Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-13 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Howe, FinMe, Giordano, Cloer, Carr, Armitage, Bingham, and Bass. Staff present were McLaughlin, Knox, Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes and Findings of the January 9, 1996 were approved. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 96-017 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING OLD MILL VILLAGE FAMILY HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX. THIRTY-SIX UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WIGHTMAN STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE EXISTING COMPLEX. APPLICANT: SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin explained that a Conditional Use Permit is required because this area was not previously identified in the SO Master Plan and when the plan was adopted it was not known what would go on the pamel. This piece of property is identified as an 'opportunity area'. The Conditional Use Permit allows for more discretionary review. The Site Review is a standard review. The design is similar to those units across the street with the parking hidden away behind the units and the units oriented toward the street. There are large recreation areas in the rear for children. Staff's concerns are location of the bike easement, sidewalk improvements, and streetscape and sense of entry as outlined in the Staff Report. The applicants concur with the bike easement and in addition they plan to run a full sidewalk and connect to the campus on Siskiyou Boulevard. With regard to streetscape, Staff has recommended that a couple of units turned sideways that access around the side be turned to face the street. The applicant has indicated that as part of their grading plan, the units are located in that manner in order make it wheelchair accessible because of the grade change. However, Staff wants to ensure a more vibrant streetscape. There is an opportunity for the project to relate to the street and for its residents to be a part of a city and neighborhood. The applicants had a couple of ideas on how to make those adjustments. Staff believes the design of the fronts of the buildings can be resolved easily to meet the requirements of the site design standards with orientation of the units toward the street. Howe noticed a huge tree very close to the curb and wondered what would happen when the sidewalks are continued. McLaughlin assumed and is assured the sidewalk will go around the tree. Howe asked what would happen to the house at the southeast corner of Wightman and McLaughlin said to ask the applicant. Since the issue of children's play areas is relevant, Jarvis noted when she had her site visit she saw on the older housing on one end further toward Main Street, there were mothere with toddlers and babies sitting on the front porch playing out in front of their units. PUBUC HEARING RON BOLSTAD, 481 Thornton Way, Dean of Administration and Finance of SOSC said they have found there is continuing student demand for affordable housing on the $OSC campus. The other Old Mill filled up immediately and they currently have a waiting list of 92 applicants. Student demand remains a strong element in the timeliness of the project. There is an Institutional priority given to the housing of non-traditional students. There is an availability of land for this project in direct proximity to the existing complex which will offer administrative oversight and a number of services through the activity center in the existing complex. The construction dollars have been dedicated by the State of Oregon to expand the family housing at SOSC. Bolstad introduced WAYNE SCHUMACHER, Associate Director of Family Housing serving as project coordinator and BRUCE ABELOE, Abeloe and Associates, Inc. serving as the project architect. BOB MAYERS, Adroit Construction and members of Student Affairs staff and one or more students currently residing in the Old Mill Village Complex and have an interest in this project. Bolstad said that his staff has reached understanding and agreement on eight of the nine conditions. The remaining concern is with Condition 9 which requests the redesigned streetscape for the units fronting on Wightman Street. BRUCE ABELOE, said there are nine units facing Wightman with six units having porches exceeding the size talked about in the pre-application conference. For the units on the street where there is not room to run a ramp, those will be accessed through the back patio. Maybe not every unit facing Wightman would have a porch. Abeloe agreed they could add some features such as railings to give the units a more bungalow look. If the front door goes to the front, access will have to be through the patio. McLaughlin said under Condition 9 the fourth starred (**) item and the front yard fencing can be deleted. SCHUMACHER, in answer to Howe's question, said the house at 164 Wightman was originally looked at as part of the project but they decided to keep the house and move the studio units near the railroad tracks. There are no units being built at the northern most part of the property because there is no funding, and because it is so close to the railroad tracks there is a safety concern for children, and the college is keeping the option open for future development of perhaps three or four units should the money become available. ABELOE agreed that porches could be enlarged better and could look at the seating arrangement for the six that are there, Every unit has a patio. He has attempted to develop in an awkward topography a reasonable massing and scale with single story mix of roofs. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Howe would like to see something in the triangular vacant parcel besides mowed star thistle. Bolstad said the housing has to be self-supporting and when additional landscaping is Installed, it has to be supported by the rents that are charged. Jarvis asked the applicant to respond to Page 4 of the Staff Report (portion in italics). Upon visiting the site, Jarvis noticed not only young moms and small kids, but many toys, which means kids playing. She would encourage the development of porches as much as possible and encourage the college to instill in their students/tenants a sense of responsibility to the community in the upkeep of their property. Abeloe responded that the project will have patios and storage almost twice the size of the existing project. He assured the Commission he would work on porches. McLaughlin suggested deleting the word "wood" in the first starred (**) recommendation under Condition 9. Bingham questioned Schumacher about who rents the units. Bingham had heard the existing units are rented to non-family students that could generate excessive noise. He wanted to be assured they were rented only to people who are attending SOSC. Schumacher monitors the waiting list and in his experience he has not gotten anywhere near the bottom of the list and only earty on did he hear of some problems with renters. Schumacher said the reason for the studio units across the parking lot would provide for some separation from families. The studios would be rented to older, single graduate students. NATHAN HELSEL, 1001 Terra Street, did not think more apartments were needed and Ashland is starting to get over-populated. NAOMI HELSEL, 1001 Terra Street, likes to walk around town and is afraid she can't see the sunset from that vacant lot because there will be buildings in the way. She does not want to lose the open space and the quiet. Staff Response Armitage wondered if Staff thought the porch issue was workable. McLaughlin felt porches could work. There is an opportunity for a more useable space in the front of the units with additional detailing to enliven the streetscape in all units. He believes the applicant and architect understand what is being asked and all parties can come to an agreement. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage moved to approve Planning Action 96-017 with the attached nine conditions. Under Condition 9, remove "wood" from the first option, delete the last two starred (**) items. Carr seconded the motion. Bass explained to the Helsels that projects are encouraged in the cities so the beautiful land outside the city can be maintained. Howe said to add to Condition 5, a foot (') mark. Howe wanted to amend the motion to include the landscaping of the triangular piece. In wanting to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 keep a lively, attractive streetscape, there is no reason not to maintain this piece to keep it an attractive element of the overall design of the project. Armitage disagreed because the college is not developing the neighboring piece at this time and it should be an option of the property owner to improve. Bingham thought the parcel would be a good garden space for the tenant and would only require the applicant to till the land. Carr said the applicants could let the tenants know that the land is available for improvements by the tenants. Howe moved to amend the motion to require usage of that triangular space between the north driveway and bike path at the applicant's discretion but not to be kept in weeds. Bingham seconded the motion. Cloer said the applicant has indicated a concern about on-going maintenance costs and the parcel is being left for future development. He would agree to a recommendation but not a requirement. Bingham would also be satisfied with a recommendation, therefore, Howe withdrew her motion and made a suggestion, not a motion. Bingham withdrew his second. The motion carried unanimously. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 96-018 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF 11.25 ACRES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A 96-UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST MAIN STREET AND TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. APPLICANT: ACCESS, INC. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Armitage noticed the applicant is using the entire area above the wet area. Cloer was interested in the wetlands area. STAFF REPORT This application is only for annexation of 11.25 acres adjacent to the current city limits. The proposal is being put forward by ACCESS to accommodate a future application for 96 units of affordable housing. The land is in the Comprehensive Plan as Suburban Residential, an intermediate zoning between single family and multi-family. It allows for a townhouse or rowhouse individually owned or apartment style or manufactured housing developments. Density ranges from about eight to twelve units per acre. The application meets the criteria for public need for annexation of additional land. There is need for affordable housing and this application comes in at a much lower level than what has been identified through Resolution. This application is targeting those individuals at 60 percent of median income with all units being affordable. The applicants have guaranteed affordability for up to 50 years. -ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 The application also meets the criteria of need for additional land. The Comp Plan identifies different categories of residential land--multi-family residential, suburban residential, single family residential and low-density residential. The inventory of suburban residential land if it were built out would last about 1.5 years. There is only one parcel of land available that already has approval for development on Clay Street, therefore, there is less than a five year supply available in the city limits at this time of R-1-3.5 so there is an indication of a public need. Staff believes the availability of public facilities are adequate or can be made adequate through the extension of water and sewer and through transportation improvements. These conditions could be imposed at the time site review approval. Overall, Staff believes this annexation is necessary and complies with the criteria for public need. Staff has recommended approval with the attached three conditions. Howe saw a letter from the County stating they would like us to annex the half of the road next to this project and require the applicant to curb and gutter