Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-10 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 AUGUST 10, 2010 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. July 13, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. OTHER BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2010-00582, 1405 Tolman Creek Rd B. Overview of Pedestrian Node Project C. Approval of changes to Planning Commission Rules of Conduct/Discussion of Chair and Vice Chairs for remainder of 2010 VI. 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 July 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Dave Dotterrer Richard Appicello, City Attorney Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the City Council has passed first reading on three of the six Croman Mill ordinances and are scheduled to take up the remaining three on August 3, 2010. Chair Pam Marsh announced the July Study Session has been cancelled. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. June 8, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 2. June 22, 2010 Special Meeting Minutes Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 8-0. PUBLIC FORUM Colin Swales/143 8 St/Commented on the preparation of Findings and cited a modified process outlined by former th Community Development Director John McLaughlin. Mr. Swales cited the minutes from the February 10, 2004 Planning Commission meeting where Mr. McLaughlin proposed a more standardized form for Findings that would reference the staff report, the applicant’s findings, the minutes, and attached conditions; and they would be adopted at the same meeting the hearing is held. Mr. Swales stated Findings are very important documents and are precedent setting, and asked the Commission to consider streamlining the process as suggested by the former Director. Mr. Molnar stated he believes Mr. McLaughlin proposed this process because at the time they were dealing with a higher number of planning actions. He stated many of the applications at that time were fairly simple and did not have any opposition, and adopting the Findings by reference would have been sufficient. However the City has gone to a different format and appeals to the Council are now “on the record”. As a result, Mr. Molnar stated it is necessary for the Findings to be more thorough and address any comments that came up during the hearing. City Attorney Richard Appicello concurred and added it is important for the City and the applicant to make sure the Findings are adequate, and stated he would not recommend rushing the adoption of Findings. Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 1 of 5 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2010-00582 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1405 Tolman Creek Rd APPLICANT: Malibar Group, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Boundary Line Adjustment and a Variance to allow a lot wider than it is deep for the vacant property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 23 BA; TAX LOT: 308 and 501. Commission Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Morris asked to be recused. He stated he has worked for the applicant in the past and has a potential conflict of interest.Commissioner Morris left the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Commissioners Rinaldi, Mindlin, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Miller and Marsh declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the location of the site and the existing conditions. He explained this application involves a lot line adjustment for two lots; the larger lot is currently 2.32 acres and the smaller lot is .89 acres. The proposal is to reduce the size of the smaller lot to .33 acres and increase the size of the larger lot to 2.89 acres. Mr. Severson noted this type of action is typically approved administratively; however in this case the movement of lot lines will result in a flag lot that is wider than it is deep and therefore a variance is required. Mr. Severson explained that the applicant has demonstrated there is significant development potential for this area. He noted the applicant is offering an irrevocable consent to dedicate a future street which will service development on that property in the future; and at that time, their lot will become compliant with the width versus depth standard. Mr. Severson stated staff is supportive of this application and are recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Staff was asked to clarify the width of the street. Mr. Severson explained the width of the flag drive is currently 37 ft, and a minimum of 47 ft is needed for a new residential street. He explained the applicant has agreed to provide a half-street improvement, which will consist of two travel lanes, a parkrow and a sidewalk on the south side; and if and when the neighboring lot develops, that property owner would be asked to dedicate the remaining 10 ft. Staff clarified the full street improvement of the flag drive would only be needed if the other property decides to build out their lot. Commissioner Dawkins raised concern with dedicating a street when the applicant does not own the tax lots on the north and south sides. Mr. Severson noted they have done this with other developments in Ashland where you ask for the improvement to develop according to the zoning, and as properties develop the property owners are asked to dedicate the necessary parts of the street. He added they are getting most of the street with this proposal and it is only the street trees and parkrow that will be needed in the future on the north side. Applicant’s Presentation Roy Martin/Applicant and Mark Knox/Applicant’s Representative addressed the Commission. Mr. Knox explained they have two existing lots and all they are really doing is shrinking one of them. He noted the existing development potential and stated where this gets complicated is when you consider how this area will eventually build out. Mr. Knox stated