HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-13 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
ASSHLAND PLAANNING COMMMISSION
REGULAR MEETINNG
MARRCH 13, 20122
AAGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS
IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA
A. Appproval of Minutes
1.. February 14, 2012 Reguular Meeting
2.. February 228, 2012 Speccial Meeting
IVV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. UNFINNISHED BUSINESS
A. Coouncil Memoo – Pedestrian Places Re--Review
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGGS
A. PLLANNING ACCTION: #20111-01523
DEESCRIPTIONN: A proposaal to revise the Historicc District Deesign Standards found in
Seection IV of AAshland’s Siite Design and Use Stanndards. Thesse standardss are approvval
criteria for SSite Review applicationns for multii-family resiidential, commmercial annd
inddustrial appllications in the four Natioonal Register-listed histooric districts, as well as ffor
exxterior modiffications requiring buildiing permits oon single fammily residenntial properties
thaat are indiviidually listedd on the Nattional Registter of Historric Places. The proposeed
revvisions are intended to bring the sttandards moore into line with the Seecretary of thhe
Intterior's Stanndards for RRehabilitatioon, and to provide greeater internaal consistency
wiithin the sttandards theemselves. In conjuncction with tthe revisions, supportinng
edducational mmaterials have been creatted to furtheer explain annd illustrate the standardds
wiith regard too specific toppics includinng living withh historic buuildings, winddows, exteriior
maaterials, additions, garagges and outbbuildings.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 14, 2012
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:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Richard Kaplan Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Eric Heesacker Russ Silbiger, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh and Community Development Director Bill Molnar reviewed the Commission’s upcoming meeting schedule.
Commissioner Marsh suggested the Commission hold their annual retreat in May and asked the members to check their schedules.
She also noted the vacancy on the Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayor’s office.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes.
1.January 10, 2012 Regular Meeting.
2.January 24, 2012 Special Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01699, 763 & 777 Jefferson Avenue (Brammo Motorsports)
Ex Parte Contact: Commissioner Mindlin stated at the Commission’s Joint Meeting with the Transportation Commission, Zach
Brombacher made a comment questioning why the Planning Commission would approve this application without first looking at the
transportation issues on Washington Street. No ex parte contact was reported by Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller or Marsh.
Commissioners Miller/Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011-01699. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Marsh commented on the issue raised by Mindlin and clarified there was extensive consideration of the
transportation network when the Brammo property was annexed into the City a few years ago. Mr. Molnar agreed with
Commissioner Marsh and added there was also a limited traffic impact analysis submitted with this current application. He stated
the street network has been evaluated and the biggest issue long term is whether future interchange improvements will restrict
access in and out of Washington Street.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 14, 2012
Page 1 of 5
B.Pedestrian Places – Continue Public Hearing to February 28, 2012.
Commissioners Kaplan/Miller m/s to continue the public hearing to the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01731
DESCRIPTION: Amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) including Chapters 18.08 [Definitions], 18.68
[General Regulations], 18.72 [Site Review], and Chapter 9.08 [Keeping of Animals]. The proposed amendments
provide new standards to allow deer fencing, the keeping of chickens, rainwater harvesting, greater eave extensions,
and the installation of solar panels within historic districts. The Planning Commission will review the ordinance
amendments and make recommendations to the Ashland City Council.
Mr. Molnar stated this work is prompted by the Council Goal to promote sustainability and green building. He stated this is an
opportunity to look at minor code revisions that provide incentives for more green development, and the changes put forward focus
on energy efficiency, local food production, water conservation, and address some of the repeated questions staff receives from the
public.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the proposed ordinances address solar energy systems, rain barrels, keeping of
chickens, eave extensions and fencing; and provided a brief overview of each code section.
Solar Energy Systems
Mr. Goldman stated the proposed amendment would allow commercial and employment zoned properties in historic districts to
install solar energy systems without having to obtain site review approval if the following three conditions are met: 1) the system is
mounted parallel to the slope of the roof, 2) the footprint of the structure is not exceeded, and 3) the system does not extend above
the peak height of the roof, is screened by existing parapets, or is otherwise not visible from the public right of way. Mr. Goldman
noted the proposed amendment was taken before the Historic Commission for review and the Commission raised no objection.