it to urban levels. McLaughlin said they would probably annex the entire right-of-way. It is still a county road should be made a part of the city and develop the half adjacent to this property to a city standard with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Condition 2 could be modified to Include the Tolman Creek right-of-way. East Main is also a county road and it could be included also. Armitage asked McLaughlin to further explain public need. Lands could be rezoned but that would be a comprehensive plan amendment to increase densities to accommodate this someplace else in the city. What is in place today are the rules existing now and the inventories the applicant must follow. The inventory of R-1-3.5 land (6.9 acres) is only enough inventory for normal consumption for one and one- half years. Without any other lands this falls under the criteria of need for additional land. Finkle said he understood the applicant has communicated with RVTD about extending a bus reute as far as the museum. McLaughlin said RVTD and the city are looking at the cost of extending a bus line down East Main to serve the museum, go up Walker and fie in as a transit stop near the Beanery. The extension of the line to the proposed development would probably require further development along East Main to have the density to support the extension of the line. PUBLIC HEARING DEBBIE PRICE, ACCESS, 3630 Aviation Way, Medford PA'I-rY CLAYS, Executive Director of ACCESS, stated ACCESS applied and became a Community Development Corporation. Under that designation they have undertaken housing development as a long-term solution to the needs of the economically disadvantaged. They believe it will meet the needs of those needing affordable housing and help the city attain their goals for affordable housing. SUSAN ASAM, Housing and Community Services, State of Oregon, said ACCESS has approached them to use their funding sources. They are in the process of a funding application cycle. The only projects that are successful are those able to demonstrate different things, including need and market relevance. This project will be required to serve people at low incomes with rents at certain levels. PRICE said the application meets the intent of the consolidated plan and of the Comp Plan and of the affordable housing study. The criteria have been met and bringing this project to the Commission will ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 improve quality of life for Ashland residents. They would like to help those that work or live here to provide affordable housing to those residents. JEFF PAULY, Peak Environmental, environmental consultant, said this particular project has some constraints with wetlands. The applicant wants to leave this as in tact as is practical. The project will enhance the wetlands. WAYNE SCHUMACHER, as a representative of SOSC encouraged the project. There is a gladng problem with affordable housing and this will meet the needs of a different group of people. Finkle asked Price for any communication she has had with RVTD. Price talked this week with RVTD and they are proposing the route mentioned by McLaughlin. Until that happens, a route would run down Tolman Creek and toward the shopping center to the freeway. RVTD is flexible in trying to design a transportation route that would serve the most number of people. Currently the area is being served by school buses and the district intends to accommodate any number of students residing in this complex. RUSS DALE, private developer and Chairman of the Dept. of Housing and Community Services, stated that with ACCESS acting as developer, they can get funding to provide housing to those who might not otherwise get served, and he would favor that. As a committed Ashlander, he feels comfortable with the annexation. BECKY RUSSELL, 2330 East Main Street, the owner of the proposed property favors the development. GLENN TIFFANY, 1229 North Main Street, commercial appraiser and member of newly formed Housing Commission said that right now there is a shortage of apartment housing units and people are forced to move to Phoenix or Talent. Because of the pressure, rent levels have increased. Without this type of housing, people in the service sector are forced to commute from Medford. This project will be in close proximity to bus lines and employment centers. RON ROTH, 6950 Old Highway 99 South, said his businesses employ 50-60 people with approximately one-quarter students, one-quarter homeowners, and little more non-student renters. He is supportive of the concept because the availability of affordable housing has decreased over the years. The supply has decreased as demand as increased. He would prefer the project be located a littler closer to the downtown, but realistically, there are very few sites available for this type of project. He asked about tenant eligibility. Is there a maximum income and if so, what if they get a big raise and move out of the eligibility?. Price responded that a decision has been made to try and keep the housing available for the population qualifying for it. If that person reaches a point in their Income level where they can afford housing that normally they would not qualify for, ACCESS would make a determination to work with them through a service plan so they could move to the next step. Eventually they would be asked to move, but not right away. Roth also wanted the wetlands to be considered. Bass asked if ACCESS had any other projects located in the valley. Price answered there is a small completed development in Medford (10), an 82 unit project under construction in Medford at Barnett and ASHLAND PLANNING'COMMiSSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Ellendale (began renting this week). Finkle asked Staff if this is an affordable housing project, will the SDC's be waived? The Council has decided to waive SDC's on this type of project. However, certain things cannot be deferred. Any deferrals can be thought of as an area the city is subsidizing affordable housing and the expense is spread out to all citizens to absorb. Finlde wanted ACCESS to