in the future, tax lots 400 and 500 are likely to be portioned off and developed, which will force a street to go in. He explained if you look at the City’s Street Standards, it is clear that if these parcels are divided, they will be required to take access off this new lane. He stated as part of this application, his client is agreeing to a ¾ street improvement; and if the owner of tax lot 400 decides to develop their lot, they will likely be asked to provide the last quarter which would consist of curbing, a planting strip and sidewalk. Mr. Knox noted his client’s irrevocable consent to dedicate this strip right now, and stated they have identified reciprocal easements to allow the current property owner to use this strip of land. Mr. Martin noted that typically this type of action only requires a staff approval and it would not have come before the Commission if not for the situation of the lot being wider than it is long. He stated all they are doing is taking one buildable site and making it smaller. Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Knox commented that they are designing these envelopes with the assumption that there is going to be a street there one day. He also noted a neighborhood meeting was held and feels it went well. Mr. Severson clarified this property is served by city utilities. Mr. Molnar commented on the setback requirements and how future homes might be oriented. It was clarified there are design standards for single family home development that address eaves and porches, but there is no requirement that states the front door must be oriented towards to the street. Public Testimony Maria Paul/2375 Green Meadows/Voiced her concern with the impact this lot formation will have on the existing home values along Green Meadows Way. She stated all of the surrounding homes are modest, single story homes and is worried if they start building two-story homes it will have a negative impact on the value of her home. Ms. Paul asked if the variance is approved that it carry with it a mandatory restriction for only single story homes. She stated anything else would be incompatible with the surrounding homes and their views and privacy would be compromised. Colin Swales/143 8 St/Stated this should not have come before the Commission as a variance and believes it could have th been handled administratively. Mr. Swales clarified what he would like to speak to is the interpretation made by the City’s former Assistant Attorney on the Hillview application about what constitutes a front, back, and rear yard. Mr. Swales stated he believes some real errors were made in that interpretation and it impacts this application. He stated infill issues including existing neighborhoods, privacy, and overlooking need to be sorted out; and while he supports approval of this application, he would like the Commission to direct staff to address these infill issues. Mr. Swales asked that the record be left open so he can enter into the record arguments as to why he believes that interpretation is wrong. He added he does not want to hold up this application up, but feels these issues need to be addressed. Commissioner Marsh asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Swales is asking to leave the record open. Mr. Swales stated he does not want to delay this application, but feels this interpretation needs to be addressed and does not know what the correct course of action is. Mr. Swales stated if the Commission will take up these infill issues on their own, he will withdraw his request to leave the record open. Michael Fagundes/2323 Green Meadows/Stated he lives in this neighborhood and has heard a lot of verbiage tonight that makes him nervous. Mr. Fagundes noted that the applicant does not control this whole piece of land and they don’t know what will happen on the other lot in the future. He commented on privacy issues and expressed concern with neighbors looking in on him, and added that a new subdivision will not fit in this area. Rebuttal by the Applicant Mark Knox/Stated they have attempted to address the neighbors concerns by providing excessive setbacks over what is required, and noted that these lots will also be bigger than the neighboring lots. Mr. Knox stated it is difficult to say what is compatible and what is not. He agreed that the Green Meadows development is predominately single story homes, but noted that there are two-story houses to the north that are mixed in. Mr. Knox agreed with Mr. Swales and stated he supports the Planning Commission taking another look at the interpretation made by the former Assistant City Attorney. Advice from Legal Counsel & Staff Mr. Severson briefly reviewed the setback requirements and the additional buffer that is part of this application; he also clarified there is no provision that would allow staff to prohibit a two-story house. Staff was asked to comment on whether a future subdivision application would come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Severson clarified yes, this type of action would be a Type II hearing before the Commission and at that time staff would be looking at all the standards and issues raised earlier. Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing and the record at 8:10 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake motion to approve Planning Action #2010-00582 with the conditions proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: Dawkins voiced his concern with the assumptions they are making about the future development of this Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 3 of 5 area and stated he will be voting no on this motion because he feels this is a roundabout way of approving a future subdivision. Mindlin stated she does not believe the applicant has met the criteria for unique or unusual circumstances that are not self imposed, and voiced concern with approving the applicant’s concept for development without dealing with the issues. Blake stated he is not in disagreement with anything that has been said, but noted that a subdivision application would have to come back before them and the applicant is just acknowledging that there is future potential for this. He added he is a believer in master planning and is supportive of infill, and also agrees with management access and having fewer driveways on Tolman Creek Rd. Rinaldi commented that approving this application does not lock them into anything and stated they would be able to look at a development application in more detail when it comes before them. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Miller, Blake, Rinaldi and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 5-2. Commissioner Morris rejoined the hearing at 8:25 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS A.Discussion of changes to the Planning Commission Rules of Conduct Staff provided a brief review of the changes to the Planning Commission Rules and clarified these updates are necessary to provide consistency with the Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance passed by the City Council in February, 2010. Because of the provision in the Rules that requires proposed changes to be announced 14 days prior to the decision, staff noted the Commission will not vote on these changes until their August 10, 2010 meeting. Commissioner Dotterrer noted change to the number of votes needed to make amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Marsh commented that the new Rules change the selection of the Chair and Vice Chair to their first meeting in January, and asked that they discuss at their next meeting how they would like to handle the current Chair’s and Vice Chair’s terms until they are selected again in January 2011. B.Planning Commission Liaison to the TSP Technical Advisory Committee Mr. Molnar asked for a volunteer to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee being formed for the City’s Transportation System Plan update. Commissioner Dawkins noted his interest in serving on this group. General consensus was reached to select Michael Dawkins as the Planning Commission representative for the TSP TAC. C.Approval of Findings for PA-2009-01244, 1644 Ashland Street. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin left the hearing at 8:37 p.m. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Miller stated she spoke with a citizen but did not receive any new information. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified there is no opportunity for the public to rebut Commissioner Miller’s disclosure since no new information was obtained. He added the record is now closed and there is no opportunity for the public to comment on the Findings, and it is too late to issue a challenge or give additional information to the Commission. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Appicello briefly reviewed the Findings with the Commission and noted the key issues came down to collocation and economic impacts. Commissioner Dotterrer asked if the following language contained in the first paragraph on page 14 is necessary: “The City Council as the legislative body could have written the above referenced design standards to reflect a more rigorous collocation requirement such as the following: …” Mr. Appicello stated he included this language because many of the opponents that were commenting were characterizing the collocation standard as a mandatory standard that has to be met. Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Rinaldi noted the language on page 11 regarding landscape buffering and recommended the following change: “The design, color and material of the structure and the established landscaping along the property line to the south effectively mitigate any visual impacts of the proposal.” He clarified the adjacent property’s landscaping was not a reason for their decision and asked that this be removed. General support was voiced for this amendment. Commissioners Rinaldi/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009-01244 with the revision to page 11 as discussed. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris, Rinaldi, Miller, Blake, Marsh and Dotterrer, YES. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2010 Page 5 of 5 City of Ashland TGM Outreach Workshop Designing Great Arterial Streets Conducted September 20, 2007 Project Team TGM Program Constance Beaumont Consultants Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan Tim Smith, SERA Architects Beth Wemple, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. City of Ashland Maria Harris Bill Molnar This project was funded by the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé Introduction This report summarizes the Transportation and Growth Management-funded Outreach workshop in Ashland, Oregon on Thursday, September 20, 2007. Background The Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program is a partnership of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) that works to expand transportation choices for people. TGM supports community efforts to expand transportation choices for people. By linking land use and transportation planning, TGM works in partnership with local governments to create vibrant, livable places in which people can walk, bike, take transit or drive where they want to go. Ashland Outreach Workshop The City of Ashland currently enjoys an attractive downtown and effective transportation system. The City is blessed with a vibrant downtown, a variety of shopping, dining and entertainment opportunities. These include the Oregon Shakespearean Festival and an outstanding park system, including Lithia Park, which is directly adjacent to the downtown area. City leaders and local residents want to continue to build on and strengthen the quality of streets in the downtown area and elsewhere, particularly along the City’s five arterials (see map on page 2). Encouraging quality private development and public facilities near them also is important. In addition, City staff has noted a need for more information and education about good urban design and transportation planning principles that can help the City address more specific street design and land use planning issues related to development along these arterials. The state’s TGM Outreach assistance program retained Cogan Owens Cogan (COC), in partnership with SERA Architects and Kittelson Associates, Inc., to accomplish the following objectives: Provide an overview of urban design and land use planning principles. Identify key issues and approaches to designing arterial streets and planning for land uses adjacent to them. Facilitate a discussion among community members about these issues and approaches. Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé To address the above issues, the City, TGM and COC collaborated on an outreach workshop held in Ashland on Thursday, September 20, 2007. In advance of the workshop, team members reviewed a variety of background materials and interviewed City Planning staff and representatives of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This report summarizes the workshop discussion. The PowerPoint presentation is included in a separate document, while a brief description of the topics discussed at the workshop is included below. Workshop Summary Approximately 25 Planning Commissioners, City Councilors, local residents and others participated in the workshop on September 20. Ashland Senior Planner Maria Harris welcomed participants. She thanked participants for attending and encouraged them to take this opportunity to discuss important urban design and transportation planning issues. She noted that the workshop was an opportunity to take a step back from some of the more specific planning issues the community has recently wrestled with and learn and talk about some general urban and street design issues. These concepts can help improve the quality of the downtown, foster economic development and continue to create great streets and places for Ashland residents and visitors. Next, Constance Beaumont gave an overview from the State’s perspective. Constance manages TGM’s Education and Outreach Program, the source of funding for the workshop. She emphasized the program’s interest in giving Oregonians more transportation choices while strengthening the economic health of downtowns and livability of surrounding neighborhoods. Matt Hastie, principal with Cogan Owens Cogan, then introduced members of the team – Tim Smith, Director of Urban Design and Planning at SERA architects, and Beth Wemple, Associate Engineer at Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Matt then turned the presentation over to Tim and Beth, who discussed the following topics: Functions of great streets Advantages of mixed use development Key urban and streetscape design elements, including building design, street furnishings, the importance of intersections, gathering places, street trees, landscaping and other topics Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé Arterial street design and traffic operation and capacity issues Parking design and management Possible redevelopment opportunity sites Group Discussion Participants then participated in a discussion with members of the consulting team about urban design, land use and transportation planning issues discussed during the presentation. Following is a summary of comments and questions from participants, as well as responses from members of the consulting team (shown in italics). There seems to be a tension between mobility for cars and access for pedestrian on the types of streets you are talking about. And this conflict creates stress. How can “great pedestrian streets” also accommodate the need to carry a certain number of cars efficiently? While we are calling these streets “great pedestrian streets,” they actually serve multiple functions. For example, Main Street through downtown needs to accommodate a certain amount of auto traffic that is passing through, whether it is originating or traveling to locations just outside the downtown or to or from farther away. The street needs to balance these different needs but the community may want to emphasize one or another in different locations along the same street.For example, in the heart of the downtown, pedestrian connectivity and safety may be more important than traffic capacity and speed and drivers or the community as a whole may be willing to put up with more traffic delay. Farther outside the downtown, the emphasis may be reversed on the same street. Not all Arterials are created equal and they don’t all function the same way throughout their length. It is up to the community to decide which functions are most important in which locations and act accordingly. Would it make more sense to decide what the function of the road should be and then design buildings to fit that, rather than designing the buildings first and then forcing the road to match that? Not necessarily. The best approach is to look at function of road and the intent of adjacent land uses at the same time. They are directly linked Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé and a coordinated approach to land use and transportation is very important. What is the current way of defining or designing a pedestrian friendly street? Where should sidewalks be located and how wide should they be? I find many sidewalks along streets in Ashland to be right next to the curb, too narrow and sometimes they do not feel safe when they are right next to traffic. The primary objective should be to separate or buffer pedestrians from traffic with parking or landscaping, particularly on roads where traffic speeds are higher. In areas where traffic moves more slowly, this may be less of an issue but is still important. Some situations may be tough to retrofit because there is not enough room to add parking or landscaping and maintain enough street capacity. The community may decide to live with