Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-13_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 JUNE 13, 2017 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. April 25, 2017 Study Session. 2. May 9, 2017 Regular Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2017-00200, 165 Water Street. VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00615 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 361 South Mountain Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Martin & Trina Ashworth/Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a seven-lot/six-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) for the property located at 361 South Mountain Avenue. The application proposes a Solar Access Performance Standard which would allow the southern units to shade the northern units no more than four feet above the finished floor elevation, and requests an Exception to Street Standards to allow a new driveway location approximately 55 feet from the driveway to the south where a 75- foot separation between driveways is required ( the existing driveway is only five feet from the driveway to the south, and the proposal brings the driveway significantly closer to meeting the ). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family Residential; standard ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09DD; TAX LOT #: 600. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of Officers. B. Attendance Report. IX. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin 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 Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Debbie Miller Derek Severson, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist Haywood Norton April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: None ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the continuation of the 165 Water Street hearing is scheduled for the commission’s May 9 meeting; the conceptual Cottage Housing site plans and ordinance will be presented at the May 23 study session; and the commission’s annual retreat is scheduled for Saturday, June 10. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Housing Element Public Involvement Update. Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid provided an update on the public outreach and community feedback on the Housing Element policies. She stated as part of the participation plan a subgroup was created to work on community outreach, staff published an article in the City Source newsletter, announcements were posted both on the city’s website and in the Daily Tidings, a dedicated webpage was created to keep citizens updated, an open house and community forum were held, and an online questionnaire was added to the city’s website. Ms. Reid explained a few themes emerged from the community feedback, including: Citizens felt the wording in the existing policies was unclear. The majority of survey and forum participants commented that the city should use plan language that provides more clarity of purpose to laypeople. Another theme was an aversion to certain words in the current policies, including “appearance and character” and “incompatible and destructive”, which were cited as being limiting to future development. Diversity was a word that came up over and over again, both in context of demographic character of the city’s population as well as with regard to the types of housing developed. The topic of affordable housing dominated the responses in both the housing forum and online questionnaire. The reoccurring nature of issue reinforced the continued need for a broad policy that maintains affordable housing as a priority for future policy development. Ashland Planning Commission April 25, 2017 Page 1 of 2 Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted the full summary report and all of the online responses are available for review on the city’s website. He explained the next step in the process is to draft revisions to the existing policies based on the feedback received and to bring those back to the Housing & Human Services Commission and Planning Commission for review before a final draft is formed. He added staff is still in the drafting stage and stated any comments the commission has would be helpful as they move forward and coalesce the comments into policy changes. Staff clarified the Ashland Comprehensive Plan is set up with goals and policies, and the policies are the springboard for the City Council and Planning Commission that support code writing, code standards, and program development. In addition, the policies influence the funding priorities for the city. Commissioner Comments & Questions: Is staff examining the current goals and policies? Mr. Goldman clarified staff is reviewing the Housing Element in total and noted the goals and policies have not been revisited since the 1980s. Suggestion was made to have more than four goals, and within those goals refine the strategies. Concern was expressed regarding the limitations imposed by state regulations. Comment was made questioning how the city could encourage developers to build housing that is more affordable. Suggestion was made for the revised policies to address a range of housing for all the different income sectors instead of just one segment. Concern was expressed regarding the steady removal of starter homes from the city’s inventory. Suggestion was made to consider a limitation where if the original house is removed, the new home cannot be more than 10% of its size. Opinion was given that no matter what you are building, those houses will increase in cost over time; even if they were built for low income families, they will likely not stay affordable for very long. Comment was made that the survey responses showed that people seem a lot more open to diversity imbedded into the neighborhoods. It was noted that a number of comments talked about green space, wildlife, and protecting character, and the commission should remain mindful of this too. Comment was made that they will likely receive push back if they make too many changes to the single family neighborhoods. Comment was made that people want to know what their neighborhood will be like in the future, and predictability is important to residents. Ms. Reid thanked the commission for their input and stated this topic will come back again at a future meeting. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A.Missing Middle Housing. Staff presented a short video on the “Missing Middle Housing”. Several commissioners questioned if there are current obstacles to this and if so they should identify those regulations and see if they can be modified or removed. Additionally, there was strong interest expressed in the idea of dividing larger houses into apartment units. Other comments made by the commissioners included keeping the limitation on the size of a structure, but not the density within; and looking into the possibility of allowing live/work units as a commercial use. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission April 25, 2017 Page 2 of 2 B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin 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, Senior Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Melanie Mindlin CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.April 11, 2017 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00200 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) OWNER/APPLICANT: Magnolia Investment Group, LLC/Gil Livni DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 42,841 square foot, three-story, mixed-use building consisting of commercial tenant space on the ground floor, 26 hotel units on the second floor, and ten residential condominiums on the third floor for the vacant property located at 165 Water Street, at the corner of Van Ness and Water Streets, in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The application includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to allow hotel/motel use; an Exception to Street Standards; a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of floodplain and severe constraints lands; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT #: 2000. (Continued from April 11, 2017 meeting) Commissioner Pearce announced the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was declared. Ashland Planning Commission May 9, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson briefly reviewed the application and explained the applicants have modified their proposal to add a mechanical vehicle stacker in the basement which would increase their on-site parking to 55 spaces. Mr. Severson displayed the project elevation perspectives, provided the Historic Commission and Tree Commission recommendations, and noted both commissions were supportive of the application as presented. The three outstanding items from the initial hearing were listed and reviewed in further detail. Integration of Required Public Plaza Space: Mr. Severson stated the applicants have indicated that in addition to the proposed plaza space treatments discussed at the April hearing, there will also be rooftop garden space. He stated the applicants did an excellent job of clarifying the treatment of the plaza spaces at the prior hearing and based on their presentation and the additional clarification regarding the rooftop greenspace, staff feel the proposal satisfies the requirement. Off-Street Parking: The applicant’s proposal for a mechanical car stacker brings the total off-street spaces to 55 and requires only a 13% reduction in the parking requirement. Staff is supportive of this modification and have added a condition of approval (for discussion purposes) that would require no parking be gated or otherwise restricted. Mr. Severson added the back-up area for the compact car parking is fairly tight, and suggested the commission discuss this during their deliberations. Alley Encroachments: At the last meeting a neighbor pointed out the proposed location for the transformer and stairway impacted the backup area in the alley. Staff has included a condition of approval asking for this to be modified so that backup can continue on neighboring property. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson clarified the six on-street parking spaces will be accommodated by adding additional width along Van Ness and inserting parking bays. This area is currently signed for no parking. Mr. Severson clarified there is no requirement in the code to provide parking for staff who work at the hotel. The approach the city has historically taken is a presumption that the hotel rooms will not always be at 100% occupancy and the unused spaces will be utilized by the business employees. Mr. Severson clarified the applicants could not intensify the mix of uses proposed without approval. Mr. Severson commented on the exception to the 5ft. buffer between parking spaces and the property line. He explained the applicants are building a retaining wall which will have vegetation on it and stated staff is supportive of the exception as it has the same effect as a landscape buffer. Applicant’s Presentation Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development/Dave Evans, Ron Grimes Architects/Gil Livni, Magnolia Investment Group/Ms. Gunter reviewed the proposed site layout and stated they believe the issues raised at the last hearing have been addressed. She stated the project architect has made change requested by the Historic Commission to the end unit; the rooftop plan includes garden areas and functional open space; and a mechanical parking structure has been added to the garage to increase the on-site parking. Ms. Gunter clarified the parking structure will work within the proposed basement area and meet height clearances, however the property owner does want to restrict some of the below grade spaces for residents. She commented on the traffic impact analysis that was conducted and stated the engineer has determined that this proposal will meet the parking demands. Regarding the stairway issue, Ms. Gunter stated the landing has been reduced in length from 8ft. to 4ft. and shifts the stairs away from the neighbor’s property. She commented on the issue raised by staff regarding the compact vehicle back-up area and stated if they require it to be expanded they will need to work with the neighboring property owner regarding the easement potential. Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation and stated this is exactly the type of development sought for an enterprise zone. Ashland Planning Commission May 9, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Questions of the Applicant Ms. Gunter clarified they are requesting four on-street parking credits on Water Street along their frontage only. She also clarified their proposal provides a total of 55 on-site spaces; 22 surfaces spaces, 15 below ground, plus 18 below ground for the residential use. Gil Livni clarified the car lift will work with the 11 ft. basement height. Public Testimony Jim North/85 Central Ave/Stated he lives at the corner of Water and Central and commented that this is a gorgeous project that will be great for the neighborhood. Mr. North noted he raised two issues at the last hearing. The first, regarding the placement of the stairs and transformer has been addressed. The second issue is regarding the lighting for the public spaces. Mr. North stated this area is a magnet for people and he does not want to see this become a problem. He stated he is a bit concerned that some of the parking might be reserved and reduce what it available, but all in all he supports the project. Eric Bonetti/2552 Old Mill/Stated he owns the adjacent parcel and believes this will be a successful project. He is happy the neighbor’s issues are being resolved and stated is seems the applicant has made a considerable effort to address all of the approval elements and believes it is appropriate to grant the on-street parking credits. Donn Comte/175 Piedmont/Mr. Bonetti read Mr. Comte’s statement aloud. The letter voiced approval of the project and stated it will be an asset to the neighborhood and a safe place to live and work. Sandra Royce/1045 Timberline/Stated this spot has been unsightly for some time and this project will make a big difference. Ms. Royce commented that it will make the town more attractive and the hotel will bring jobs and revenues. Sylvia Massy/1374 Iowa/Stated this is an exciting project and will bring life to a dead spot adjacent to downtown. She noted she has out of town guests that often come without vehicles and this will be a great spot since it is close to retail, restaurants and the theater. Applicant’s Rebuttal Ms. Gunter commented briefly on how they reached the parking calculation and requested the commission’s approval on the proposal. Mr. Livni commented on their request to have 18 spaces reserved. He explained they are spending an additional $300,000 on the stacking mechanism so that he can provide reserved parking for the condo owners and stated he will not be able to sell the units if they don’t provide this parking. He added it would be preferred for the stacking unit to be reserved for residents since this type of system works best when it is utilized by people who know how to use it and not random visitors. Commissioner Pearce closed the hearing and the record at 8:25 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Thompson voiced her support for the addition of the mechanical parking structure. She stated this is a big financial investment and improves the parking numbers. She stated she feels comfortable with the proposal, including the reservation of the 18 spaces; however she is not sure about the compact car backup space. Commission Brown stated he is good with the parking and commented that he has seen these types of lifts used all over San Francisco. He recommended they adopt a condition that addresses the backup space and stated he is comfortable with the applicants working this out with the Public Works department. Ashland Planning Commission May 9, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Norton commented that he is skeptical about the parking, but does not think it will be a detriment to the city. He stressed that any intensification of use, which includes a restaurant, should come back to the commission for approval and stated he could support this under those terms. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the project with the conditions as presented with an additional condition to address the backup space requirement for the six compact car spaces and a modification to Condition #12 that says the parking spaces shall remain available except for the spaces reserved for the condos. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller voiced her concern with the reserved parking spaces. Commissioner Dawkins agreed with the concerns raised with the vehicle backup area but stated there are ways to resolve this. He stated regardless of what the traffic engineer states he feels there is a lack of parking in this area, however he would not support a motion that did not include the reserved spaces and stated it is appropriate to have a reserved space for units you own. Commissioner Norton/Thompson m/s to amend motion to add a condition that any intensification of use that increases the parking requirement would need to come back before the Planning Commission for approval. DISCUSSION: It was clarified that under current requirements this change would require administrative approval. Comment was made that a tiny change should not have to come back to the full commission and support was voiced for keeping this in staff’s court. Additional comment was made that if it is an issue of great concern staff can always kick this up to a Type II hearing before the commission. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Norton, and Thompson, YES. Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, and Pearce, NO. Motion failed. Roll Call Vote on Main Motion: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Thompson, and Pearce, YES. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 9, 2017 Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-2017-00200 165 Water Street TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2017-00615 361 South Mountain Ave. OTHER BUSINESS _________________________________ Annual Attendance Report Memo DATE: June 13, 2017 TO: Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Attendance Report Pursuant to AMC 2.10.025, below is the Planning Commission’s attendance record for May 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017. This report is for information only; No action by the Planning Commission is needed. All commissioners are in compliance with the attendance requirements. Meeting Date Meeting Type Absences 05/10/16 Regular Meeting 0 06/14/16 Regular Meeting 0 06/28/16 Special Meeting Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Thompson 07/12/16 Regular Meeting Commissioner Mindlin 08/09/16 Regular Meeting 0 08/23/16 Study Session 0 09/13/16 Regular Meeting Commissioner Mindlin 10/11/16 Regular Meeting Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Thompson 10/25/16 Joint Study Session 0 11/08/16 Regular Meeting 0 11/22/16 Study Session Commissioner Brown 12/13/16 Regular Meeting 0 01/10/17 Regular Meeting 0 01/24/17 Special Meeting 0 02/14/17 Regular Meeting Commissioner Miller 02/28/17 Special Meeting Commissioner Pearce 03/14/17 Regular Meeting 0 04/11/17 Regular Meeting 0 04/25/17 Special Meeting 0 05/09/17 Regular Meeting Commissioner Mindlin Section 2.10.025 Meetings and Attendance A. Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of meetings related to business needs of an advisory commission, or boards may be set by the advisory body. B. The Planning Commission and Budget Committee shall set their own meeting attendance requirements. All members of other Regular or ad hoc advisory bodies must attend at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the full advisory body’s noticed meetings, study sessions and special meetings in each full year of their tenure. A person removed from the advisory body for non-compliance with attendance requirements subsequently may be appointed to fill the vacancy on the advisory body by means of the normal appointment process of that advisory body. C. A member should provide at least 48-hour notice to both the chair of the advisory body and the staff liaison regarding any planned absence from a scheduled meeting of the advisory body. In the event an unexpected emergency will cause a member to be absent from the meeting, the member must, if possible, notify the chair or the staff liaison within a reasonable time in advance of the meeting. D. Generally, advisory bodies may not allow alternates to represent or stand in for a member at a meeting. Notwithstanding the foregoing preclusion of alternates, on Regular and ad hoc advisory bodies with some members who are appointed by an entity other than the Mayor and City Council and who serve as a representative of the appointing entity, an alternate may participate and vote for the named member by proxy at any meeting of the advisory body. Such participation by the alternate will be deemed to be attendance by the named member. Individuals directly appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council may not be represented by alternates. E. Each advisory body should review member attendance and report to the City Recorder approximately every six months. City Recorder will advise the Mayor on the need for appointments or re-appointments, if necessary.