Rain Barrels
Mr. Goldman stated this is another minor change that would allow homeowners to capture some of the stormwater runoff from their
roofs. He explained this code amendment defines a rain barrel as “a barrel with a capacity of 90-gallons or less used to collect and
store rainwater runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use”. He added the 90-gallon definition comes from the building
code, and clarified anything larger than 90-gallons is defined as a cistern in the building code and additional building code
requirements apply. Mr. Goldman stated the code change allows rain barrels to be located within the property’s side or rear yard,
and requires property owners to make every attempt to place the rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent
properties and public streets.
Commissioner Mindlin questioned why the code amendment limits the size of the rain barrel to 90-gallons. Mr. Goldman stated this
figure was included because anything larger than 90-gallons is considered a cistern and requires a building permit. Mindlin stated
there are 350-gallon barrels that fit under the eaves, and if the intent is to keep barrels within a certain distance from the property
line the language should clarify this and they should allow larger barrels. She also questioned staff’s statement that permits are
required for larger barrels.
Keeping of Chickens
Mr. Goldman stated this amendment aims to address local food production opportunities and provided a brief review of the current
requirements for keeping chickens within the city limits. He stated the proposed amendments address the health and sanitation
section of the code as well as accessory structures and buildings. Mr. Goldman reviewed the recommended changes for the two
sections of the code:
Health & Sanitation - AMC 9.08: 1) no more than five hens are permitted (no roosters), 2) chickens are kept for personal
use (not commercial), 3) chicken slaughtering shall not be done outdoors, 4) chickens must be secured at all times (during
the daytime in a chicken run or fenced yard, and within a coop at night), 5) feed is kept in rodent and raccoon proof
Ashland Planning Commission
February 14, 2012
Page 2 of 5
containers, and 6) manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be stored in an enclosed container (not more than
20-gallons) until removed.
Accessory Structures & Buildings – AMC 18.68.170: 1) shall be at least 20 feet away from any dwelling on an adjoining
property, 2) shall be less than six feet in height, 3) chicken coops shall be less than 40 sq. ft. in area, and chicken run
enclosures shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. in size, and 4) structures shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and
the public right of way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping.
Commissioner Dawkins questioned whether they should require chicken runs to be screened. Mr. Goldman stated this is how the
ordinance is drafted but the Commission can recommend changes if they do not agree with this provision. He also clarified how the
6-foot maximum structure height is measured and suggestion was made to amend 18.68.140(C)2.b to read “structures shall not
exceed six feet in total height”.
Commissioner Dawkins questioned the slaughtering provision that prohibits this from being done outdoors and stated not many
people would want to do this inside. He added since they are limiting it to five chickens, he does not believe people will be doing a
lot of slaughtering.
Commissioner Miller commented on the odor produced by manure and asked if homeowners can discard this material with the
normal garbage pickup. Mr. Goldman stated he can look into whether Recology will pick up this material, and noted there is already
a provision in the Nuisance Chapter regarding odors.
Eave Extensions
Mr. Goldman stated this is a simple change. He explained the current code allows eaves to encroach up to 18 inches, and the
proposed change would allow eaves, awnings, and gutters to intrude up to 3 feet into required yards.
Fencing
Mr. Goldman stated the three main issues are fence heights, fencing materials, and deer fencing; and provided an overview of each
area. He stated the current code language provides a clear definition of fence height, but this ordinance provides further clarification
for fences that are on properties that are below street grade and fences on retaining walls. Regarding fencing materials, he stated
the majority of the proposed security fencing language already exists in the code and this ordinance would just move it to the land
use general regulations section. The one addition is the language that states on commercial, employment, and industrial properties
such fencing shall not be visible from the right-of-way or with approval on properties deemed hazardous or in need of additional
security. Mr. Goldman commented on the proposed deer fencing amendments and provided several photos of various deer fencing
treatments being used throughout town. He stated staff is recommending property owners be allowed to build up to an 8 foot fence
in front, side or rear yards, with 80% visibility through the open mesh deer fencing material. Additionally, any structural supports
within 10 feet of a public right of way, other than an alley, cannot exceed 2 inches in width or depth. He clarified chain link fences
are not permitted, and if propylene mesh is used there must be a tension line across the top.
