The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-07-10 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 JULY 10, 2012 AAGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA A. Aproval of Minutes pp 1.. June 12, 20012 Regular MMeeting 2.. June 26, 20012 Special MMeeting IVV. PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINNISHED BUSINESS A. Appproval of Findings for PPA-2012-005773, RPS Legislative Amenndment. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGGS A. PLLANNING ACCTION: PA-20012-00575 SUUBJECT PROOPERTY: 11555 East Mainn Street APPPLICANT: CCity of Ashland/Ashland Police Department DEESCRIPTIONN: The Planning Commisssion will re--open the puublic hearingg on a requeest for Site Revieww approval tto constructt a 3,016 squuare foot addition and aassociated site immprovementss for the Ashhland Police Departmentt located at 11155 East Maain Street. RRe- oppening of thee hearingwwill allow connsideration oof new inforrmation with regard to thhe COMPPREHENSIVEE PLAN DDESIGNATION: acccessibilityof the eentry walkwway. Emmployment; ZZONING: E-11; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 339 1E 10; TAAX LOT #: 9000. B. PLLANNING ACCTION: PA-20012-00740 SUUBJECT PROOPERTY: 1600 Lithia Way APPPLICANT: DDRRAM L.L.CC. (Doug & DDionne Irvine) DEESCRIPTIONN: A requestt for Site RReview and Conditional Use Permiit approval to coonstruct a neew 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use buillding in the vvacant, privaate paarking lot loccated at 160 Lithia Way. The proposeed building wwill consist of commercial resstaurant spaace on the ground flooor, five hotell units on thhe second ffloor, and fivve ressidential apaartments on the third flooor. The appplication alsso includes rrequests forr a Coonditional Usse Permit to exceed 40 feeet in heightt in order to pprovide archhitectural reliief inthe façade, an Exceptioon to the Siite Design && Use Standdards with reegard to plaaza sppace requiremments, and a Tree Remooval Permit to remove tten trees greeater than six- incches in diammeter at breeast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIIVE PLAN DDESIGNATIOON: Doowntown Commercial; ZOONING: C-1--D; ASSESSOOR’S MAP #:: 39 1E 09 BAA; TAX LOT #: 100800. VII. OTHER BUSINESSS A. Bi-Annual Atteendance Repport (Januaryy – June 20122) III. ADJOURNMENT V 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). ï ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 12, 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: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Eric Heesacker April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Richard Kaplan Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Absent Members: Council Liaison: Melanie Mindlin Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh welcomed Commissioner Miller back to the Commission. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the public meeting schedule for the Downtown Plaza Improvement project. He also noted Council has approved first reading of the Wireless Ordinance, which includes a provision for independent review if facilities are not co-located, and at their next meeting the Council will review changes to the keeping of chickens ordinance. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.April 24, 2012 Study Session. 2.May 8, 2012 Regular Meeting. 3.May 22, 2012 Study Session. Commissioners Kaplan/Heesacker m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2012-00018, 2220 Ashland Street. Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2012-00018. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.[Commissioner Miller abstained] NEW BUSINESS A.Election of Officers. Commissioners Dawkins/Heesacker m/s to nominate Melanie Mindlin as chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 1 of 7 î Commissioners Kaplan/Heesacker m/s to nominate Michael Dawkins as vice chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. It was agreed Commissioner Marsh would lead this meeting since Mindlin is not present. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00265 APPLICANT: Ashland Food Cooperative LOCATION(S): C-1- & C-1-D-zoned portions of Ashland's "Historic Interest Area" REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC 18.32.035.E) as it relates to drive-up uses in Commercial districts. Drive-up uses are currently a special permitted use in the C-1 zoning district, but only in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. Drive-up uses are currently explicitly prohibited in the Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed legislative amendment is to provide exception language which would apply only to existing drive-up uses within the Historic Interest Area and would allow them to relocate to a new site elsewhere within the Historic Interest Area provided that they are located predominantly underground or otherwise screened from view from the public right-of-way. [Continued from May 8, 2012 meeting] Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the proposal before the Commission would modify the regulations in the C-1 and C-1-D districts relative to drive-up uses in the Historic Interest Area. Under the current regulations, new drive-up uses are prohibited and any modification to the existing uses (Umpqua Bank, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Chase Bank) requires a conditional use permit. Mr. Severson stated this proposal would modify the requirements to allow redevelopment/relocation of drive-ups elsewhere in the Historic Interest Area subject to site review approval as a special permitted use. Mr. Severson stated the initial public hearing was continued to allow review by the Transportation Commission, and the draft minutes from that meeting have been provided. He explained at the end of the Transportation Commission’s discussion the members were polled and two members were negative, one was neutral, one was slightly positive, and one abstained. There were no specific concerns or recommendations issued by the Transportation Commission. Mr. Severson noted the matrix included in the packet materials and stated the areas in blue identify the areas affected by this proposal. He clarified Umpqua Bank is addressed separately in the matrix because they are in a split-zoned property and neither zone allows drive-up uses. Mr. Severson briefly reviewed the staff recommendations and asked for the Commission’s feedback on the issue of visibility and screening. Commission Comments Comment was made questioning how you would eliminate visibility and that this provision seems impractical for buildings that are surrounded by streets. Additional comment was made that there is some benefit to seeing how many cars are in the cue; and as long as it is not intrusive on the neighborhood, visibility is not a major concern. Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox/Mr. Knox voiced their support for excluding food and beverage uses and requiring ministerial permits for tracking. He stated they do not see any negative associations with this proposal and believe it will provide the ability for economic development, historic preservation, and the redevelopment of surface parking lots into main street facades. He stated without this proposal these sites will continue to exist in their current state and will not be redeveloped to Ashland’s standards. Mr. Knox stated he understands some people believe downtown should be pedestrian only, but this is not realistic. He stated drive-ups (excluding fast food) provide a central service to the elderly population for banking and pharmacy needs. He added inclement weather and night time/security concerns are other reasons people choose to use drive-ups. He stated this proposal will provide an opportunity for this service to work, and will provide better screening and fewer lanes than exist now. Richard Katz/Stated this is a strange situation for the Food Co-op and they are here to improve their facility for the good of their patrons and owners. He stated this is the only option they have available. Mr. Katz stated a lot of Ashland’s population visits the Co-op on a regular basis, with over 3,000 transactions per day, and they are following the lead of their owners who say time Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 2 of 7 í after time that parking is a major issue for them. He added this proposal is not just for the Co-op to have more parking, but addresses their desire to make their site safer, easier to get around, and less congested. Comment was made that the Commission’s decision is not predicated on the needs of the Co-op, and rather on the policy change they have brought forward. Mr. Katz stated aside from the needs of the Co-op, they believe this amendment has merit. Public Testimony Catherine Shaw/886 Oak Street/Stated the drive-up ordinance was a component of the overall redevelopment of downtown and at that time they did a number of things to encourage people to walk. She stated the idea of making downtown completely car free was abandoned, but what they had hoped back then was that drive-up windows would eventually be eliminated. She stated these were hard fought battles that should remain. Ms. Shaw stated it’s the bustle of the downtown that creates a vibrant community and voiced her opposition to drive-up windows. She stated significant effort has been made to create a more walkable downtown, which is better for Ashland’s businesses and economy, and Ashland needs to walk the talk. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated he is a member of the Transportation Commission and is also their liaison to the Planning Commission. Mr. Swales recommended the three service stations in this area be looked at as part of this amendment. He stated just as some would like to see the drive-ups disappear from downtown, he would also like to see the gas stations disappear. Mr. Swales cited two minor corrections in the draft minutes from the Transportation Commission. He also commented on a sex shop drive thru in Alabama and cautioned the Commission about this possibility. He added he is one of the Transportation Commissioners who voted against this proposal. Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Stated she is an owner of the Co-op and opposes this change. She thanked Ms. Shaw for speaking on the intent of the original ordinance and stated there should be a compelling reason for considering this change. Ms. Hartzell questioned if this proposal would protect the integrity of the original ordinance or move the City further along in achieving its Comprehensive Plan goals. She noted the City goals to reduce vehicle trips and reduce pollution and encouraged the Commission to consider the risks of vehicles intersecting with pedestrians in areas where they are trying to intensify pedestrians. She noted the City of Corvallis has two Co-ops and it has worked well. She added there is a lot of commercial space available in Ashland right now and perhaps the Co-op could find other alternatives. Applicant’s Rebuttal Mark Knox/Noted his respect for Ms. Shaw and stated during her tenure as mayor a lot of efforts were made that have shaped Ashland in a positive way. However he believes their proposal is misunderstood. He clarified they are not proposing to increase the number of drive-up uses permitted, but rather to allow them to redevelop to meet the current standards. He stated this proposal addresses eighteen different policies that are to the benefit of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated this is a minor tweak that will have a very positive impact. He added if the Commission is concerned about the potential for drive up sex stores, they should limit this change to financial institutions, which is what the applicant originally proposed. Commissioner Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins motioned to deny Planning Action #2012-00265. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission this is a recommendation to the City Council and requested they provide guidance in addition to direction. Commissioners Brown/Kaplan m/s to recommend Council’s approval of Planning Action #2012-00265. DISCUSSION: Brown stated the existing drive-ups are a hazard and there is no way for these to change under the current ordinance. He stated this is an opportunity to change drive-thrus to alleys and side streets and get that traffic off the main street. He stated he would like to provide banks the opportunity to change their configuration or relocate in the downtown, and believes this modification should be limited to financial institutions. He added he believes this will result in a better downtown. Marsh asked if the motion includes staff’s recommendations. Brown clarified his motion is to exclude food and beverage related uses and limit it to Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 3 of 7 ì financial institutions; and also for uses which are discontinued without a properly permitted transfer to be deemed expired after unused for 6 months, instead of 12. Kaplan stated he is divorcing this proposal from the Co-op’s needs and sees this as an opportunity to give financial institutions the opportunity to do something that would be better for the City. Staff clarified this proposal would provide more flexibility for the four bank locations to redevelopment and add the ability for them to relocate. Dawkins spoke against the motion and voiced support for Ms. Shaw’s comments. He stated things worked just fine before there were drive-ups in town and it is a convenience of our auto-centric society that we support things like this. He stated the City should be trying to eliminate all drive-thrus and have people get out of their cars. Marsh stated she resonates with Ms. Shaw’s description for how the downtown was developed, however downtown should have been made retail only and there is no likelihood of these banks leaving anytime soon. She voiced her support for the motion and stated it could motivate these businesses to redevelop and would also reduce crossings, reduce the number of drive-up lanes, and improve the environment. Commissioner Marsh noted her desire to address the screening and visibility issue, and motioned to amend the recommendation at the top of page 4 of the staff report to read: “That with relocation or redevelopment, drive-up uses only be placed in a basement or on a non-street facing (other than an alley) secondary building elevation, only accessed from an alley or driveway and no components of the relocated/redeveloped drive-up (i.e. structure, kiosk, window or queuing lane but not the driveway component) may be visible from adjacent streets other than an alley.”Brown seconded this and accepted it as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Kaplan recommended they remove the word “basement” from the above recommendation. Brown seconded this as a friendly amendment. Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Kaplan, Brown, Heesacker, Miller and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Commissioner Miller asked if they could submit concerns to Council along with the recommendation. Staff noted the Findings and Minutes will be provided. Commissioner Marsh stated it is inappropriate for commissioners to submit personal comments and instead the Council should be encouraged to watch the taped recordings. B.PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1155 East Main Street APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Ashland Police Department DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street. This addition is the first phase of a multi-phase project over the next five years; subsequent phases will include a 1,975 square foot addition, additional parking, and site improvements to bring the site more in line with current standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 10; TAX LOT #: 900. The Commission took a short recess and performed a site visit. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact All commissioners attended the site visit; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and noted the subject property is located behind the Police Department and Council Chambers. He explained this application is for site review approval to construct a 3,016 sq. ft. addition to the police station, and this would be the first phase of a multi-phased construction project. Mr. Severson provided an overview of the site plan, building elevations, project phasing, tree protection plan, and landscape plan; and noted staff's recommendation for the sense of entry to be improved to make it a more people friendly space through the use of landscaping and hardscaping. Mr. Severson listed the recommendations from the Tree Commission to supplement the existing hedge buffer with two additional trees and for tree #50 to be retained and protected. He noted the nearby neighbors spoke at the Tree Commission meeting and requested measures be taken to soften the exposure to the existing ratio antenna, parking, and building roof to the extent possible. He stated the other concerns that have been raised by the neighbors include: 1) the placement of the addition, Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 4 of 7 ë the placement of five new compact parking spaces along the driveway, and the removal of the existing berm pose a noise concern which neighbors feel could be mitigated through relocating the parking and mechanical equipment to the interior of the site and landscaping the adjacent driveway to soften the building wall, 2) concern regarding the construction hours and construction staging; the neighbors suggest that if the new parking on the northeast of the building were added and new gate installed in Phase I, construction could be staged farther from their residences, and 3) that all site lighting should come into conformance with current standards, have downward directed fixtures, and reduced pole heights. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and requested the Commission address the following issues during their discussion: 1) the use of landscape and hardscape to enhance the sense of entry and creating a space for people to congregate, 2) the two recommendations raised by the Tree Commission, and 3) the impacts raised by the neighbors. Applicant’s Presentation Dave Strauss, Kerry Kencairn, and Police Chief Terry Holderness/Mr. Strauss commented on the staff recommendations. He stated they are open to the City’s and Commission’s direction regarding how the public area out front should be developed, and addressed the concerns raised by the neighbors. He stated the berm needs to be removed, however the new mechanical equipment will produce significantly less noise and the compact parking spaces will be used by the office staff (one trip in, one trip out per day) and the impact on neighbors in terms of car noise will be considerably reduced. Mr. Strauss commented on the standards of the National Police Association, including the need for two ways out of secured parking areas and for staff vehicles, police vehicles, and impounded vehicles to be kept secured. Landscape Architect Kerry Kencairn noted the location of the new bike parking and also commented on tree #50. She clarified the location of this tree and stated it is not possible to save it and still meet the parking requirement. She added the additional trees they have proposed will outweigh the impacts of the trees being removed. Regarding the trees to supplement the hedge buffer, Ms. Kencairn stated they can install these without damaging the hedge, however they are willing to do whatever the neighbors want. Chief Holderness added the radio antenna will be removed, so there is no need for mitigation measures. Ms. Kencairn responded to the commissioners comments and clarified there is currently no landscaping proposed along the west side of the building. When asked if the five compact spaces could be removed, Mr. Strauss clarified there is no set parking requirement and instead it is established by need. He stated 40 spaces appears to be the right number for the police station and this is the number they provided for on their plans. He added the police station currently has 34 spaces. Comment was made questioning if the department foresees adding staff in the future. Mr. Holderness stated the extra spaces serve an economic and convenience need. He explained some days they have more staffing than others, and at times employees have to park in the public lot. He added the department seizes cars and they would prefer to keep these in the secure lot rather than paying to have them stored elsewhere. Concern was expressed regarding the removal of the green lawn. It was noted this is a public space, and occasionally there are protests, and it would be beneficial to retain space for this use. Comment was made suggesting a landscape maintenance budget be established to maintain whatever landscape design they agree on. Regarding the trees in the hedge buffer, comment was made suggesting these be removed from the plan. The applicants were asked to comment on whether there are alternatives to removing the berm. Mr. Strauss answered it needs to be removed and they believe the impact to maintain it is not appropriate. When asked if the mechanical equipment could be relocated, Mr. Strauss stated they could look at this, but it would then need to be placed in the public area. Comment was made that disturbance to the neighbors is more of an issue than disturbing the people who come to meetings in the council chambers. Comment was made suggesting the applicant break up the materials along the west side of the building to break up the sound. Additional comment was made questioning why the applicants are proposing stairs on the new entry and that a ramp would be better suited for ADA standards. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 5 of 7 ê Public Testimony Arthur Schreiber/64 North Mountain/Stated he lives directly behind the hedge bush that separates the police station driveway from the townhome complex, and they can hear everything. He stated he supports the expansion, but would like for the impacts to the neighbors be mitigated. Mr. Schreiber stated he will be able to see the new building from his second floor window and would appreciate anything the Commission can do to improve the aesthetics of the building on this side. Regarding the noise concerns, he explained sound is currently buffered by the berm, and the applicant’s proposal is to remove it and install four new machines. He stated the noise will be significant and requested the Commission do anything possible to have these moved to the other side of the building. He also commented on the noise that will be caused by the constructive vehicles and stated this will be very disruptive to the nearby residences. Mr. Schreiber asked if the construction could have a start time of no earlier than 8 a.m., and also requested the two trees proposed for the hedge not be installed. Steve Wolf/74 North Mountain/Thanked staff for addressing his concerns and clarified his home office looks out on this building and the proposed addition. Mr. Wolf stated the placement of the mechanical equipment is his biggest concern, but the staging of the parking lot and having the construction teams access the site from the east side instead would be very beneficial to their livability. He commented on the number of parking spaces and believes the police station can meet their needs without placing the compact parking near the residences. He stated the berm and trees currently buffer the sound from the police cars and mechanical equipment, but if you remove this the noise will be an issue, even with the installation of quieter equipment. Applicant’s Rebuttal Dave Strauss/Agreed that there are alternate options regarding the placement of the mechanical equipment, and he agreed to remove the two trees in the hedge buffer from the plan. Regarding the construction noise, he stated they could specify start and stop times with their contractors, and suggested 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He clarified this project would have a 5-6 month construction period, but the biggest percentage of noise would be generated in the first 3 months, and in the later months most of the work will be done inside. He also stated they could direct the construction traffic through the back lot if the City is comfortable with keeping this a gravel access, and stated they cannot guarantee they will have the funding necessary to complete the lot in phase one. Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins stated if they eliminate the five parking spaces and relocate the mechanical equipment, that would leave an area than could be landscaped along the building. He added if this building were located anywhere else, the Commission would make the applicant soften the side of the building. Dawkins voiced his concern with the entry of the building and stated the City Council should find the necessary funding to bring this up to city standards. At a minimum, he would like to see the west wall broken up. Commissioner Miller agreed with Dawkins and voiced support for including a modification of the west side wall in their motion. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve Planning Action #2012-00575 with amendments. DISCUSSION: 1)Location of Mechanical Equipment: Recommendation was made for the equipment to be moved to a location other than the side near the residences. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment. 2)Construction Times: Recommendation was made for construction work to be limited to 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment. 3)Materials along West Wall: Recommendation was made for the use of different materials along the west wall or articulation to address the noise issue. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment. 4)Front Walkway Entrance: Recommendation was made for no stairs on the walkway out front and for ramps to be used instead. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to continue meeting past 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 6 of 7 é 5)Compact Parking Spaces/Landscaping: Commissioner Miller voiced her preference for the five compact parking spaces to be removed and to install landscaping along the west side. Commission Dawkins agreed and stated he would rather remove those spaces and install landscaping. He stated he is comfortable with maintaining the same level of parking and noted the public parking lot could still be used when needed. Commissioner Brown noted they will not need to require articulation of the building if trees are planted along that wall. Commissioner Marsh stated she is not as concerned with the five spaces and believes there will be minimal coming and going. She stated the major impact will be moving the equipment to the other side of the building and believes they should do the best they can to cushion the impact of this noise. Commissioner Brown stated he supports leaving in the parking the police department needs. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to amend motion to remove the five compact parking spaces and substitute landscaping. Voice Vote: Commissioners Miller and Dawkins, YES. Commissioners Heesacker, Brown, Kaplan and Marsh, NO. Motion failed 4-2. 6)Construction Traffic: Commissioner Marsh stated she feels strongly that they should use the east access. Miller agreed and stated she does not want the construction vehicles using the narrow driveway near the residences. Brown recommended that construction phasing be on the east side of the Phase I addition and for all construction traffic to use a temporary access out to the existing public parking lot rather than the gated driveway on the west side of the police station. The Commission agreed to incorporate this into the motion. 7)Trees in Hedge : The Commission agreed to strike the recommendations from the Tree Commission regarding the planting of trees in the hedge buffer and the retaining of tree #50. 8)Front Landscaping: Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for leaving the lawn area as it is and stated fescues and ground cover are not an inviting treatment. He added they should encourage the City Council to help enhance the entry to this building and this should not be placed on the shoulders of the police department. Commissioner Miller voiced her support for maintaining the green lawn and stated it softens the impacts of this building. Commissioner Brown added the lawn mirrors the park across the street quite nicely. Commission Marsh stated she feels strongly that public spaces should be used actively and anything they can do to draw people into this space and make it welcoming should be encouraged. Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Brown, Miller, Kaplan, Dawkins, Heesacker and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 6-0. C.PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00573 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Not property-specific ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments REQUEST: A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new "Chapter XV - Regional Plan" element to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (“the RPS Plan”) and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson County recently adopted the RPS Plan which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region’s population, but before the RPS Plan can take effect, each of the six participating cities in the region (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. (Ashland is the only participating city which has not identified urban reserves as the city’s existing urban growth boundary was determined to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth. Adoption of the new element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with no identified urban reserves.) Due to lack to time, action was continued to June 26, 2012 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 7 of 7 è ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES June 26, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Conference Room, 51 Winburn Way. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Eric Heesacker April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Richard Kaplan Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin (Arrived at 7:15 pm) Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Dawkins noted he attended the Plaza Design Public Outreach Meeting and the architects have requested feedback from the Planning Commission. Dawkins shared his preference for more hardscape and trees in large containers, and requested the Commission take a few minutes to discuss the conceptual designs at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. PRESENTATION A.Ethics & Commission Guidelines (Dave Lohman, City Attorney) City Attorney Dave Lohman provided a presentation on public records law, definition of public meetings, public meeting requirements, rules and regulations, and ethics. (Copy of presentation is attached to minutes.) General Questions The commissioners posed several questions to Mr. Lohman, including: What is the statute of limitation for how long members need to keep meeting notes and recorders? Answer: 6 years. Can commissioners attend public events if there is a quorum of members present? Answer: As long as the commissioners are not deliberating on a particular issue, this is not considered a public meeting and members are free to attend. The Planning Commission is subject to Oregon statutes, Ashland’s Code of Ethics, and state statutes specific to Planning Commissions; which one takes precedence? Answer: The Commission is subject to all three laws and need to make sure they are adhering to the most strict rules (Ashland Code of Ethics) Does the Commission have to elect a new chair every year, or does “term” indicate a member can be chair for two consecutive four year terms? Answer: Mr. Lohman stated there are different practices on the different commissions and this needs to get cleared up. He stated his opinion is that term means four years, but others have disagreed with him. Commissioner Dawkins commented that he believes when the Commission discussed this, the intent was for a one-year term for officers. Comment was made that this may be an issue with small commissions that have frequent turn-over; and perhaps this should be a recommendation Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2012 Page 1 of 3 ç instead of a requirement. Additional suggestion was made for the vice chair to take over as chair after their first year, which could provide for a learning period. Are commissioners allowed to testify before the City Council? Answer: Mr. Lohman cited the language in AMC 2.10.110 and stated it is his understanding that