street and stated the City needs more arteries to deal with the traffic. Elise Thiel/321 Clay Street #19/Stated she is not against to the proposed building, but would oppose this application if it means left hand turns onto Ashland Street would no longer be allowed. She commented on how this proposal would affect the Faith intersection and noted there are a lot of pedestrians who cross at that location. Ms. Thiel voiced her support of retaining the left hand turns from Clay onto Ashland and suggested the City deny any new buildings for this area until an overall traffic study has been completed. She added she hopes the Applicant will be able to gain access to their property from the Oil Stop. Evan Archerd/2200 Ashland Street/Commented on the importance of supporting local businesses, but stated approving this application with the median installation would cause harm to those who live and work in that area. He stated the issues that have been raised by the traffic engineers are accurate, but stated he does not agree with Kittleson & Assoc.’s conclusions. Mr. Archerd commented on safety and stated there have only been 5 accidents at the intersection of Clay and Ashland in the last 5 years, and 2 of them were on his property and had nothing to do with the intersection. However, there have been 2 fatal accidents at the Faith and Ashland intersection and voiced his objections to diverting traffic to that intersection instead. Mr. Archerd commented on the traffic counts, and stated the traffic study was based on approximately 120 new units on Clay Street; however that development has been reduced to 60 units. Therefore the actual vehicle trips on Clay Street will go down, not up from what was listed in the study. He also noted the proposed development has a much lower number of vehicle trips than the hardware store that previously occupied the site. Mr. Archerd stated the proposed median is not necessary and recommended the Commission approve the application without this condition. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 S/Commented on the driving route he uses daily and stated denying left turn access from Clay onto Ashland Street does not make any sense. Mr. Roth stated he uses Clay Street everyday, but if the median goes in, he will have to use Walker instead, and noted the two schools on this road. He stated it would be in the Bi-Mart shopping centers best interest to provide the easement and stated the existing steep driveway would be impassible in the winter. Mr. Roth encouraged the Commission to decouple this application from the median issue. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 4 of 8 Russ Dale/230 Wilson Road/Noted the many properties he has been involved with in this area and strongly encouraged the Commission to approve the proposed development. However, he stated the median is a disaster and stated the Clay/Ashland intersection works fine without any new impediments. He recommended they approve the project, but remove the median condition. Alan DeBoer/2260 Morada Lane/Noted he is the former owner of the property and voiced his support of Coming Attractions building their headquarters at this location. Mr. DeBoer agreed with the previous speakers that diverting vehicles to make u- turns at Faith is not a good solution, and stated the proposed median would increase vehicle miles traveled. He recommended the Commission approve this application without the median requirement, have the Applicant sign in favor of participating in future improvements, and then direct staff to work on an overall plan for this area. Dawkins read aloud the written testimony submitted by Donald Abel/566 Faith Avenue/The email stated the traffic consequences caused by the proposed median have not been adequately considered, and the fact that he was not notified as an affected party to this change indicates that the larger ramifications were not considered. It stated u-turns are slow and dangerous and take up both lanes. It also indicated these u-turns will interfere with the traffic on Ashland Street, but will also interfere with cars turning either right or left off Faith. Mr. Abel urged the Commission to look at this issue more closely and if necessary do an actual traffic study that addresses the reality of the situation. Church read aloud the written testimony submitted by Colin Swales/The email questioned whether 4 lanes on Ashland Street are needed at the Clay intersection, and whether 3 lanes with a central turn lane would be better. It questioned whether pedestrian crossing and bicycle turning movements were considered in the traffic study, and asked how the median would affect the intersection of Faith and Ashland. It asked what the traffic impacts would be when all of the Clay Street properties are developed to their maximum potential and whether ODOT has considered installing a roundabout at this junction to make turning movements more efficient. It also questioned whether Ashland Street complies with the recently approved changes to the Street Standards in regards to sidewalk width and protection for pedestrians. Applicant’s Rebuttal Mark Knox/Stated if the Planning Commission decides to not require the median, the Applicant would be supportive of that. However, he cited the 5 traffic engineers who have indicated the median will need to go in, regardless of whether it’s this application or the next development. He noted the median issue was talked about with Barclay Square and stated safety matters more than adding one more minute to a driver’s commute. Mr. Knox stated the Clay and Ashland intersection is operating at a level of service “F”, but the median would bring it to level “B”. He stated he hopes the Commission will come to the conclusion that this application stands on its own and should be approved, and the median is more of a community issue that needs to be resolved. He noted ODOT feels strongly that this median needs to go in, and regardless of this project, ODOT is likely to do this on their own in the near future. Stromberg closed the Public Hearing and the record at 8:50 pm. He also announced the Vista Planning Action would not be heard tonight and would be continued to the December 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Advice from Legal Counsel and Staff Comment was made questioning