Comment was made questioning the 2”x2” supports. Mr. Goldman stated 2”x2” posts are sufficient to keep deer out of a property
and the smaller post size also addresses the opacity issue.
Dale Shostrom/1240 Tolman Creek/Stated he reviewed this item when it was presented to the Historic Commission and
commented on his experience with deer fencing. He noted he performed a tour this morning and commented on the variety of
materials he saw being used. He stated very often property owners are choosing to use very flimsy materials and supports and
questioned if this is because people are unsure if the City will require them to take it down and therefore do not want to invest a lot
of time or money. Mr. Shostrom provided several fencing samples for the Commission to view, including: rodent fencing, chicken
fencing, welded wire mesh, horse fencing, field fencing, cattle fencing, and hog fencing. He commented on the size of the posts and
stated he saw lots of different sizes and shapes when he conducted his tour. He questioned what the appropriate size should be,
and noted from a distance you do not detect the fencing or mesh materials and only notice the posts. Mr. Shostrom stated the 2”
verticals could be too limiting and recommended the opacity requirement be based on the entire structure. He provided several
drawings that contained different fencing styles and post sizes but would still meet the 80% opacity intent. He added the code
should be simple enough to allow some design flexibility for professionals, but also simple enough for homeowners to install a deer
fence themselves.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 14, 2012
Page 3 of 5
Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Commissioner Dawkins voiced concern with the aesthetics of some of the existing front yard deer fences. Commissioner Marsh
agreed and stated she is not as concerned with side or rear yard fencing, but even a wonderfully designed front yard fence can
have a big impact in the way the streetscape feels. She voiced her opinion that the code be more generous in rear and side yards,
and more specific for front yards. Several suggestions were proposed by the commissioners, including: excluding arterials from the
front yard fencing provision, encouraging compatibility between existing fences and the deer fencing, and prohibiting bird netting.
The Commission briefly discussed the 2”x2” post size limitation. Comment was made that this is not heavy enough and perhaps
4”x4” posts should be allowed. Commissioner Marsh commented that front yard fencing should be as inconspicuous as possible
and suggesting limiting the post size to 2”x2” for front yards only.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioner Marsh recommended the group worked through each issue one at a time.
Solar Energy Systems: No concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment.
Fence Height: No concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment.
Fence Materials: Commissioner Marsh noted this is the relocation of existing language regarding security fencing. No
concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment.
Keeping of Chickens: Commissioner Dawkins objected to the requirement for fencing or screening chickens from public
view. Mr. Goldman stated staff’s concern was making sure the structure is screened from view and stated this could be
accomplished by using plants, vegetation, hedges, etc. Commissioner Mindlin stated she is not in favor of a screening
requirement for side or rear yards but is unsure about front yards. Mr. Goldman noted the proposed ordinance already
states that chicken coops and chicken runs shall be located within a side or rear yard only, and shall be at least 20 feet
from dwellings on adjoining properties.
Commissioner Dawkins recommended they delete 18.68.140(C)2.e, which states “structures shall be screened from view
of adjacent properties and the public right-of-way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping to create an opaque
screen.” The Commission voiced support for removing this language from the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Dawkins also recommended they remove the slaughtering requirement (9.08.040(D)4.c). Comment was
made that there is an existing process for people to report concerns under the nuisance ordinance. Dawkins stated the
ordinance places a limit on the number of chickens a person can keep and most people will not slaughter more than one
chicken at a time. The Commission voiced support for removing the slaughtering requirement from the proposed
ordinance.
Eave Extensions: No concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment.
Rain Barrels: Commissioner Mindlin stated she has a difference of opinion with staff that needs to be researched and
stated she is resistant to making it more difficult to install a rain barrel than it is now. Mr. Goldman clarified under the
current standards if someone proposed even a 50-gallon barrel attached to the wall in the side yard setback they would
not be allowed to do so. Mindlin asked what would happen if the barrel was not in the side yard setback and staff clarified
this provision would not apply and this requirement only addresses structures placed within the setback area. Mr. Molnar
added the main question is how big of a structure is the Commission comfortable allowing in a setback area, and staff has
proposed a 90-gallon limit. Mindlin noted there are larger water containers available that are specifically designed to fit
within the intent of the language and questioned why they would want to prohibit them. Mr. Molnar noted the weight with
larger containers can be an issue, especially if it is placed close to the foundation and not properly placed or secured.
Mindlin stated she would like to obtain additional information on this subject and would like to hear from building staff and
professionals that are working in the field regarding this issue.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 14, 2012
Page 4 of 5
Commissioner Marsh recommended they move forward and come back to this issue later. She stated approving this would
allow people to do something that is currently prohibited, and the Commission can continue research on expanding the
size of the containers. Mindlin suggested they more clearly define what the intent is, such as not more than (x) feet in
height and not closer than (x) feet from the property line. Commissioner Marsh asked if the Commission was comfortable
moving this amendment forward but including a recommendation that staff look into the capacity issue before this goes
before Council for review. The Commission voiced support for forwarding this language to the Council and for staff to look
into whether the size of the barrel can be expanded and still meet the intent of the amendment.
Deer Fencing: Commissioner Marsh suggested increasing the deer fencing opacity requirement in front yards to 90% and
removing the 2”x2” support requirement. Additional recommendation was made for the Commission to limit the mesh size
and have a 2 inch minimum. Commissioner Miller suggested deer fencing in front yards should incorporate elements of the
existing fence, and recommended an 85%-90% opacity requirement. The Commission continued their discussion and
agreed that they are not concerned with rear or side yards. In regards to the compatibility recommendation, Mr. Goldman
suggested including language that states “every effort be made to use compatible materials with the existing fence”. Mr.
Molnar clarified fence permits are a ministerial permit and stated judgment calls on a counter permit could be problematic
and recommended against this. Commission Marsh suggested a handout be provided with the fence permit encouraging
compatibility and the Commission voiced their support for this.
The Commission continued their deliberations on deer fencing and recommendation was made to eliminate 18.68.010.D.3,
which states “deer fencing structural supports within 10 feet of a public right of way, other than an alley, shall not exceed 2
inches in width or depth” and requiring a 85-90% opacity for front yard deer fencing. The Commission voiced their support
for this change and including a recommendation for materials to be handed out at the counter that encourage design
compatibility.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to forward this item to the Council with the recommendations as discussed. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
February 14, 2012
Page 5 of 5
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
February 28, 2012
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:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Eric Heesacker Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Richard Kaplan Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh reviewed the Commission’s upcoming meeting schedule and announced Dennis Slattery is the Commission’s
new Council Liaison. She also noted that May 5 and May 19 have been proposed for the Commission’s annual retreat and asked
each member to check their schedules so that they can make a selection at their next meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01731, Green Codes Updates.
Commissioner Mindlin questioned why the Commission’s decision is moving forward as a recommendation rather than changing
the draft ordinance as discussed. She stated she does not support sending this onto the City Council in this format and stated since
the Commission is bringing this change forward, the proposed ordinance should say what they want it to say.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the public hearing before the City Council has already been noticed for March 6 and in
order to stay with that timeline it was not possible to bring a revised ordinance back before the Planning Commission. He stated the
Findings do reflect the direction given by the Commission and they will be presented to the Council along with the draft ordinance.
Mr. Goldman commented on items the Commission had requested further research on, and stated the following recommendations
will also be presented to Council: 1) front yard deer fencing shall be 85% pervious, 2) mesh materials placed in a front yard shall
have a minimum open diameter of 1.5 square inches, 3) deer fencing (wire or polypropylene) shall be supported by structural
supports or tension wire, 4) eliminate the requirement to screen chicken coops and runs from public right of ways and adjacent
properties, 5) eliminate the prohibition again outdoor slaughtering of chickens, and 6) modify the rain barrel requirements to state
barrels shall not exceed 6 ft. in height and shall be located so that a minimum clear width of 3 ft. is provided between the barrel and
property line.