commissioners can speak before the City Council as private citizens, however he will need to get back to the Commission on this question. Commissioner Marsh commented that it is unfortunate when a member goes before another body and speaks out against the position the Planning Commission has adopted. Does Commissioner Miller have a conflict of interest regarding the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan? Discussion/Answer: Commissioner Miller explained she owns property in the project area and asked if she could participate in the deliberations. She added she could provide some background information which may be helpful. Mr. Lohman stated under state law, it is an actual conflict of interest if the outcome could benefit or hurt her financially. He stated she likely has an actual conflict of interest and advised that she not participate in the discussions or deliberations. He added she could testify as a private citizen in front of the City Council, but should not testify before the Planning Commission. The Commission held general discussion about the bias issue. Comment was made that when a member is on record of having a clear bias or a predisposed position, it undermines the decision making process and that person should step aside. What is the definition of an excused absence? Answer: Mr. Lohman stated this is an issue that needs to be addressed and asked for the Commissions input. Suggestion was made to establish a yearly minimum attendance percentage, rather than a limit on unexcused absences in a row. Comment was made that it is important for a member to notify staff if they cannot attend. Support was voiced for an annual attendance rate and 80% was suggested. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00573 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Not property-specific ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments REQUEST: A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new "Chapter XV - Regional Plan" element to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (“the RPS Plan”) and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson County recently adopted the RPS Plan which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region’s population, but before the RPS Plan can take effect, each of the six participating cities in the region (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. (Ashland is the only participating city which has not identified urban reserves as the city’s existing urban growth boundary was determined to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth. Adoption of the new element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with no identified urban reserves.) Associate Planner Derek Severson gave a brief overview of the Regional Plan and the Regional Problem Solving process (RPS). He explained the proposed adoption of the new “Regional Element” to the City’s Comprehensive Plan incorporates the portions of the Regional Plan applicable to Ashland and clarified Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in that we are the only jurisdiction to not identify urban reserves and have chosen to accommodate growth through efficient land use planning instead. He stated this new Element serves primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the City’s participation in the plan and to provide a framework if the City chooses to pursue the creation of urban reserves in the future. Mr. Severson provided some background and noted the Planning Commission issued a recommendation in 2010 to ensure Ashland’s values are pushed forward through the RPS process, and the City Council adopted a resolution in 2011 that reiterated those recommendations. Mr. Severson stated the primary issues identified in the 2011 resolution included: 1) retaining Urban Fringe minimum lot sizes, 2) to not require jurisdictional exchange, 3) regional housing strategy timeline, 4) population figures consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 5) address high value farm lands, and 6) more efficient land use transportation. He stated through the City’s participation in this plan, there has been a 110-acre reduction of farm lands in the URA’s; all jurisdictions must adhere to specific density commitments; 49% of new dwellings and 44% of new commercial must be mixed use, pedestrian friendly, or in a transit oriented district by 2020; and conceptual land use and transportation plans will be required for urban reserves. Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2012 Page 2 of 3 ïð Mr. Severson stated staff believes the Plan addresses the issues raised by the City of Ashland and participation in this process has created stronger and more positive working relationships between staff and the elected and appointed official across the region, and has given Ashland a seat at the table for on-going discussions of regional growth. Staff was asked to clarify how we got to the 6.6 d.u./acre density commitment. Mr. Severson clarified this is based on the density levels set by the state’s safe harbor provision, and staff is comfortable with this requirement since it is less than what we have been doing. Comment was made questioning how this Plan might be affected by Governor Kitzhaber’s decision to open up farm lands in Jackson County. Mr. Severson stated he cannot answer this and this is something that will need to be discussed if that happens. Comment was made thanking staff for their work on this Plan and having a positive influence on it. Public Testimony Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated he does feel Ashland has influenced the Plan enough and his main concern is regarding the population projections. He stated Ashland has not been given its true allocation and the population figures should be based on the 2010 census report which shows that the previous estimates have not materialized. Mr. Swales stated these figures affect our policies on annexation, transportation planning, water usage, and infrastructure projects and wants it to be clear that our population figures are way down. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Miller/Heesacker m/s to adopt the recommendation for Planning Action 2012-00573 and forward this to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Marsh stated she will support this motion, but does not support the plan put forward by the City of Medford and does not want her vote to be interpreted as supporting what they are doing. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin concurred with this statement. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Dawkins noted the architects desire to receive feedback from the Planning Commission on the conceptual designs for the Plaza Improvement project. Commissioner Marsh noted she had prepared the following comments to provide to the architects: “First and foremost, the plaza design should support the basic function of the place -- to serve as a lively, well-used community gathering place for residents (of all kinds) and visitors. The plaza is not a passive park, nor should it be (as it is today) simply a thoroughfare from one commercial point to another. Rather it is (or should be) the central meeting point in downtown -- a place where friends meet up for coffee, family members regroup after shopping, or individuals sit to read a newspaper or people watch. Sometimes it will be the site of large gatherings or demonstrations. With these functions in mind, the design should include the following elements: Minimal (if any) turf. It's a plaza, not a park. Use planters (walls and/or pots) to provide greenery and help define the space. Potted trees can provide a wonderful, full canopy. A variety of seating options. Walls, moveable cafe tables and chairs, etc. Furniture is key to function. Trash and recycling containers. Well-designed and even beautiful containers don't have to be relegated to the outskirts of the site. Instead, they can help define the space. Thoughtful site planning. A layout that provides a sense of protection for people at tables, but doesn't obstruct views into or out of the plaza. The Planning Commission is very excited by the opportunities posed by the plaza redesign. We look forward to helping in any way we can as the project moves forward.” The Commission voiced support for the statement prepared by Marsh and staff was directed to place the statement on the Commission’s letterhead and submit it to the architects. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted,April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2012 Page 3 of 3 ïï ïî ïí ïì ïë ïê ïé ïè ïç îð îï îî TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2012-00575 1155 East Main Street îí îì îë îê îé îè TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2012-00740 160 Lithia Way íð íï íî íí íì íë íê íé íè íç ìð ìï ìî ìí ìì ìë ìê ìé ìè ìç ëð ëï ëî ëí ëì ëë ëê ëé ëè ëç êð êï êî êí êì êë êê êé êè êç éð éï éî éí éì éë éê éé éè éç èð èï èî èí èì èë èê èé èè èç çð çï çî çí çì çë çê çé çè çç ïðð ïðï ïðî ïðí ïðì ïðë ïðê Memo DATE: July 10, 2012 TO: Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Attendance Report Pursuant to AMC 2.10.025, below is the Planning Commission’s attendance record for January through June 2012. Meeting Date Meeting Type Absences January 10, 2012 Regular Meeting 0 January 12, 2012 Joint Meeting 0 January 24, 2012 Special Meeting 0 January 26, 2012 Joint Meeting 0 February 9, 2012 Joint Meeting 1 – Debbie Miller February 14, 2012 Regular Meeting 1 – Eric Heesacker February 23, 2012 Joint Meeting 0 February 28, 2012 Special Meeting 0 March 13, 2012 Regular Meeting 0 March 15, 2012 Joint Meeting 1 – Debbie Miller April 10, 2012 Regular Meeting 1 – Debbie Miller April 24, 2012 Study Session 1 – Debbie Miller May 8, 2012 Regular Meeting 0 May 16, 2012 Joint Meeting 0 May 22, 2012 Study Session 1 – Troy Brown Jr. June 12, 2012 Regular Meeting 1 – Melanie Mindlin June 14, 2012 Joint Meeting 1 – Melanie Mindlin June 26, 2012 Special Meeting 0 AMC 2.10.025 All members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings, study sessions and special meetings, when applicable. If a member will be absent from a meeting the member must notify the chair or the staff liaison at least two hours prior to the meeting. Any member who has two or more unexcused absences in a six month period [i.e. January 1– June 30 or July 1 - December 31] shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. Further any member not attending a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of all scheduled meetings (inclusive of study sessions and special meetings) shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. Attendance shall be reviewed by the commission or board during the regularly scheduled meetings in January and July, with a report sent to the Mayor and City Council advising of the need for appointment or re-appointment, if necessary. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ïîï