Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-09 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 9, 1996 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Armitage, Bingham, Howe, FinMe, Glordano, Carr, Bass, and Cloer. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. PRESENTATION Thanks were extended to Bingham and Cloer, whose terms of office have ended, for their hard work on the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS On Page 5 strike the line that Taltelbaum would be Interested in donating the land if he could receive tax advantages. Carr moved to approve as amended with Howe seconding the motion. The Minutes were approved as amended. Carr moved to approve the Findings for Planning Action 96-008 and Howe seconded the motion. Giordano abstained because of a conflict of Interest. All other Commissioners approved. Carr moved to approve the Findings for Planning Action 96-016 and Howe seconded the motion. All Commissioners approved. Carr moved to approve the Findings for Planning Action 96-033 and Howe seconded the motion. Bass abstained because of a conflict of Interest. All other Commissioners approved. Staff will work with the applicant on protecting the trees. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 96-020 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A 24-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX 284 HERSEY STREET. APPLICANT EARL KING/AL TEITELBAUM Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts -,~,rmitage, Bingham, Howe, Finkle, Carr, Bass, and C!oer had site visits. -,Giordano abstained as he was absent from the last meeting. -,Jarvis had a site visit, listened to the tapes from last month's hearing, and read all pertinent written material. STAFF REPORT This action has been continued from last month as outlined in the Staff Report. A revised site plan was submitted showing two units having been dropped (unit 13 in central courtyard and another unit). The required 42 parking spaces have been accommodated. Other Issues that have been addressed: an outdoor patio has been added to Unit 15, a pedestrian walkway (minimum four feet in width) has been provided along Hersey Street and along the driveway, provision for a future traffic light at Hersey and North Main (Condition 24), and garbage and recycling sites scaled out with their locations identified on the site plan. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 24 Conditions. Howe said the address of the property has been shown in the packet as 284 Hersey Street but should be shown as 284 We~t Hersay, PUBLIC HEARING AL TEITELBAUM and DAN PARK Teitelbaum believe they have complied with all the requirements of the Planning Commission. Howe noticed the horizontal parking in the first parking space to the left of the driveway has been buffered on both sides by protruslons. One seems to be a divider and the other Is the recycling. She wondered why it had been buffered In that way. It looked like the recycling could be bent hack toward the sidewalk and have less protrusion so when the parking space is not being used, would give others more back-up area. Park responded the dumpster for trash is at an angle so it can facilitate the garbage truck accessing the dumpster. If the dumpster Is rolled and put into position, it could be put in line with the sidewalk. The size of the planter could be decreased also. Jarvis read the letter from Susan Eagen into the record. UNDA RICHARDS, 300 W. Hersay, is asking for a quasi-public space. Children in the area now play in the parking lots. This is a safety Issue as well as a quality of life issue. She requested construction hours consider the neighbors. She would like a 20 foot sethack on this project. In addition, Richards does not think every resident in these units will be driving everyplace they go. They need a sidewalk up Hersey, a crosswalk for getting across Hersay and a traffic light to get across North Main to pick up a bus. Molnar indicated there is no requirement as part of this development to have a crosswalk at North Main and Hersey. Staff proposes adding a Condition that the 24 condominium owners would have to participate in the cost of signal Improvements and also pedestrian Improvements in an ultimate intersection design. It would be difficult to Impose a condition for a signal based on this development alone. McLaughlin said the decision for a crosswalk is made with the City's Traffic Safety Commission and the State Highway Department. Howe encouraged Richards to attend Parks Commission and City Council meetings to express the need for a park in their neighborhood. Richards told the Commissioners how hard it is for her to find time to come to meetings to help create Ashland's future. It is not for lack of interest but the way of life she and others like her live. It is difficult to find and pay for child care and take care of her everyday work and still find time for meetings. Armitage wondered if it was legal to impose a condition that the land within a development be mede public. McLaughlin did not think that could be Imposed. Armitage asked Staff to address the hours of construction. McLaughlin said the hours were 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends. Rebuttal The applicants had no rebuttal. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 2 COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe moved to approve Planning Action 96-020 with the attached Conditions. Carr seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Bass commented on a project of this size it would nice to have more recreational space within the project for the residents. PLANNING ACTION 96-047 REQUEST FOR OUTUNE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 1452 OREGON STREET APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts -,Giordano abstained because he is the project designer. -,Finkle had an ex parte contact while visiting the site. A friend came by and commented that he thought there were too many houses. -,Howe had a site visit. She lives a block away from the proposed project but was not sent a notice. She believes she can listen fairly to the proposal. --,Bingham had a site visit and while there Ellis Wilson (owner of Lot 6501) drove up. They did not discuss the project but Wilson gave Bingham permission to drive down his driveway. -,Jarvis, Cloer, Bass, and Carr had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported the proposal is for six lots with access provided from Oregon and Windsor Streets from a private flag drive. These flag drives will not connect Oregon and Windsor. There will