understand that because this type of development results in spreading the costs of development throughout the community, it is important for ACCESS to be aware of the benefit provided. He would ask that ACCESS do everything possible to work with the city to work on transportation, open space, sewer and water. Price can comfortably give that assurance. ACCESS wants to partner in the commitment to the city since the city has stepped up to the affordable housing issue. Under Condition 3, Howe wondered if the proposal is approved, is the approval tied only to this application. McLaughlin responded that the Commission seems to be more comfortable with this type of approval, but that is the Commission's decision. The Commission would be relying on the applicant to move forward with this project. If the Commission feels this property should be annexed because of public need only, that is the Commlssion's choice. ZACH BROMBACHER, 640 Tolman Creek Road, believes this is a great idea and is a needed thing to get people home. Brombacher wanted to relate his experience on Tolman Creek Road and let the applicant know that landowners need to realize the Impact they have. He was assessed $55,000 for improvements when Tolman Creek Plaza was built for his share of the traffic light. With this proposed annexation, he would hope when it is judged, that the financial responsibility be put on the whole city instead of a few individual property owners. Let's try and help these people and do it as a city. DENNIS COOPER, 1983 Crestview Drive is against the proposal. Jarvis read his comments. CATE HARTZELL, 881 East Main, is not in opposition to low-income housing. Her concerns and questions are: What will be the rent range? What kind of mitigation measures are being planned for six to ten vehicle trips per day on the unsafe corner at Tolman Creek and East Main? Will the widening of East Main happen before the development goes in and will it be a local improvement district?. What will be done about drainage and runoff?. Who will pay for the added bus routes? Does the 8.5 dwelling units per acre take into consideration the wetlands impact?. Is the project coming with high end density instead of using other available lands? Has the applicant looked at other smaller parcels instead of one large parcel? JOHN MIEDAEKE, 215 Tolman Creek Road, Space 6, speaking for many of residents of the mobile home park, read prepared comments that have been included in the record. MARILYN BRIGGS, 590 Glenview Drive, believes there needs to be a proven need under the annexation criteria. She is not sure Ashland needs this many more units, in particular, through annexation. ACCESS could use some of the existing seven acres. If they use the smaller acreage, they could build a few units at a time and it won't turn into a ghetto. This project will not provide a diversified neighborhood. The drawings of the proposed project look like barracks or Chicago housing projects which has not worked. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 DEBBIE MILLER, 160 Normal Avenue, stated this application is not a question of if this project is needed but where is the housing needed? This is not the right place of this project. Proof is needed that the land is critically needed by the city. Annexation would lead to another piecemeal planning approach and this area needs a long-range plan. Most residents in the unincorporated areas do not want to have their land and way of life destroyed. What about contract annexation? She suggested there should be a more careful inventory of the city land that shows the need for this zoning is not as critical as the city reports. If this type of housing is found to be needed a better solution would be a smaller project. It would be a more appropriate scale. Other things to be considered are city services, schools, adequate parks and open spaces and the need for some the pressure for low-income housing has been mitigated. Staff Response McLaughlin said the density is calculated on the raw size of the parcel which would include wetlands. Armitage asked if public transportation has to be in place before the approval of the project. McLaughlin answered only if the Planning Commission makes that finding. Bingham reported an ex parte contact with Debbie Miller which was mostly about annexations in general, not specifically about this one. She raised the same concerns to him as she did in her testimony. Specifically, she is concerned that other property owners in the area had expressed an interest in developing their land and they are just waiting for ACCESS and this would be a domino affect. McLaughlin said there are two separate parcels in two areas that could accommodate 30 units each in an R-2 zone and one parcel that could accommodate 30 units in an R-3 zone. Carr moved to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Cloer seconded the motion and all favored. Carr asked if the annexation includes streets, do those streets remain a county road or in the jurisdiction of the city. McLaughlin said they would remain in the county but the city would eventually take it over. If the project remains under ACCESS, Carr wondered what the tax status would be after it is complete. McLaughlin thought it might be non-profit and exempt from taxes. The City Engineer's recommendation is to include the adjacent rights-of-way of East Main and Tolman Creek Road as part of the boundary survey. Rebuttal PRICE provided sample rents and disagreed that by concentrating this housing project in one location would create a ghetto. Finkle wondered to what extent ACCESS explored building this type of housing on smaller pockets of land in Ashland. Price replied they looked at several sites and it would be more expensive to build on smaller parcels. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis outlined the areas of compliance with the criteria and the areas in question. The only criteria that need to be reviewed are 4 (city services) and 5a. (affordable housing). Discussion will include Condition 3. 'A~HLAND PLANNING' (~OMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 Howe sees the need to tie this project to Condition 3 because it is coming in as low-income housing and that is a criteria for annexation. Without this, approval would be questionable. Armitage disagreed because he believes it meets the criteria of a need for this type of housing to be annexed, therefore, does not need to be tied to Condition 3. Giordano said if the Commission is allowed to see the site design, the applicant will have an opportunity to work with the transit district and find alternate modes of transportation that would work. Giordano believes the application meets criteria 5a (affordable housing). He does have a problem with transportation (4) but is supportive of the application. He does not believe the application does not need to be tied to Condition 3. Bass said this is one of many projects that continues to load traffic onto East Main Street, but the Commission has no mechanism by which to evaluate traffic Impacts. He would have no evidence to support a finding that traffic was going to be unacceptable because the Commission has no data to make that determination. This application has also had to rely on trusting that the applicant has looked at alternatives. The Commission has not been shown those alternatives. It would be nice to know which alternative sites the applicant had looked at and why they were not sufficient. Given the criteria in place, he would agree that the application meets the criteria for approval. Bingham is particularly struck by Roth's testimony because rarely does a month go by that an employee moves out of town to Phoenix, Talent or Medford and commutes to Ashland. By NOT providing housing for a large segment of the population, we are encouraging air pollution by increased vehicle trips out of town. It is appalling that people taking care of us cannot even live here--this alone would satisfy public need. Bingham strongly supports the project. Carr has a problem with criteria 4 in view of the number of units pending within the city limits. She is concerned about water and sewer and would like to see solutions in those areas before she would want to annex more problems into the city. Cloer believes the application meets the criteria. He echos Bingham's remarks. This will add to the load of East Main but he has no reason to believe this would not be acceptable. FinMe also believes the application meets the criteria and Bingham's point about transportation was valid because there are trade-offs and in some ways transportation may be reduced by having people being able to live in town instead commuting into town. The walk from the corner of the property to Albertson's takes six minutes. The bus stop is a couple of minutes beyond, but there is reasonable transportation now. He would like Condition 3 tied to the application. Howe thinks the application meets the criteria. The Commission should address the idea there is intense population in this area and this is space for development that is like a node. It has commercial, recreational and this peninsula development creates a community that needs children because it has a big park and needs to have the density that would support the transportation to bring it into the full city. By keeping this area dense around the commercial area, it will keep commercial strong and keep people on routes with major arterials and not spread out over the whole landscape in a low density mode. Howe asked to modify the Conclusions and Recommendations to site specifically the inclusion of the street frontages (Tolman Creek and East Main right-of-ways). Howe moved to approve Planning Action 96-018 with amended Condition 2 to state: "That a boundary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 description and map be prepared by a registered land surveyor including the adjacent rights-of-way of East Main and Tolman Creek Road prior to the Council approving the annexation". Bingham seconded the motion. The motion carried with Carr casting the dissenting vote. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 96-021 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A GENERAL OFFICE (1642 SQ. FT.) WITH TWO APARTMENT UNITS ABOVE (1924 SQ. FT.) A THREE FOOT, SIX INCH FRONT YARD VARIANCE IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED 583 N. MAIN STREET APPLICANT: JACK ADAMS/SAM DAVIS Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Cloer talked to the contractor who was doing the sidewalk. He noted a couple of trees and wondered what would happen to them. STAFF REPORT Carr moved to continue the meeting until 11:00. The motion was seconded and approved. Knox outlined the items in the Staff Report. Staff has recommended approval of this application. There will be a f~/e foot landscaped buffer in the rear parking area. A condition is included regarding the installation of a fence. Knox explained that a retaining wall will be just around a portion of the spruce tree. It appears the pine and oak trees will need to be removed. FRAN ICENHOWER, designer, was available for questions. PAUL KAY, 1254 Strawberry Lane, supported the approval. Carr moved to approve PA96-021 with the addition of Condition 8 to provide adequate protection to the spruce tree during construction. The Variance criteria were met because of unique and unusual circumstances. Giordano seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. RE-OPENED PLANNING ACTION 96-018 (Annexation) Enter the two letters from Julie Schwartz and AI Bodin into the record. OTHER Report from TPAC Finkle said the report should be completed within two to three months. Finlde wrote an article for Uthiagraph explaining what TPAC is doing. TPAC meetings are held the first Friday of each month at the Council Chambers at 8:00 a.m. -'A~HLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 10 Planning Commissioners Training Saturday, March 9, 1996 City to pay registration, meals, transportation Report on Charrette McLaughlin reported on the North Mountain charrette process Hills Inn. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. that took place at the Ashland ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 1996 11