less than ideal conditions in some locations while looking for ways to improve them as land is developed or redeveloped in the future (e.g., on some sections of North Main Street). Improvements to North Main to incorporate some of the urban design elements discussed tonight could have negative impacts on traffic capacity and/or congestion in that area. We should be careful about implementing some of these urban design and streetscape approaches in areas like that. Has anyone developed a way to measure level-of-service (LOS) for sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities? Do you have any information about that? There has been some research into that issue but is has focused primarily on very large areas or communities such as New York City. There also has been research done on how to define the quality of pedestrian facilities. I constantly walk downtown. During a recent power outage recently when the traffic lights were out, I noted that traffic actually worked very well downtown. There were no traffic jams. People behaved in a courteous manner and cars and pedestrians coexisted well. I’ve read about a “shared space” approach in some cities in Europe where they don’t use typical traffic signals, lane markings or other things like that. Is this something that would be appropriate to consider in Ashland. Some people looking at these types of systems in certain areas or cities in the United States. They appear to work well in European cities where they have been implemented, either in pedestrian-oriented commercial areas or on local, residential streets. It could be something to consider. Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé However, it also should be noted that implementation of such treatments should be considered very carefully and tested at locations with relatively low levels of activity prior to implementing such programs in busier areas. Do you have opinions on one-way streets vs. couplets? The couplet seems to work relatively well here based on our observations. Traffic moves through at an appropriate pace with good pedestrian connectivity. (Beth Wemple) I’m not a big fan of couplets. They often promote faster speeds and a less pedestrian-friendly environment. (Tim Smith) On the other hand, couplets can help with pedestrian safety because cars are only traveling in one direction and there are fewer turning movements and conflicts with pedestrians in that sense. (Matt Hastie) We all agree that they can work well if vehicle speed is controlled and careful attention is paid to street design (e.g., on-street parallel parking on both sides of the street, short crossing distances for pedestrians and other good pedestrian amenities). East Main is unfriendly to pedestrians. Cars move faster on that leg of the couplet. One half of couplet works relatively well while the other doesn’t. That makes the urban design tools you’ve been talking about even more important on that and other one-way streets. What are some criteria to use in deciding where to create public plazas, courtyards or other open spaces? Three things to think about are building on existing areas of activity that seem to be natural gathering points, using them to strengthen sites with redevelopment potential and identifying those sites that seem to have the greatest potential for success in serving that function. Another approach is to go for the low-hanging fruit – someplace that could be designed and built relatively easily. Locate it as centrally as possible and provide multiple entry points. Design it to be relatively tightly occupied. Estimate how many people might use it at one time and design it to be half the size needed to accommodate that number. It’s better for those spaces to be crowded. Does Lithia Way present any opportunities? How would you design it from an outsider’s perspective? Create a good amenity. Have the doors open onto a plaza or open space if appropriate. Do all the other things we talked about in the presentation to create a good building and street design. Make it look like it belongs there. Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé What are some rules of thumb for sidewalk design and width? Sidewalks in a mixed use area should be 12-15 feet wide and curb cuts should be minimized. Centrally located parking should be on the inside of buildings or developments. Sidewalks should be separated into three zones as discussed in the presentation (the “shy zone,” “walk/talk” and “furnishing/buffer” areas). Curbside parking and other sidewalk design elements described in the presentation also can serve as rules-of-thumb. For bulb-outs, what is the narrowest crossing distance you should try to achieve (curb-to-curb)? Thirty-three (33) feet is a good distance to shoot for (two eleven-foot travel lanes and an eleven-foot turn lane (similar to what you have on East Main). How about building enclosure? Is there a preferred height to width ratio for buildings vs. street widths? Alan Jacobs developed a very complicated formula which I found too difficult to understand and apply. I like a one-to-one ratio but have seen them work anywhere from one to two and five to one. They can be much higher than that in very large cities. For a community the size of Ashland a ratio somewhere between 1:1 and 2:1 seems to be most appropriate. North Main Street has four lanes of traffic, no sidewalks in some sections and there is a constant log jam there. If the total daily traffic on that road is about 19,000 vehicles, could it work better with three lanes (two travel lanes and a turn lane)? It seems to be right on the edge. Operation of a three-lane road, typically starts to breakdown at about 19,000 vehicles per day. It might not work any worse now but probably would if traffic increased. It could be OK if traffic was allowed to be slower there. Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé Next Steps The following next steps were discussed at and subsequent to the workshop. Opportunity Areas . Identify potential future activity nodes; incorporate the principles discussed at the workshop in developing or redeveloping these areas. Three potential nodes were identified during the workshop. Each one represents an intersection of one or more arterials and/or collector streets. Each one also presents an opportunity for a mixture of uses that would add activity and energy to the intersection and surrounding area. Finally, each one includes a mix of redevelopable sites, commercial uses and community oriented facilities at or very near the intersection. They include the following: Siskiyou Boulevard/Bridge Street . This intersection is adjacent to Southern Oregon University and a variety of commercial uses. Redevelopment of some of these uses along with targeted streetscape improvements, such as street crossing improvements, wider sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities could enhance activity in this area and improve the pedestrian experience. Ashland Street/Walker Avenue . This intersection includes The Beanery, as well as two relatively large corner properties with potential for new development or redevelopment. More intensive commercial and/or mixed use development in these areas, coupled with streetscape improvements to enhance the pedestrian experience would strengthen this area. East Main/Mountain Avenue . This intersection is bordered by a school facility (playing fields), a vacant/potentially redevelopable propery and a community arts center. It also is near the City’s civic center. Redevelopment of the underutilized sites into a mixed use node, coupled with potential streetscape improvements could result in a vibrant mixed use area that Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé would also help meet neighborhood commercial needs for nearby residents. Arterial Streetscape Improvements . The City may want to consider some sections of existing arterials for future pedestrian and bicycle improvements. For example, workshop participants discussed the possibility of reducing a portion of North Main between the city limits and downtown from five to three lanes in order to add sidewalks and bicycle lanes. This could be an option, depending on the following factors: Current and future projected traffic levels . Staff report that this road currently sees about 19,000 cars per day. At this level, a three lane road with a turn lanes could potentially function adequately, although with higher levels of congestion. However, as traffic continues to increase, at some point, three lanes likely would not be adequate. For example, if traffic exceeds 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day, five lanes likely would be needed. Any proposed change should be considered within the context of future traffic levels. Extent of turning movements . The number of intersections with left turn lanes and the number of turning movements at these intersections will affect the ability to reduce the number of lanes without causing unacceptable levels of congestion. As turning movements onto and off the main street increase, the traffic volume threshold for a three lane facility decreases. Traffic control and signalization . The number of controlled intersections along North Main and type of control uses (e.g., signals), in tandem with the extent of turning movements also will affect traffic flow and mobility/congestion. For example, fewer turns coupled with a higher degree of intersection control will improve the efficiency of traffic movement and allow for a higher volume on fewer lanes. Assuming city jurisdiction of this road also could affect the ability to make changes to its design. Continued Public Education . Further discussion of these issues will be important as the City makes decisions about the character and location of future development, as well as supportive street design. City staff and Planning Commission members may want to continue to use the presentation developed for this workshop or portions of it to illustrate design and planning issues in the future. Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé Appendix A: Powerpoint Presentation ̸» °®»­»²¬¿¬·±² ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¼»­·¹² ©±®µ­¸±° ¸¿­ ¾»»² °®±ª·¼»¼ ·² ¿ ­»°¿®¿¬» ¼±½«³»²¬ò Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé Appendix B: Questionnaire Responses ﮬ·½·°¿²¬­ ©»®» °®±ª·¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿² ±°¬·±²¿´ ©®·¬¬»² ½±³³»²¬ º±®³ ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ¿²¼ ®»¬«®² ¿¬ ±® ¿º¬»® ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ò Ѳ´§ ¬©± °¿®¬·½·°¿²¬­ ½¸±­» ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ¬¸» º±®³ò λ­°±²­»­ ¿®» ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ¾»´±©ô ©·¬¸ ¯«»­¬·±²­ ­¸±©² ·² ò ÛÎÑÙÔÉÜÑÔÚÊ 1. What are Ashland’s most outstanding assets with regard to roadways (arterials) and walkability? Ó±­¬ ±º ¬¸» ¿®¬»®·¿´­ ¿®» ¿»­¬¸»¬·½¿´´§ °´»¿­¿²¬ ¿²¼ ­¿º» º±® ¾±¬¸ °»¼»­¬®·¿²­ ¿²¼ ³±¬±®·­¬­ò Þ·µ» ´¿²»­ ¿²¼ ½®±­­©¿´µ­ ¿®» ¹»²»®¿´´§ ©»´´ ³¿®µ»¼ ¿²¼ ©¿§óº·²¼·²¹ ­·¹²¿¹» ·­ ¹±±¼ò 2. How best can arterial traffic be balanced with pedestrian-friendliness? What improvements would you like to see to accomplish this? Ó¿µ» ­·¼»©¿´µ­ ©·¼» »²±«¹¸ º±® ¬©± °»±°´» ¬± ©¿´µò Ò± ­·¹² °±­¬­ ¿²¼ ¬®»»­ ·² ¬¸» ³·¼¼´» ±º ©¿´µ·²¹ ­°¿½»ò Ó¿¬½¸ ©·¼¬¸ ¿²¼ ¿³»²·¬·»­ ±² ­·¼»©¿´µ­ ¬± ´»ª»´ ±º °»¼»­¬®·¿² ¬®¿ºº·½ò ݱ²¬·²«» ¬± »²º±®½» ­°»»¼ ´·³·¬­ ¿¬ °»¼»­¬®·¿² ½®±­­·²¹ ú ¾·½§½´·²¹ ®«´»­ò ׳°®±ª» °»¼»­¬®·¿² ¿»­¬¸»¬·½­ ú ¬®¿ºº·½ ½¿´³·²¹ ¿´±²¹ Ô·¬¸·¿ É¿§ò 3. What are the best ways you see to connect the arterials discussed in the workshop to downtown and/or surrounding neighborhoods? Ý®»¿¬» ²±¼»­ ¿´±²¹ ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ ¿²¼ ¿´±²¹ êÔÊÒÔÄÎÈÛØÄÎÏÙæÜÑÒØËÊÎÉÕØÄÜËØÏiÉ ÊÎ×ÜÊÉÜÏÙÑÔÒØÜlÊÉËÔÍÐÜÑÑk × ¬¸·²µ ¬¸» ½±²²»½¬·±²­ ¿®» ½´»¿² ²±©ò × ¬¸·²µ ¬¸» ·¼»¿ ±º «­·²¹ ¾·±ó­©¿´»­ ¿¬ ²±¼»­ º±® ¿»­¬¸»¬·½­ô ®«²±ºº ½´»¿² «° ¿²¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ½¿´³·²¹ ·­ ¿ ¹±±¼ ·¼»¿ò 4. What are the major “nodes” or intersections along these arterials where you would like to see improvements made? Please be as specific as possible. Þ´±½µ ¾»¬©»»² É¿´µ»® ú Ø¿®³±²§ Ô¿²»ò ôÉÕÔÏÒÉÕØlúÎÍØÑÜÏÙkÍËÎÓØÚÉÙØÊÔÖÏÜÏÙ¬¸» º«¬«®»ñ®»ó¼»­·¹² ±º ¬¸» É»´´­ Ú¿®¹± °®±°»®¬§ ¿®» ½®·¬·½¿´ ¬± ¬¸» º«¬«®» ª·¬¿´·¬§ ±º ¼±©²¬±©²ò ̸» ¼»­·¹² ½±«´¼ ¾» ½±±®¼·²¿¬»¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¼»­·¹² ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¬± ß­¸´¿²¼ ·² ´±±µ ú ­½¿´»ò Ò±© ·­ ¬¸» ¬·³» ¬± ©±®µ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¾±©´·²¹ ¿´´»§ ±©²»® ú ¿­­±½·¿¬»¼ ¾«­·²»­­»­ ¿®±«²¼ É¿´µ»® ú Í·­µ·§±« ±² ¿ ½±¸»­·ª» ¼»­·¹² º±® ¬¸» ²±¼»ò Ô·¬¸·¿ à ï­¬ò з±²»»® ú Ñ¿µò Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé 5. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being high, to what extent to you agree with the urban design principles presented this evening (building out to the sidewalk, human-scale architecture, parking in the rear, good window coverage, street furniture, traffic calming, etc)? ïðô éóè jûÈÔÑÙÔÏÖÎÈÉÎÏÉÕØÊÔÙØÆÜÑÒi·­ »²¬·®»´§ ­·¬»ó¼»°»²¼¿²¬ò Which principles in particular do you like, or have concerns with? Ô·µ»æ ̸» ·¼»¿ ±º ­·¼»©¿´µ ¾·±ó­©¿´»­ò Ô·µ»æ Ó»²«ó¼·­¬®·½¬ ¼»­·¹² ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¬± ¬®¿ºº·½ ú ¾«­·²»­­ñ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ½±²¬»¨¬ò Ü·­´·µ»æ Ѫ»®ó«®¾¿²·¦»¼ ¼»­·¹² ¾·¿­ò ݱ²½»®²­æ Ô¿½µ ±º ·²¬»¹®¿¬»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ø¿®»¿÷ ¼»­·¹²ò ̱± ³«½¸ °®±¶»½¬ ¾§ °®±¶»½¬ °»®³·¬¬·²¹ º±® ­¿³» ¿®»¿ò 6. What additional types of features would you like to see along the arterials such as Lithia Way, North and East Main, Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland St.? Ô·¬¸·¿ øݱ°»´¿²¼÷ í󭬱®§ ´·³·¬å »²½±«®¿¹» ·²½±®°±®¿¬·²¹ ­»¬ ¾¿½µ °«¾´·½ °´¿¦¿ ¿®»¿ò æØÑÑÊ÷ÜËÖÎmÊÈÏÒØÏÍÜËÒÔÏÖÜÉÉËÜÚÉÔÇØÍȾ´·½ ©·¼» ­°¿½»­ ¿¬ ·²¬»®­»½¬·±² ³·¼©¿§ ¾»¬©»»² ï­¬ ú з±²»»®ò Òò Ó¿·²æ ¾·µ» ­¿º»¬§ ·­­«»­æ ´·²µ »¨·­¬·²¹ ¾«­·²»­­»­ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿¬¬®¿½¬·ª» ¼»­·¹² º®±³ Ó±«²¬¿·² Ê·»© ¬± Þ®»¿½¸¾±¿®¼ò 7. Are there any other strategies that should be considered? Other suggestions, comments? ͱ³» ©¿§ ¬± ¾®·²¹ ±©²»®­ô ¬¿®¹»¬ ±½½«°¿²¬­ô ¼»­·¹²»®­ ø¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ ú »²¹·²»»®·²¹÷ ¿²¼ °«¾´·½ ¬±¹»¬¸»® ¬± ¼·­½«­­ ·³°¿½¬­ ¿²¼ ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»­ º±® ³±®» ·²¬»¹®¿¬»¼ ¼»­·¹² ¿®±«²¼ ¬¿®¹»¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿®»¿­ ø±²» ¬± ÉÆÎÛÑÎÚÒÊÔÃØÊôÙÎÏiÉÒÏÎÆÕÎÆÛÈÉô ¼± º»»´ ·¬ ·­ ¿¾­±´«¬»´§ ²»½»­­¿®§ò EVALUATION 1. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how valuable was this workshop for you? êô ç 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate the presenters. çô è Other comments: Ù®¿¬»º«´ º±® ¬¸» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ¬± ³»»¬ ¬±¹»¬¸»® ¬± ¼·­½«­­ ¬¸»­» ·­­«»­ò Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ñ«¬®»¿½¸ ɱ®µ­¸±° Í»°¬»³¾»® îðô îððé 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RULES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS Meetings. 1. The number of Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as “commission”, meetings per month and a schedule of meeting dates shall be established and may be altered or changed at any regularly scheduled meeting. Two regular meeting dates are established each month on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 1.1. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:30 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the commission, unless the commission by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) for one-half hour until 10:00 p.m. and for an additional half-hour until 10:30 p.m. if desired, at which time the commission shall set a date for continuance. 1.2. All meetings shall end no later than 10:00 p.m., unless the commission by two-thirds vote of those present extends the meeting for one-half hour until 10:30 p.m. at which time the commission shall set a date for continuance of the agenda items not acted upon. 1.3. Additional meetings may be held at any time upon the call of the chair or by a majority of the voting members of the commission or upon request of the city council.Notwithstanding notice requirements under Oregon law, advance notice of at least 36 hours shall be provided for all meetings. Quorum 2.. A meeting of greater than one-half of the regular members constitutes a quorum. A simple majority of the quorum present determines the action on any motion, question, ordinance, or resolution. The recommendation to the City Council of any amendment to the Land Use Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan shall be by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of the commission. 1 Section 2.10.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code authorizes the Commission to adopt rules for its governance and procedures, consistent with the laws of the state. These rules are adopted under such authority. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission Rules Page 1 of 5 Election of Officers. 3. At its first meeting of the year the commission shall elect a chair and first and second vice-chairs. The recording secretary shall be a member of the Community Development Department staff. Duties of Officers. 4. The duties and powers of the officers of the commission shall be as follows: 4.1. The Chair Shall: 4.1.1. Preside at all meetings of the commission. 4.1.2. Call special meetings of the commission. 4.1.3. Sign documents of the commission. 4.1.4. See that all actions of the commission are properly taken. 4.2. First Vice-Chair. During the absence, disability, or disqualification of the chair, the first vice-chair shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the responsibilities of the chair. 4.3. Second Vice-Chair. During the absence, disability, or disqualification of the chair and first vice-chair, or at the request of the chair, the second vice-chair shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the responsibilities of the chair. 