HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-12 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 12, 2016
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III.AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
IV.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.November 24, 2015 Study Session.
2.December 8, 2015Regular Meeting.
V.PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Adoption of Revised Findings for PA-2015-01517, 209 Oak Street.
A.
VII.TYPE IIPUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02287
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 123 Clear Creek Drive
APPLICANTS: John Fields/Clear Creek Investments LLC
OWNERS: Clear Creek Investments LLC & Cooper Investments LLC
DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-
use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling
units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123
Clear Creek Drive. The request would also modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village
Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to
create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 05 CD; TAX LOT:
#1803.
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in thismeeting, 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
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
November 24, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlincalled the meeting to order at 7:00p.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 DawkinsBrandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Debbie MillerApril Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
NoneGreg Lemhouse, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Community Development Director Bill Molnarprovided an update on the upcoming City Council and Planning Commission
meetings. The City Council will hold a public hearing onthe marijuana ordinance on December 1; the Planning
Commission’s annual presentation is scheduled for January 4, and in March the Council will have a study session to
evaluate the Citizens’ Planning Advisory Committee. Regardingthe Planning Commission, Mr. Molnar stated there are two
public hearings scheduled for the next meeting, and the December study session has been canceled.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Development Standards for Wildfire Lands Ordinance Amendments.
Community Development Director Bill Molnargavea brief overviewofthe proposed changes to the Wildfire Lands
Ordinance. He explained State Planning Goal #7 requires cities to look at hazard areas and develop policies and codes to
address them, and stated this would be a significant update that would take the existing Wildfire Lands overlay zone and
apply it citywide. Mr. Molnar stated there are a number of issues to work through,including potential conflicts with other
sections of the municipal code,and stated staff has some concerns with how the proposed changes willimpact smaller lots,
multifamilyproperties, and commercial designations. He noted this is still in the working draft stage and once the final draft is
prepared the city will be required to notice every property owner in Ashland.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman commented on the existing standardsand reviewed the three fuel break types and
requirements. He explained in April 2014 staff was directed by the City Council to explore an expansion of the wildfire lands
boundary and stated under the current draft properties subject to site review(commercial and multifamily)would need to
have a fire prevention and control plan, and all new construction and construction that expandsastructure by more than 200
sq.ft. would have to meet the fuel break requirements around the property. Mr. Goldman stated Planning staff is working with
the Ashland Fire Department to develop clear and objective standards, and noted there are a number of discussion points
provided in the packet materials to assist the commission with their discussion.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 24, 2015
Page 1of 3
Forest Division Chief Chris Chambers addressed the commission and stated this update is needed to protect life and
property, firefighter safety, the watershed, and Ashland’s quality of life. He explained wildfires occur throughout the city and
have led to loss of property, and despite the Firewise programhighly flammable vegetation continues to be planted
throughout town. Mr. Chambers presented photos and information on severalof the fires that have occurred in town, and
commented on a fire that occurred in Wenatchee where embers traveled 1.5 miles and ignited their warehouse district
causing substantial damage.
Mr. Chambers was asked whether a tree could be within 10 ft. of astructure and he responded that they would want the
limbs trimmed and pruned to the 10 ft. distance. When asked if bushes could be placed next to a porch, he was uncertain if
this would be permitted.
Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman stated this ordinance would take the requirements being enforced in the wildfire lands
zone and expand it throughoutthe city, but as long as property ownersdo not expand or improve theirstructure, they can
continue to plant and maintain non-fire resistant materials. Mr. Chambers stated they have done a lot of researchand it is
time to start making progress on this issue, and stated tackling new constructionseems like a reasonable approach to this
issue.
The commission asked several questions of the Fire Department staff, including:
Will properties continue to be inspected?Ms. Hickmanresponded that their intent isto inspect properties every
3-5 years to ensure they are maintaining compliancewith the standards.
Would the health of non-fire resilient trees factor into the importance of their removal?Ms. Hickmanstated
dead trees are required to be removed, andthey would advocate for the removal of less healthy treesfirst. She
stated the intentis to reduce canopiesand have 10 ft. of clearance between non-fire resilient trees. Mr. Goldman
noted staff has concerns with the how the canopy spacing requirements would be adjustedto account for slope,
and stated such provisions for canopy and shrub spacing would limit landscape design options on single family
properties with limited yard areas, and would be specifically problematic in the applicationof existing landscaping
requirements on commercial and multifamily properties (such as parking lot screening and buffering requirements).
Does the 3 ft. of a structure prohibition refer to plantings or canopy?Mr. Chambersstated they will need to
determine whether to allow fire resistant plants and materials in this zone. He stated his preference would be for
plantings to not touch the structure and to regulate ground cover, and recommended lava rock be used instead of
bark next to buildings.
What is a fire resistantplant?Mr. Chambersresponded any plant that is not on the prohibited list. He stated fire
resistant plants hold more moisture, don’t drop a lot of leaves or needles, and typically do not have a lot of oils or
wax. Mr. Goldmanstated staff will be workingon defining these and it may be simpler to listwhat you can’t plant
instead of what you can. He added the plant list willcome back as a separate resolution.
Will the ordinance allow homeowners to plant privacy screens? Mr. Chambers stated there are different plant
materials that could be used, however Mr. Goldman stated further discussion is needed on whether plants could be
placed next to each other to get the height and width needed to createa buffer.
Most of the tree canopies downtown are within 10 ft. of a structure, what will be the allowance for street
trees? Mr. Chambersstated the individual street trees downtown arenota likely threat to those structures.
The commissioners shared their thoughts on the draftordinance. Commissioner Dawkinsstatedthatwhile he understands
what the Fire Department is trying to accomplish,he is not comfortable with an ordinance requiring these things as opposed
to recommendations. He added it is more about how things are maintained as opposed to the plant itself. Commissioner
Thompson commented on the need to balance the Fire Department’s goals with the realities of living in an environment
where things grow and people want landscaping around them.She expressed concern with item D(4) and stated in many
situations this would lead to the removal of the trees, and asked if any vegetation would be allowed within three feet of a
structure. Mr. Chambers statedthey will likely go back to the drawing board with this requirement and allow fire resistant
plantsand materials within 3 ft. of a structure.Ms. Thompson noted the deer problem and stated under this ordinance the
few plants that are deer resistantwould no longer be allowed. Commissioner Mindlin stated there are competing goals and
purposes and while she understands the fire preventiongoalthere are many other goals the city has. She cited the city’s
water wise landscaping program and stated widely spaced plants with no mulch is counter to this program. Mindlin
questioned what other policies the city has that contradictwith thisproposal and stated more work needs to be done before
Ashland Planning Commission
November 24, 2015
Page 2of 3
this will be ready for the City Council and acceptable to citizens. She mentioned staffing issues and questioned instead of
increasing staff to administer this ordinance, could there be a better way to use that money that would achieve the stated
goal. Commissioner Brown agreed with needing to find a balance. He voiced support for the goal but stated they need to
find ahappy medium. He added the draft ordinance does not allow them to live in the community they want to live in.
Commissioner Pearce questioned why the ordinance is triggered by development and whether this would be fair and
effective. He commented that it could take a long time for many of the lots in Ashland to expand, andstated this ordinance
would create a hardship for thoseit does effect and could be a great expense for something that does not add a lot of fire
risk. Commissioner Thompson suggested they start with an educational and incentive program that targets the entire city to
eliminate the major risks.Mr. Chambers commented that they have embraced education and outreach for many years but
have reached the limit of what they can accomplish with these methods. Commissioner Norton asked if there is an appeal
process and asked staff to provide samples of what these requirements would look like on existing properties. He also
commented that there will likely be a lotofadditional issues that come forward once the public hearings begin. Ms. Hickman
thanked the commission for their input and acknowledged that what they are proposing is different and may represent a shift
in the community’s values.
B.Review and Approve Planning Commission Recommendation on Marijuana Cultivation and Businesses
Ordinance.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the ordinance and draft recommendations have been presented to the
City Council but if the commission haschanges a revised report can be submitted at the next meeting. Commissioner
Thompson requested clarification about cultivation in E1 and M1 zonesand stated it was her understanding that commercial
grows could not be located outdoors. Mr. Molnar concurred that this was the intent.
Support was voiced for the recommendation as presented.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at9:15p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
November 24, 2015
Page 3of 3
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 8, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlincalled the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
(Joined the meetingat 8:15 pm)
Michael DawkinsMaria Harris, Planning Manager
Debbie Miller Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
NoneGreg Lemhouse, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planning Manager Maria Harris announced second reading of the Normal Neighborhood ordinance packageand first reading
of the marijuana ordinance is scheduled for the next City Council meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.October 27, 2015 Special Meeting.