how the City can better control the traffic at the Faith intersection. Mr. Butorac explained the concerns regarding the u-turns at Faith will go away once the new east-west connection is made. He stated the issue at Clay and Ashland is simple and explained there is 330 ft. of intersection site distance and AASHTO requires 412 ft. He stated this is a very black and white line. He added while the Faith intersection does have issues, it meets the AASHTO site distance standards and it also meets City standards. Church questioned the possibility of severing the requirement for the median from this planning action. Mr. Faught clarified this is an ODOT facility and it is their jurisdiction, and they are requiring this median. He added staff has looked into this and concur with the need for the median. Mr. Butorac stated they have a study before them that indicates this intersection is deficient of site distance; if they defer and any issue (such as a crash) occurs, it puts ODOT, the Applicant, and the City in a very tenuous situation. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 5 of 8 Miller noted this site has already been in use, and if the proposed development is built as planned, it will have less traffic than the previous uses. She questioned why these traffic mitigation efforts need to be installed now. Mr. Butorac clarified when this intersection was originally designed, the standards were different. He added this Applicant is required to comply with the current standards. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Marsh m/s to approve Planning Action #2008-01318 as written. DISCUSSION: Several members indicated they would like to discuss dropping the median requirement. Dotterrer suggested they consider removing Conditions 3(L) and 6. Comment was made voicing support for decoupling these issues and taking a more holistic approach to the issues on Ashland Street. Comment was made noting the liability issues, and the 5 traffic engineers who have stated this is an unsafe intersection. Concern was voiced regarding the situation at Faith. Support was voiced for the City to work on a connection between Tolman Creek Rd and Clay Street. Church commented that in his own experience, the proposed median would not solve the problem, and would only push the problems down to the Faith intersection. Miller suggested they work towards putting in arterials before installing the median. She also recommended they hold off on any further urbanization on Clay Street until some comprehensive traffic arrangements have been made. She added the more growth they allow on Clay, the worse the situation will get. Dotterrer commented that they are trying to solve a major transportation problem through land use planning, and this is backwards. Stromberg stated the proposed median would create a new situation at Faith, and they do not have the equivalent ability to evaluate the danger at that intersection. He added to make the Clay/Ashland intersection safe, it would make the Faith/Ashland intersection more dangerous. He noted there would be no ability for larger vehicles to make the u-turn at Faith. He also noted the testimony which indicated the proposed median would divert traffic to Walker Avenue, which has two schools along it. Commissioners Dotterrer/Miller m/s to amend motion to remove Condition 3(L) and Condition 6. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Mindlin, Miller, Dotterrer and Stromberg, YES. Commissioners Morris and Marsh, NO. Motion passed 6-2. DISCUSSION on Main Motion as Amended: Marsh suggested they ask the Applicant to pursue the extension of the bikepath through their property. Comment was made questioning whether they could legally require this since it would have to cross the railroad tracks. Mindlin voiced her support for asking the Applicant to have a future access in the event legal access is granted. Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners Mindlin/Marsh m/s to amend motion to require the Applicant to provide a future connectivity route to what is now the informal pathway, connecting to the bikepath and through the property to sites on southeast side, at such time a legal connection is made.DISCUSSION: Marsh stated they have an opportunity here, and if they do not act on it, once the lot is developed the opportunity for the path is lost. Mr. Molnar clarified this condition would be activated if and when there is a legal crossing of the railroad tracks. Miller noted that if this property were to change hands, this condition would ensure that this future connection happens. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Church, Miller, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Morris and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 8-0. DISCUSSION on Main Motion as Amended: Mr. Appicello clarified it is the Commission’s job to make a defensible decision and noted the criteria requiring adequate transportation facilities. He recommended the Commission provide clear justification for their decision so that staff can prepare findings. He also recommended the Commission address what would happen if ODOT denies the Applicant’s approach permit unless the median is installed. Stromberg clarified the Commission is interested in the safety of the entire transportation system for this area, not just one intersection. He noted the lack of a sufficient turn around for larger vehicles at the Faith/Ashland intersection and noted additional traffic would be diverted onto other streets that have their own hazards. He stated the proposed median focuses on one intersection and does not take into consideration the effects it will have at the Faith intersection. He also noted the lack of a model to evaluate Faith Street as stringently as the Clay intersection was evaluated. Mr. Stromberg added it is the Commission’s feeling that what is being proposed is not a responsible, safe solution. Mr. Appicello recommended the Commission consider including a provision that states nothing in this approval stops ODOT from granting approach permits with whatever conditions they deem necessary. Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 6 of 8 Commissioners Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to amend motion to include that this approval does not preclude ODOT from imposing conditions on the approach permit to the Applicant. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 8-0. Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as Amended: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 8-0. B.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2300 Siskiyou Blvd. APPLICANT: Steve Asher DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct thirteen condominium units for the property located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Also included are requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow tree removal and parking space installation on Flood Plain Corridor/Riparian Preservation Lands adjacent to a culverted section of Clay Creek; Tree Removal Permits to remove 36 of the site’s 78 trees; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks and curbs along Siskiyou Boulevard frontage. (The approval of this application would replace the previous Performance Standards Options subdivision approval from PA #96-131). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 14 CA; TAX LOTS: 7700, 7800, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, 7805, 7806, 7807 and 7808. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Stromberg, Dawkins, Church, Dotterrer, Miller, Marsh and Mindlin all had site visits. Commissioners Mindlin/Church m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and provided a brief overview of the project. He noted the location of the site is on the corner of Bellview and Siskiyou, adjacent to the Ashlander Apartments. Mr. Severson commented on the 1996 subdivision approval and clarified the current proposal would replace the previous one in its entirety. He stated this application includes a request to construct 13 condominium units, as well as tree removal permits to remove 38 of the site’s 78 trees, an exception to the Street Standards to not install sidewalks and curbs along the Siskiyou Boulevard frontage, and a request to allow parking space installation on Floodplain Corridor/Riparian Preservation Lands. Mr. Severson noted this application could have been approved administratively; however, staff felt there were issues that warranted this application coming before the Planning Commission, including: 1) the open space requirement, 2) the location of the surface parking, and 3) the request for an exception to the Street Standards to not install curbs or sidewalks along the Siskiyou frontage. He clarified the Applicant is proposing to install street trees and patch the path that currently exists along the Siskiyou frontage rather than installing a new sidewalk. He stated staff is recommending approval, without the exception to the Street Standards. Comment was made noting a newer development down the street does not have a sidewalk in front of it, and applying the City’s public improvement standards project by project may be causing more problems than it is solving. Additional comment was made questioning the placement of the open space. Mr. Severson clarified numerically, the Applicant meets the standard; however, the Commission must determine whether it functionally meets the standard. Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox/485 W Nevada Street/Representing the Applicant/Stated this is one of the most complex projects he has worked on due to a number of factors including the trees, the shape of the property, and the density. Mr. Knox commented on the open space requirements and noted they did have to spread this space out, but they do meet the requirements. He added the minimum requirement is 8% and they are proposing 17.5% of open space. He commented briefly on some of the smaller, narrower spaces and clarified they were not required to include these areas, but felt the residents would need some extra space to store some of their things. He added these smaller spaces were never intended to be “recreational spaces.” He Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 7 of 8 added if you eliminate these areas, this application still meets the open space requirement. Mr. Knox noted the central green area and stated they do believe this will be used as a recreational space. He also commented on the improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard and displayed a photo of a section of the current path. He stated they feel very strongly that this type of pathway is superior to what is being recommended by staff. He noted it is setback further from the street and provides better protection to pedestrians. However if the Planning Commission disagrees, he indicated they will comply with the Street Standards. Mr. Knox clarified they are proposing to install trees and patch the pathway to make it look consistent with the section shown in the photo. Carol Sunahara/919 Bellview Avenue #3/Stated the application does not meet the approval criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints and does not think it should be approved. She stated potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have not been considered and adverse impacts have not been minimized. Ms. Sunahara stated the Applicant has not considered the potential hazards the development may create and stated this area of Siskiyou and Bellview is densely populated and there should really be a sidewalk and crosswalk there. She also expressed her concerns with the proposed tree removals and stated these trees are needed to prevent the erosion of Clay Creek. C.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01517 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 232 Vista Street APPLICANT: Kerry KenCairn DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Land Partition, a Type II to Variance to the requirement that the new lot have a paved 20-foot wide access or an unpaved 20-foot wide access with less than 10 percent slope, and a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for development and tree removal on Hillside Lands. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09BC; TAX LOT: 7500 This item will be continued to the December 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. OTHER BUSINESS A.Update – APA Legal Issues Forum This item was not addressed due to time constraints. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Page 8 of 8 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS