Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-12_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 September 12, 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. August 8, 2017 Study Session. 2. August 22, 2017 Regular Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2017-01199, 707 Helman Street. VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-00406 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard OWNER/APPLICANT: Jake Hayes & Angie Renick-Hayes DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approval for a seven- lot/six-unit subdivision as Phase III of the West Bellview Subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) for the property located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. The application includes requests for: the modification of the West Bellview Subdivision (PA #96-131) to allow additional units, an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow the placement of two parking spaces between the buildings and the street, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01507 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 330 Maple Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Maple LLC/Rettinger & Associates, Inc. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new 29,400 square foot mixed-use building consisting of basement parking, medical suites on the first floor and two 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). 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. residential units on the second floor for the property located at 330 Maple Street. The application includes: a request for Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow automobile circulation between the building and the street to allow a patient drop-off area from Maple Street; a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow a smaller than typically-required separation between driveways; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Health Care; ZONING: HC; 39 1E 05DB; TAX LOT #: 2000 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 MINUTES August 8, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced staff would attend a study session with the Council in September regarding the cottage housing ordinance. A commissioner would attend the meeting as well. Chair Pearce announced the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) issued the decision in the McMonagle vs. Ashland AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Mindlin noted the Wildfire Mitigation Commission would address the wildfire mitigation ordinance soon. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. July 11, 2017 Regular Meeting. 2. July 25, 2017 Study Session. Commissioners Dawkins/Norton m/s to approve the July 11, 2017 meeting minutes. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners Brown and Thompson abstained. Commissioners Mindlin/Thompson m/s to approve the July 25, 2017 Study Session minutes. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Findings for PA-2017-01059, 1068 East Main Street. A. Ashland Planning Commission August 8, 2017 Page 1 of 5 Senior Planner Derek Severson explained staff formulated the Findings for open space on page 7 and 8 so the condition was a response to the plans and not a statement of precedent. The Commission wanted to look at it further in a study session. At Chair Pearce Page 4, change Section 2. Conclusory Findings to Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. Page 8, change the first sentence in the last paragraph from to Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-01059, 1068 East Main Street. DISCUSSION: The Commission declared no ex parte regarding the matter. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01199 A. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 707 Helman Street OWNER/APPLICANT: PDK Properties DESCRIPTION: A request for preliminary subdivision plat approval to create an eight-lot subdivision for the property located at 707 Helman Street. The application also includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to install curbside sidewalks along the full frontage of the property where city Street Standards would typically require that a park row planting strip with street trees be installed between the curb and sidewalk. The application also includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove one significant tree (#33) an 18-inch diameter Ponderosa Pine. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1- Commissioner Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Thompson, Pearce, and Norton declared site visits. Commissioners Brown and Mindlin drove past the site. Commissioner Miller attended the site visit and drove past the site on several occasions. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson explained this was a Preliminary Subdivision Pat Approval that would create an eight lot subdivision. The application was being processed under the subdivision chapter instead of the performance standards options. It looked at whether the proposal met the dimensional requirements of the zoning and access in utilities, not the base densities and open space requirements. There was also an exception to the street standards to install five-foot curbside sidewalks along the frontage of the property, instead of having a seven foot parkrow between the curb and sidewalk. A tree removal permit was issued to remove a Ponderosa Pine tree. The subject property was at the corner of Randy Street and Laurel Street despite the Helman address. It was 1.14 acres or approximately 49,901 square feet with a 1,971 square foot house slated for demolition. The current driveway circulated through the property. The applicants wanted to remove 41 trees on the property. In residential zones, only significant trees required a tree removal permit. The applicant requested a sidewalk exception due to the slope at the edge of Laurel Street that wrapped around Randy Street. A park row would push sidewalk improvements 12 feet back from the curb into the hillside. Having a five-foot sidewalk would lessen the amount of retaining wall needed for installation. Ashland Planning Commission August 8, 2017 Page 2 of 5 The Building Department approved the house demolition pending Commission approval of the redevelopment plan. The application included a drainage and draining plan with storm drainage detention on site. The utility plan was included. The applicants added solar envelopes illustrating potential eave heights and the setback needed to comply with Solar Standard A in the solar ordinance. The Tree Commission supported the tree removal request. They wanted a tree protection plan to ensure the trees on neighboring properties were protected particularly during the bioswale installation. The Tree Commission also wanted street trees planted behind the sidewalk if there was not a park row. Another request would maintain the trees in perpetuity in lieu of street trees in a park row. The Commission hoped landscaping for the eight lots would mitigate the removal of the 41 trees. Staff supported the request. The project would develop eight new earth advantage platinum homes, sidewalks, and limited driveways to two. The project benefited the neighborhood and met the approval criteria with the conditions recommended in the report. Questions of Staff Staff was asked if widening the sidewalk at the corner across from the school to create a refuge area was considered. Mr. Severson Derek responded they had not discussed widening that area. Mr. Severson explained a curb cut with a truncated dome was the thermal plastic piece installed at the curb cut of a crosswalk for ADA access and blind people. This would go in at the southwest corner where the sidewalk crossed to the school. Applican Amy Gunter/Kyle Taylor/Ms. Gunter explained the property was at the northeast corner of Randy Street and Laurel Street. The 707 Helman Street address was remnant from a larger track when the property was Cherry Knoll Dairy. The knoll consisted of sandstone and granite soils, with rock not far below. A survey slide of the property showed the trees, the existing structure, powerlines and existing driveway. The plan addressed storm drainage down to the square footage of each structure. One change removed the tapered flare at the Randy Street side of the driveway. They did solar envelopes for each lot due to the topography of the site. Certain lots would have onsite detention for storm water that would drain to Laurel Street and others would drain to Randy Street. The Tree Commission expressed concern for a small deciduous tree located on a neighboring property where lots 3 and 4 came together. An existing six-foot-tall fence protected the tree and eliminated the need for additional protective fencing. Engineering for the bioswale was not developed to the point of knowing if it would require excavation or retaining walls and fill. Street trees were planted to shade the street. Due to the topography, street trees would be planted several feet above the actual street. A landscape architect will work with the property owner on each building permit to address the street tree planting standard. They would install a 14-foot standard residential street light at the intersection of Laurel Street and Randy Street. Some of the hill would be scraped off to address the grades. Ms. Gunter spoke against widening the sidewalk at Randy Street to create a refuge for children to cross to the school. A mid-block crossing was dangerous and a crosswalk at that location would not be approved. Widening the sidewalk at Randy Street would require public pedestrian easements or right of way dedication as well as additional retaining walls. The front yard setback for lot 6 was on Laurel Street. It was 15 feet with a side yard setback of 10 feet. Lot 7 had 15 Ashland Planning Commission August 8, 2017 Page 3 of 5 feet due to the bioswale and potentially two front yards. The official setback was 10-foot. Sidewalks would be installed prior to the survey plat. Typically, street trees went in the park row and were planted during the street improvements. In this circumstance, the street trees would be in the front yard area. Due to construction disturbing the trees, the applicants were requesting to have trees planted and irrigated on each lot prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each unit. That allowed the owner to pick their own trees and possibly plant more. Commissioner Dawkins wanted to add a requirement that street trees were planted sooner, were consistent, and closer to the sidewalk. The applicant could use small caliber trees. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained generally sidewalks with a park row were often in the right of way and trees were planted at the same time and water metered. These street trees would be on the private property of each home. Irrigation was an issue. The Commission could require a common meter to irrigate the trees and have it removed once the homes were built. Another issue was grading the sites for each home. He was not sure they could identify space for a street tree or know how grading would affect the tree. Mr. Taylor addressed the continuous bioswale and explained there will be joint access and private easements granted for the facility. Ms. Gunter added they will have mutual access easements and maintenance agreements. Owners will purchase an agreement requiring them to keep the street trees alive, and maintain the bioswales and driveways. Public Testimony William Zentner II/134 Cypress Circle/He did not have a problem with the development. He wanted to know if there was a grading setback from the property line or if the developers could create up to the property line. Would blasting be involved to remove the rock? He opposed the taller street light. These were proposed single story homes but lot 2 and 3 had 7-foot grade drops between the driveway and the back of the house. He wanted to verify the sidewalk wrapped around the entire property. If the existing fence was replaced, would it be a privacy fence or an open one? What types of street trees would be planted and was there a specification? He wanted to know about fence protection while the common swale was under construction. Also, how close would the grading come to the property line. Ms. Gunter explained blasting was not allowed in the city. She was not aware of a grading setback requirement. There will be daylight basements on the backside of both homes on lots 2 and 3. By code they were single story structures and the basement would adhere to basement code. The subdivision would use 6.5-foot privacy fencing with possible deer wire. Street tree placement could dictate grading and possibly require small tree protection fences. The timing of planting the trees could also inhibit construction and storing materials on the property. On Laurel Street, the trees would be near the houses on top of the hill. Commissioner Dawkins commented on street tree placement. If there was not a park row, the tree had to be close enough to the sidewalk to shade the street. Putting the trees up on the slope made them ineffective for street shading. Trees could grow on steep slopes. Commissioner Mindlin wanted to know the standard on how far back from the sidewalk a tree could be planted to be considered a street tree. The Findings could reference the requirement or the Commission could set one for the project. Mr. Severson thought the slope was rock and it might be difficult to plant unless they used tree wells and had the tree either behind the sidewalk or on top of the retaining wall. Mr. Molnar addressed the sidewalk refuge and explained the standard for a sidewalk on a residential street was 5-6 feet and the planting strip was 7-8 feet. The Planning Commission had the authority to choose within that range. The standard also allowed for seating in park rows in residential areas. He recommended involving the Public Works Ashland Planning Commission August 8, 2017 Page 4 of 5 Department for having a crossing from the potential refuge. Mr. Severson added the Public Works Department was hesitant to encourage mid-block crossings but might support one at the intersection of Laurel and Randy. Commissioner Norton did not think the Public Works Department would support a crossing at the location of the refuge if there was on street parking. It was mid-block and on a curve. He would have issues with a crossing there as well. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Brown spoke to IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 6. k. regarding street trees. He understood the issues and agreed with Commissioner Dawkins that a tree that far away may not serve the purpose. A temporary watering system could resolve some of the problems. He wanted the landscape architect to review planting street trees on the slope. Commissioner Mindlin wanted to set a standard for tree placement. Mr. Molnar explained the code required one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees behind the sidewalk could not be closer than 2 feet to the actual sidewalk. Commissioner Miller did not want the street trees to interfere with the construction. Chair Pearce agreed with Commissioner Brown and thought street trees should be planted prior to final approval. Commissioner Dawkins suggested requiring the street trees to be 3-5 feet from the sidewalk. He did not think they would interfere with the construction. Commissioner Brown added the canopy at 15 years must shade the sidewalk. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2017-01199 with the additional language to 6.k. that the trees will be no more than 5 feet from the sidewalk and must be trees that will shade the sidewalk. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins liked that the project would build energy efficient units. Commissioner Brown, initially wanted 6-foot sidewalks, but all the other sidewalks were 5 feet and there was no reason to make it wider. He also liked the project. Commissioner Thompson read #2. In the Tree Commission Findings from August 3, 2017 and thought it should be omitted. She also questioned whether the last sentence in #2 lieu of street trees within the park row planting strip, was necessary since it was covered in IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 6. k. Commissioner Brown thought it was necessary and that it should go into the overall documentation. Commissioner Thompson suggested adding it to 6.k. Commissioner Mindlin thought they should adopt the Tree Commission Findings with the Planning Commission modification. Commissioner Thompson suggested in addition to omitting #2 in the Tree Commission Findings, they should add the last sentence to IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 6. j. as part of the CC&Rs maintenance of street trees. Commissioner Dawkins agreed to amend the main motion and delete the first sentence of Section 2 in the Tree Commission recommendation of August 3, 2017 and add the second sentence to IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 6. j. Commissioner Mindlin addressed the last sentence in #2 of the Tree Commission Findings and suggested changing These trees shall be maintained in perpetuity in lieu of street trees within the park row planting strip to These trees shall be maintained in perpetuity The Commission agreed to add it to section 6. j. under IV. Conclusions and Recommendations. Commissioner Dawkins accepted the amendment as part of the of main motion. Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Commissioners Norton, Miller, Dawkins, Brown, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission August 8, 2017 Page 5 of 5 B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Melanie Mindlin Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Haywood Norton Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a study session with the City Council September 18, 2017, to discuss cottage housing code changes. There is a tentative date in October for a study session with Fregonese & Associates to discuss draft suggestions for the Transit Triangle. The Planning Commission would present the annual commission update during the December 5, 2017, City Council meeting. Commissioner Dawkins noted Councilor Morris concerns that Planning Action 2017-01059 for 1068 East Main Street was promoted as workforce housing in the newspaper. The Planning Commission had no control of how an applicant presented a project in the newspaper. However, Commissioner Dawkins thought the Commission might consider defining workforce housing and discuss parameters in a public forum. Councilor Morris had also been concerned how the applicant could do ownership housing at the location. Mr. Molnar explained multifamily zones R-2 and R-3 have always allowed apartments and ownership. Staff looked through the past twenty years of data on R-2 and R-3. The district was originally created as part of the comprehensive plan with the idea of having a certain percentage of apartments built. The market changed so much since the 1990s that it is more profitable and efficient to do ownership housing. The Croman project had a standard in the multifamily area that limited how much ownership housing could occur and required a certain percentage of rental. The Planning Commission could consider that as a policy if they were interested. Requiring a percentage of rental was currently not in the Ashland Municipal Code. PUBLIC FORUM None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Accessory residential units within existing homes A. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained adding flexibility for Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) within existing homes came from the daylight basement converted into an ARU. Each floor was approximately 800 square feet. In this case, the square footage was over 500 feet and the owner used on street credits to satisfy parking requirements. Ashland Planning Commission August 22, 2017 Page 1 of 3 Another example was a two story house on a hill. The main house was 2000 square feet with 1400 square feet in the basement. The applicants put the ARU in the top part of the house at 768 square feet. Size limitations and configuration prevented having an ARU on the bottom floor. The owner also used on street credits for two parking spaces. Questions for the Commission to consider were allowing more flexibility in size, possible parking requirements, and making a recommendation to the Council regarding System Development Charges. Other questions were impacts to the neighborhood and allowing t ARUs had a kitchen, a separate electric meter and were subject to multifamily residential design. If it was within an existing house and there were no exterior changes it did not really apply in terms of building design. Site planning was parking, having an open space area for the second unit, and landscaping standards. Some City Council members were interested in creating incentives for homeowners wanting to have an ARU within an existing home. One suggestion was waiving SDCs since it would not have the same impact as building a separate ARU on a lot. Commissioner Thompson supported making it more flexible but was concerned about changing parking requirements. On street credits would allow the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission to evaluate the impact. Chair Pearce thought parking and the size limit of half the square footage of the primary residence were the most critical restrictions the Commission needed to review. Commissioner Mindlin added SDCs were another barrier. Chair Pearce recently attended the Real Estate Land Use Mid-Year Conference that included a discussion on Senate Bill (SB) 1051. One statute that applied to all housing stated housing could only be permitted if there were clear and objective standards, not discretionary standards. He There were two tracks, clear and objective or site review. SB 1051 would require cities the size of Ashland to allow areas zoned for detached single family dwellings to have the ability to develop at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single family dwelling. This would be subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design. It defined an accessory dwelling unit as an interior, attached or detached residential structure used in connection with or as an accessory to a single family dwelling. Commissioner Miller was in favor of increasing the square footage of an ARU to 70%-75%. It would provide a reasonable living space and storage. Commissioner Mindlin supported loosening the regulations on accessory residential units within existing homes. Commissioner Brown agreed and thought parking could present an issue. He did not think a set number was needed. Parking and the number of bedrooms would constrain the number of units in an existing home. Commissioner Dawkins added having different addresses would also regulate the number of units. Staff would bring back options to make units within an existing home more flexible and possibly change the name of accessory residential units. Continuation of open space discussion B. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained an issue with the definition of open space was that it referred to land that was in joint ownership. There were inconsistencies within the Ashland Municipal Code that needed to be fixed at some point. Another issue was the 8% requirement for a recreation area when it was referred to as an open space. For the past fifteen years, designers of private developments thought the 8% could either be commonly owned areas, privately and commonly owned, or privately owned. City Council needed to interpret the code. The discussion tonight sought direction from the Commission. A project had to have a certain percent of the lot landscaped and 8% of the lot area needed to be recreation space. Commissioner Dawkins wanted a better definition of recreation space. Historically, recreation space would have meant lawns and that presently went against water wise landscaping. Ashland Planning Commission August 22, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Molnar explained 20 years ago during a site design standards review, the City created the standard requiring a percentage of area in a commercial development for public space. While the standard for residential required 35% landscaping, it could all be ornamental. It raised the question if the City should require a minimum amount that was surfaced usable. Recreation was not the best term either. The intent was having a certain percentage that was usable. That was why patios and porches were added. It leveled out a small area with possible semi private landscaping and discouraged lawns. The Commission discussed recreational space. Comments equated it to a potential gathering space or community gardens. Other comments questioned the need to have a gathering space. One suggestion would let the developer decide as long as there was 8% open space. The developer could also decide whether the recreational space was privately or commonly owned. Another comment supported having some lawn area for common space. Mr. Molnar thought commonly owned made sense when there were significant natural features like a creek corridor or wetland. Those areas were maintained and protected better over time and recommended retaining that language. He clarified if the 8% had to be in a common area it could not be utilized for private patios. It would reduce the number of patios and porches proposed in order to meet the 8% resulting in more stoops. Commissioner Mindlin suggested not including door access, walkways or door swings and making the space private but more usable. Mr. Molnar thought the Commission could require a base on minimal use of space using a dimension of not less than 6 feet. Commissioner Mindlin added they needed to define the exclusions for paths to the doors with a minimum area to one side or the other. Usable was defined as a minimum of 6x8 feet. Chair Pearce thought if the Commission wanted to preserve common open space they could address the design issue by giving people a credit of 50% or 60% for private open spaces. Commissioner Mindlin noted a possible equality of access issue in multiple story complexes. If all common space was private, the upstairs residents might not have any. Mr. Molnar responded if it was private there could be a distribution standard where each unit had to have some. It could be a porch or a deck. Commissioner Brown cautioned aggregating responsibilities to developers. They should be allowed to go as far as reasonable in order to provide a livable environment. Requirements needed to be defined clearly so the City could say no if necessary. Planning Commission majority wanted the code clarified on the 8% requirement for open space. They wanted to continue applying it as it had been with options on common, private, or partially common and private space. Porches and decks included in the 8% could not have obstructions. Walkways should not go towards the 8% open space. The Commission wanted open space, common open space, recreational open space, and private open space defined and in the Definitions section of the code. Permitted use as OS open space should be classified as parks because it was public open space. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission August 22, 2017 Page 3 of 3