Commissioner Miller agreed with Mindlin and stated she also would have preferred to see their recommendations incorporated into
the draft ordinance. Commissioner Marsh stated she is not concerned with moving forward the materials in this format.
Commissioner Dawkins agreed and stated the current format makes it much clearer for the Council to understand what was
discussed and flushed out by the Planning Commission.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 28, 2012
Page 1 of 3
Commissioners Dawkins/Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011-01731. Voice Vote: Commissioners Dawkins,
Kaplan, Miller and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 4-1.[Commissioner Heesacker abstained]
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01734
DESCRIPTION: A continuation of the January 24, 2012 public hearing to review the pedestrian access and circulation
standards (AMC 18.92) that were adopted as part of the Pedestrian Places project. The zoning and land use ordinance
amendments associated with the Pedestrian Places project were approved by the City Council on November 15, 2011
and went into effect on December 16, 2011. Subsequent to the approval, the City Council directed the Planning
Commission to re-review the ordinance amendments that apply to the Detail Site Review Zone and citywide, and make
recommendations to the Council for changes as appropriate.
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Planning Manager Maria Harris commented on the pedestrian access and circulation standards and clarified these standards only
apply to multi-family and commercial developments. She provided an overview of the site layout and design standards and stated:
To the greatest extent possible, walkway systems should be extended throughout the development and connect the
buildings to adjacent public sidewalks; parking areas; trails, public parks and open space areas; building entrances; and
future phases of the development.
Walkways have to provide safe, reasonably direct and convenient walkway connects.
Ms. Harris clarified walkways through parking lots are only required for lots with 50 or more parking spaces (or greater than 100 feet
in width or depth). She also noted the provision which states “topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not
making certain walkway connections” and stated this language was intentionally included to provide flexibility.
Ms. Harris also reviewed the walkway design and construction standards, which state:
Walkways must be 5 feet wide.
Be made of concrete, asphalt, brick or masonry pavers, or other durable surface.
Be raised and curbed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or when adjacent to driveways; however the decision
body may approve same grade walkways.
Provide crosswalks where walkways cross parking areas or driveways.
Meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided several visual samples of existing multi-family and commercial developments in
Ashland, and displayed how the developments might look if the new standards were applied.
Commissioner Mindlin questioned if her co-housing development on Calypso would have violated these standards. Staff noted
there is flexibility built into the ordinance and the decision body has the ability to approve same grade walkways like what was
approved for the Calypso development. Commissioner Marsh commented that there are all different types of lots and while it is
beneficial to set guidelines, they need to acknowledge that the intent is the most important part and incorporate flexibility that
people can trust. Mr. Molnar stated the main goal of this ordinance is to get applicants thinking about how pedestrians will get
through a site early on in the process. He also commented on the possibility of modifying the ordinance to provide additional
leniency for residential developments.
Arterial Setbacks
Ms. Harris provided some history of the arterial setback requirements and stated prior to the Pedestrian Places ordinance the
requirement for all arterials (except in the downtown and the croman mill areas), was for buildings to be setback 20 ft. from the
property line. She explained the revised ordinance establishes a “build-to line” approach and instead of working from the property
lines, you are working from the curb line and reserving enough space for future parkrow and sidewalk improvements. Ms. Harris
reviewed the benefits of this approach and stated: 1) buildings located in the commercial and employment zones have the ability to
come closer to the back of the sidewalk and therefore utilize the land more efficiently, 2) the character of the residential zones is
maintained because the underlying property line setback still applies and properties will have 10 ft. to 20 ft. for front yard space, and
3) you gain predictability because when you work from the curb line you are dealing with a fixed point whereas property lines are
fairly arbitrary and can shift.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 28, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Goldman provided several visual samples of properties located along the arterials and displayed what development under these
new standards might look like.
Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern with applying this standard to North Main and questioned if this approach would
eliminate their opportunity to widen the street and install bike lanes. The Commission discussed whether there is potential to install
bike lanes on North Main, and also discussed the proposed Road Diet. Commissioner Marsh stated the Road Diet would be a great
solution to this problem and hopes it will move forward.
Ms. Harris stated staff believes there are some areas that could use refinement, and noted there will be opportunity to adopt some
housekeeping measures through the Unified Land Use Ordinance project. She stated staff is starting to work on this project now,
and it will come before the Commission starting in April and will continue for the next 12 months.
Commissioner Marsh clarified these changes were passed by the City Council and are currently in effect, and asked how the
Commission would like to proceed. She stated they could keep everything the same, request modifications to the entire ordinance,
or affirm the actions to this point and ask staff to place specific refinements in the code cleanup project. Mr. Molnar noted one other
option is to direct staff to come back immediately with the housekeeping updates and not wait for the Unified Code to come forward.
Commissioner Dawkins restated his concern with the arterial setbacks on North Main and how to establish a bike corridor; but
noted this concern is dependent on whether the City adopts the Road Diet. Commissioner Marsh agreed that a bike lane is
essential there, but stated this is a corridor issue and asked if the group was comfortable revisiting this after they see what happens
with the Road Diet. The group voiced their support for the adopted amendment to the arterial street setback for Ashland, Siskiyou
and East Main; and if the Road Diet does not occur, to revisit the setbacks on North Main to address the bike lane issue.
Commissioner Mindlin stated she is unsatisfied with the circulation language and having a rule that is left to discretion, and
suggested removing the parking lot standards for residential developments. Commissioner Marsh noted staff had recommended
taking another look at whether to apply the parking lot standards to multi-family developments and in lots greater than 100 feet in
width or depth, and asked if the Commission was comfortable dealing with these issues in the next 12 months during the code
cleanup project. The group voiced their support for revisiting this issue during the Unified Land Use Code project.
Mr. Molnar clarified staff would capture the Commission’s decision in memo format and bring it back to the Commission for review
and approval before sending it along to the City Council.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Dawkins stated he would still like to revisit the sidewalk requirements for areas where they aren’t necessary and
don’t get used.
Commission Marsh encouraged the members to think about retreat topics. Suggestion was made by Commissioner Mindlin for
them to add pocket neighborhoods to the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
February 28, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Memo
DATE: March 13, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Commission
RE: Planning Commission Recommendation for the
Re-review of Pedestrian Places Ordinance Amendments
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission reviewed the Pedestrian Place Ordinance Amendments that apply city-wide
and in the Detail Site Review Zone, and recommends the revisions remain in place as adopted. The
Commission believes the Arterial Street Setback Requirements and Pedestrian Access and Circulation
requirements should be monitored, and revisions made over the next year as found necessary.
Specifically, the Planning Commission is in agreement with the revised Section 18.68.050 Arterial
Street Setback Requirements for Ashland St., E. Main St. and Siskiyou Blvd., but if the Road Diet does
not occur, would like to revisit the setbacks on N. Main St. to address the bike lane issue.
Second, the Commission recommends fine-tuning the language in Section 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access
and Circulation as part of housekeeping updates to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance during the next
year. Future clarifications to consider are:
Section 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Standard:
to install protected raised walkways through large parking areas (50 or more spaces,
or greater than 100 feet in average width or depth)
clarify the flexibility to use a walkway at the same grade as the parking area or driveway
o
possibly increasing the average width and depth size of large parking areas
o
excluding multi-family residential developments from providing walkways through large
o
parking areas
Background:
The Planning Commission held public hearings and deliberations on January 24, 2012 and February 28,
2012 to re-review the Pedestrian Place Ordinance Amendments that apply city wide and to the Detail
Site Review Zone. One person testified at the January 24, 2012 meeting, and one written comment was
received.
Attachments:
1. Minutes from January 24, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting
2. Minutes (draft) from February 28, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting
3. Written Comment (email) from “pfm”, received January 24, 2012
Downtown Design Standards Zone
MEN \
III
Ashland Site Design & Use Standards 60