2. November 10, 2015 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
Larry Roven/2301 Siskiyou Blvd, #215/Stated he is impressed with the degree of work and detail contained in the Normal
Neighborhood Plan and complimented the Planning Commission and all those involved.
Joseph Kauth/1 Corral, #13/Expressed concern with the forest resiliency project and requested a moratorium to the activities
taking place on Mt. Ashland.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-2015-01284, 474 Russell Drive.
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-01284. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed
unanimously.
B.Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-01517, 209 Oak Street.
No ex parte contact was reported.Commissioner Thompson noted that the commission agreed that no parkrow had to be
installed on B Street and recommended item 11(e) be amended to read, “All required street frontage improvements, including
Ashland Planning Commission
December 8, 2015
Page 1of 5
butnot limited to the sidewalk, parkrow withirrigated street tress spaced at one tree per 30 ft. of frontage, and street lighting
shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor.”
Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve Findings for PA-2015-01284 as amended. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed unanimously.
TYPE IPUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02038
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 85 Winburn Way
APPLICANT: Carlos Delgado, Architect
OWNER: Bryan & Stephanie DeBoer
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of
Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints to allow the construction of a single family residence on the property
located at 85 Winburn Way. The application includes requests for an Exception to the Development Standards for
Hillside Lands (18.3.10.090.B Hillside Grading & Erosion Control) to allow structural retaining walls along the
west side of the property to exceed seven feet in height and for Tree Removal Permits. 18 of the site’s 21 trees
are proposed for removal, including three significant trees 18-inches or more in diameter which require Tree
Removal Permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR’S MAP:39 1E 09 BC; TAX LOT: #3000.
CommissionerMindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin declared site visits. No ex parte contact was
reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the proposal for 85 Winburn Way which includes: 1) a Physical & Environmental
ConstraintsReview permit for the development of hillside lands with severe constraints to allowthe construction of a single
family residence, 2) an exceptionto the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to allow structural retaining walls that
exceed 7 ft. in height, and 3) Tree Removal Permits to remove threetreeslarger than 18 in. d.b.h. Mr. Severson provided an
overview of the surrounding area and remarked on the on-street parking and pedestrian traffic in this location. He reviewed the
applicant’s elevation drawings, site plan, tree removal and protection plan, and commented on the slope and the proposed
retaining wall at the back of the property. He explained the applicants have provided a slopeanalysisand geotechnical report,
as well as an arborist report in their submittalmaterials. Mr. Severson stated the arborists report is clear that due to the health
of the trees, their location, and the type of soils found on the site, the trees need to come out. He noted in 2014 one of the Oak
trees on the sitefell due to a fungus that affected the roots, and shortly thereafter the Parks Department evaluated the trees on
the adjacent ice rink property and determined that eight trees needed to be removed. Mr. Severson stated the Tree
Commission recommended approval of the application as submitted; however, staff is requesting that trees 13 and15 be
preserved. Regarding the slope and retaining wall, Mr. Severson explained the geotechnical report recommends against
terraced retaining walls and stated staff is supportive of this. Mr. Severson stated this is a straight forward application that
keeps with the residential zoning of the property, and stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions as outlined.
Applicant’s Presentation
Carlos Delgado, Project Architect/Explained this property is zoned residential and their request for a single family home is
an outright permitted use. He stated they are before the commission to request an exception to the hillside development
standards for the retaining wall at the rear of the property, which will be 11-15 ft. in height. He noted this is a ministerial
decision that could have been made by staff. Mr. Delgado commented on the placement and design of the house and noted
this was taken to the Historic Commission for a courtesy review and they were supportive. He commented on the geotechnical
report and stated terracing would destabilize the soil and upper properties,and the development of this lot will create a more
stable situation for the area.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 8, 2015
Page 2of 5
Brian DeBoer, Property Owner/Commented on his family’shistory and personal ties with this location, and stated his intentis
to build a home that fits well in this special location. Mr. DeBoer stated this site has some challenges but they have worked
hard to create a proposal thatis worthy of this space. He stated the landscaping will be very park-centric and they are going to
use 4-6” caliber trees to repopulate the site. He noted they have spoken with many of the neighbors and received a positive
response,and asked for the Planning Commission’s support of this project.
Laurie Sager, Landscape Architect/Commented on trees 13 and 15 and stated after consulting with their arborist, who is the
same professional hired by the city to remove the trees on the ice rink property, he determined that the trunk of tree 15 is too
close to the retaining wall and voiced concern that the roots stabilizing the tree would be severed by the construction. Ms.