4.4. The recording secretary shall: 4.4.1. Take minutes for commission meetings. 4.4.2. Give or serve all notices required by law. 4.4.3. Prepare the agenda for all meetings of the commission. 4.4.4. Be the custodian of commission records. 4.4.5. Inform the commission of correspondence relating to business of the commission and attend to such correspondence. Scheduling Council Matters. 5. Matters referred to the commission by the city council shall be placed on the calendar for consideration and action at the first meeting of the commission after such reference. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission Rules Page 2 of 5 Rules of Order. 6. 6.1.Robert’s Rules of Order shall generally govern the commission in all cases not otherwise provided for by these rules by ordinance or by state law. Failure to strictly follow Robert’s Rules of Order shall not be cause to void or otherwise disturb a decision or action of the commission. 6.2. The commission may set time limits for speakers, providing equal opportunity for opponents and proponents, while enabling the commission to finish business scheduled before the commission. The chair may set the order of speakers and changes to agenda order as needed to conduct business before the commission. 6.3. Reconsideration. The commission may reconsider matters brought before the commission as set forth below. a. The staff liaison, applicant or any interested party may request reconsideration of the vote after the public record has been closed, but prior to adoption of the final order (findings, conclusions and orders) by providing evidence to the Community Development Director that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the director might affect the decision before the commission. Failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the commission an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes a reconsideration request. i. Such request shall be at least fifteen (15) days prior to the commission’s next regular meeting. ii. If the director is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the director shall schedule reconsideration with notice to participants of the matter before the commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting. iii. The commission shall first decide, by motion, whether to reconsider the matter and if so, the limits of reconsideration and testimony. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission Rules Page 3 of 5 Unless agreed to by a majority, reconsideration shall be limited to the portion of the decision affected by the facts not raised during the open public hearing and record. iv. Regardless of who files the request for reconsideration, if the applicant has not consented to an extension of the time limits (120 day rule) as necessary to render a decision on the reconsideration, the reconsideration shall be denied by the director. b. Any member of the commission who voted in favor of the decision may move to reconsider the decision at the next regular scheduled meeting. If the motion is seconded the commission shall vote on whether to reconsider. If the commission votes to reconsider, the process outlined in 6.3.a.iii above shall be followed. Procedure. 7.Hearings shall be conducted as set forth in Ashland Municipal Code and Oregon Law, and the commission shall adopt and make available to the public the City of Ashland Public Hearings Format for Land Use Hearings as adopted by the commission. Hearings Board. 8.The conduct of the Hearings Board shall be governed by applicable sections of these rules, specifically, sections 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11. Voting. 9. Voting on quasi-judicial matters shall be by roll call vote and the order of voting shall be rotated. Voting on other matters may occur by voice vote unless an oral vote is requested by the commission. Public Disclosure. 10. Any member of the commission who has a conflict of interest or a bias on any matter that is on the commission agenda shall voluntarily excuse themselves, vacate the member's seat and refrain from discussing and voting on such items as a commissioner. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission Rules Page 4 of 5 Absence at Hearing. 11. Except as provided below, only those members of the commission present at the hearing may act on a planning action. Any commissioner absent for any part of the hearing on an action may act if the commissioner reviews the record of the hearing and all of the documents submitted at the hearing(s) prior to participating in any deliberations or decisions. Notification of Absence. 12. Each member of the commission who knows that the member will not be able to attend a scheduled meeting of the commission shall notify the commission chair or staff liaison at least two hours prior to the meeting. The Community Development Director shall notify the chair of the commission in the event that the projected absences will produce a lack of quorum. Vacancy. 13.The vice-chair shall succeed the chair if the chair vacates the office before the term in completed. The vice-chair shall serve the unexpired term of the vacated office. A new vice-chair shall be elected at the next regular meeting. Amendments. 14. These rules may be amended at any meeting of the commission by a majority of the commission, provided that the text of a proposed rule change and scheduled consideration date is announced at a commission meeting at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting where the rule change is to be considered, and provided further that notice of such proposed amendment is given to each member in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting. Adopted by the Planning Commission on the ____ day of ________, 2010. ______________________________ Pam Marsh, Chair Ashland Planning Commission _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Commission Rules Page 5 of 5