Sagernotedtree 13 is a Big Leaf Maple and hopes the commission will agree that this is not the right tree for this location. She
noted their proposal went before the Tree Commission and they unanimously approved the application.
Public Testimony
Connie Lynn/74 Granite/Stated her property is kitty-corner fromthe applicant’s and expressed concern with soil stability and
going too far into the slope. Ms. Lynn commented on the character of the area and suggested if the house was scaled down it
would better match the rest of the park settingand they would not have to push as far into the slope.
Michael Daole/247 N Laurel/Stated this is a ridiculous place for a residence and the structure will change the flavorofthe
area. Mr. Daolestated any building that goes into this space should keep with the theme of public and service buildings.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mr. Delgado stated the Historic Commission reviewed this project and felt it was appropriate and would fit well in this location.
He stated this site has been underutilized for decades and reminded the commission that this property is zoned residential.
Regarding the stability of the slope, he stated this is of utmost importance to them and they are confident that the structure and
retaining wall have been properly designed and engineering.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015-02038, including the removal of trees 13 and 15.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins commented that the architect did a good job and the house blends well with the
hillside. Commissioner Brown thanked the applicants for the level of engineering data submitted and stated this property has
been an eyesore for a long time. He stated the new trees will restore the tree environment as believes the house will fit well.
Commissioner Thompson voiced appreciation for the extensive information provided by the applicant and stated this provided
assurance that the slopes will be dealt with appropriatelyand the stability of the sitewill be improved. She added the design
blends residential and commercial elements and reflects what is going on around it. Commissioner Miller advocated for tree 13
to be retained and stated she is disappointed with the building’s design. She stated she would have preferred something that
reflected the Skidmore Historic District. Commissioner Pearce stated this is a nice looking building and it is placed well on the
site. Commissioner Mindlin stated they are limited in what they have under their consideration, and stated this is a well-
designedand conscientiously planned project. Commission Norton commented that the landscaping will grow and expand and
will reflect the park across the street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin, Norton, Pearce,
Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar joined the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01856
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 229 W. Hersey St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: RW Signature Properties LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family residential units for the
property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are requested for an Exception to StreetStandards to
construct a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot bio-swale parkrow where a six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow
planting strip are required, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter
Ashland Planning Commission
December 8, 2015
Page 3of 5
at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:
R-3;ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT: #9900.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin declared site visits. No ex parte contact was
reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the application to construct 11 multifamily residential units, which includes an
exception to the Street Standards to construct a 5 ft. sidewalk and 5 ft. bioswale,and a Tree Removal permit to remove three
trees greater than 6 in. d.b.h. Mr. Severson reviewed the project’s density, site plan, elevation drawings, and planting plan. He
explained the project has significantly less lot coverage and significantly more open space than required, and noted each unit
will have its own garage space and private patio. He noted the staff report raises the question of whether an arborist report
should be required forthe tree removals; however, the Tree Commission did review the application and recommended
approval as submitted. Regarding the sidewalk and parkrow, Mr. Severson stated staff is supportive of approving the
exception and stated they are recommending approval of the application with the conditions as outlined.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked to comment on the Tree Commission’s review of the proposal. Mr. Severson stated he was not present for
that meeting, but stated the commissioners did conduct site visits and did not feel it was necessary to preserve the identified
trees. Staff was asked about the alley dimensionsand backup space, and Mr. Severson clarified there is a recommended
condition of approval that would address this. The condition requires the applicants to demonstrate thealley meets the
requirements with their building permit application.
Applicant’s Presentation
Randy Wallace, Property Owner/Stated he won a Historic Preservation Award for his last multifamily project on Coolidge
Street and he would like to improve on that project and create another development. Mr. Wallace stated he has spoken with
many of the neighbors and by enlarge they were very optimistic. He explained this type of housing is lacking in Ashland and
this project will address a demonstrated need. He stated the proposal fits the zoning and the tenants will have very nice units
with wood flooring, balconies, views, and open space. Mr. Wallace stated this development will provide more rentals and
believes this is a special project that will benefit the city.
Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development/Explained the proposal is for a 2-story residence with an attached unit, and
9 one-bedroom units at the rear of the property. She stated there is a shortage of studio and one-bedroom units in Ashland
and this project will fill an identified need. Ms. Gunter reviewed the surrounding properties and stated there is a bed &
breakfast to the east andmultifamily housing directly to the west, south, kitty-corner, and across the street. She commented on
the tree removals and stated the two Elm trees are in very poor condition, and tree #6 is rising out of the ground. She stated
they are all very unhealthy and noted they will be replacing these trees and planting additional trees as well. Regarding the
density bonus, Ms. Gunter stated they could have chosen to build fewer, significantly larger structures, but this would fill an
already met need in the city. Regarding the exception to the Street Standards, she stated the exception is merited due to the
site conditions, and she requested the commission allow 8 ft. driveway widths off the alley which would allow for greenspace
and planting strips in between each accessway.
Mr. Wallace commented on the alley and clarified they will be having a boundary survey done, but based on his
measurementsthere is adequate width to meet the requirement. He noted they are providing significantly more open space
than required and believes the layout and orientation will provide a passive area that is very beautiful. Mr. Wallace noted
Condition 7(g) and asked that this be amended to only require Earth Advantage.
Public Testimony
JeannieAzzoparchi/279 W Hersey/Stated shedoes not opposethe project or having more rentals in the neighborhood, but
expressed concern with traffic. She stated not many people go the posted speedlimitand the traffic has gotten progressively
worse and more dangerous. Ms. Azzoparchi stated this proposal will add more traffic to the area and requested speedbumps
be installed on Hersey.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 8, 2015
Page 4of 5
MichaelDaole/247 N Laurel/Expressed concern with the extreme concentration of traffic at this location. He stated the
tenants will likely use the garages for storage and questioned where the cars will park. He stated the alley width is not
appropriate for the intensity that comes in and out, and noted the issues that occur on garbage/recyclingpick-up day.
LucaMoschini/259 N Laurel/Stated he fully agrees with the twoprior speakers and stated the alley is too small for the traffic
that the housing brings in. He stated the proposed buildings are too large for the area and at maximum, 4-5 units should go
there. Mr. Moschini agreedthat the garbage and recycling bins arean issue and stated this area is not designed to
accommodate this many people on this sized lot.
JudyCangiamilla/247 N Laurel/Agreed with the prior speakers and voiced concern with the alley width and traffic congestion.
She stated two cars cannot passeach other in the alley and one vehicle has to reverse out to make room. She stated she is
supportive of the property being developed but stated this is too many units for the site.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked whether they considered a condition to require vehicle parking in the garages. Mr. Severson stated the code
already states that garages are to provide the required parking and cannot be used for storage, however this could be
reiterated in a condition of approval. Regarding the recycling andgarage bin issue, Mr. Severson statedthis project will have
an enclosed recycling and trash area. Mr. Severson also commented on Hersey Street and clarified this is a higher order street
intended to accommodate these traffic levels and no traffic study was required. When asked if thecommissionshould consider
alley improvements to accommodate two way traffic,Mr. Molnar stated it is not advisable to encourage two-way traffic on the
city’s alleyways. He added this has been the long-standing position of the Public Works Department.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mr. Wallace clarified the garbage and recycle bins will never sit out in the alley. He noted they have met with Recologyand
believe they have addressed any potential trash issues. Ms. Gunter commented on the alley and noted the city requires
developments to take access off the alley if there is one. She noted they are aware that on street parking can be problematic in
Ashland, which is why they have a garage for each unit on the site. She added they have no concerns with a condition that
requires the garagestobe used for parking.
Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s approve PA-2015-01856 with an added condition that states the garages shall not
be used for storage. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Mindlin noted the applicant’s requeststo remove the Energy Star
requirement and to granta reduction in the garage drivewaywidths. Mr. Severson clarified the Energy Star bonus is not
needed and the applicants meet the density bonus requirements without it. Mr. Brown statedhe is sticking with staff’s
recommendation to keep the driveways at 9 ft. and stated if there is enough space to accommodate the city standard they
should do so. Commissioner Dawkins stated he is sympathetic to the speeding issue raised, however it is not within their
purview to require speedbumps. He added he is appreciative that the applicants are proposing the types of housing units
Ashland really needs. Commissioner Thompson stated her main concern was the alley, but noted this area is zoned R3 and it
is required that properties be designedto take access of the alleyway. Commissioner Miller recommended traffic calming
measuresbe installed before anymore density goes into this area. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her support for themotion
and stated this projectmeets a clear housing need. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Thompson, Brown, Norton, Pearce,
Dawkins, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioner Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at9:45p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
December 8, 2015
Page 5of 5
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-2015-02287
123 Clear Creek Drive