be a five foot concrete pedestrian walkway adjacent to and within the driveway that will connect Windsor Street to Oregon. There are approximately 50 to 60 trees on the site, approximately six of which will need to be removed. A number of letters have been submitted by the neighbors. Open space calculations have come under scrutiny. Staff took a more conservative approach to these calculations and felt that over half of the open space would qualify under the bonus point provision. Even Including only half would qualify the applicant for six units. The site plan did not indicate the provision for sidewalks along Oregon or Windsor. Staff has recommended the applicant should Install a sidewalk along Oregon and sign in favor of participating in the installation of a sidewalk at a future date along Windsor. There are two large oak trees along the curb on Windsor along with a steep grade off Windsor, therefore, it was difficult to design an appropriate sidewalk. Molnar showed the project on the overhead and described how the open space was calculated. Staff considered what part of the open space would be a significant amenity for the residents and they felt 4500 square feet met the criteria. The open space is from 28 feet to 40 feet in width. Staff felt given the significant trees and dimensions of the open space, it would comply. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 18 Conditions. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 3 The letters from Wilson, Stephens and Smith have been entered into the record. Molnar said each home site will have a two-car garage and four guest parking spaces for the four interior units. Guest parking or on-street parking Is usually only mandatory when there is a creation of a public street. Bingham said one of the criteria for Outline Plan was that the applicant will provide access to and through the development. He understands if you provide access through the development, the open space would be lost, thereby losing the density bonus, then it would down to five lots. This will be another development that is being done piecemeal with flag lots. McLaughlin answered that in this situation there is an existing block that is larger than what would be designed today but It is not of such a size where a big block street is needed. What is necessary is a mid-block pedestrian connection and provide what limited access is needed to get the cars to the homes and make It more convenient for bikes and pedestrians to cut through. Armitage wondered how much discussion went on during the development of the plan to run a street or an alley that could open up the back of Lot 6500, 6501, and 6400 without constructing another street to each of these. McLaughlin said in order to have that whole scenario play out, the street going through this development would have to be a full public street, 20 feet in width, and a five foot sidewalk on at least one side. It would serve ultimately more than four lots. An alley would not be allowed because no further development could occur off of It. The "to and through the development" is more Important to bikes and pedestrians with a direct route to the college and the Boulevard. Howe asked about the potential use of the driveway to Lot 6500. McLaughlin said if they wish to come to an agreement with the applicant, they could return to the Planning Commission with a request but that is not a part of this application. The Staff Report indicates under Condition 17, Howe noted, that building envelopes be revised at final plan. That would indicate this hearing is approval of Outline Plan only, not Final Plan too. And again in Condition 13, it would seem Final Plan cannot be approved until solar envelopes are provided. McLaughlin said these Conditions have been placed because the applicant is asking for distinct changes not requiring the applicant return for Final Plan. The Commission can say this is information needed before making a decision. Finkle asked about the TID water lines running through the property. Molnar said he had talked with Keith Marshall from the Water Department and he said the irrigation lines are under the jurisdiction of the City at this time. This property has water rights from the line. If the subdivision is approved, only the residents at 1452 Oregon Street will retain the water rights. The other parcels do not have rights to water. Any modifications to the water lines are reviewed by the Engineering Department, The wording "minimize the disruption of TID flow' can be added to Condition 14. PUBLIC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 120 N. Second Street, explained why the street was configured the way it was. The open space area contains some of the nicest and largest trees. There were lots of other options he could have chosen but this is the most sensitive to the property. The five trees to be removed are very small. He recognizes that some of the neighbors feel the open space Is Insignificant. It has been ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 4 placed in the nicest place on the site with many large trees. He submitted photographs of the proposed open space. There seems to be some confusion over the building envelopes and building footprints. In this development, the footprints have been designed specifically to avoid trees on the property. The garages are closer together to buffer the houses from one another and reduce solar conflicts. The existing houses have been considered in the plan. The lots abutting this property on the west are fairly deep. There is approximately 50 feet between the west property line and the nearest neighbor to the west. There is no solar impact on the neighborhood. On a typical elevation, a long sloping roof has been shown to minimize solar Impacts between the houses in the development. Traffic impact will be small. The vehicle trips will be split between two streets. Archerd submitted an assessor's map indicating similar densities. He strongly disagrees that the open space area is Incidental. He will comply with TID requirements. Armitage asked Archerd if he had any estimate how many trees would have to be removed to put a road from Windsor to Oregon. Archerd said it would be many. Bass clarified that the intent is that the portion of the house facing the driveway would be considered the front of the home with a rear setback of 20 feet if the house is two-story. Archerd would not object to a fence along the property but he feels the openness of the site plus the trees and a hedge provide a visual buffer, but if a fence Is required he would Install it. Finkle asked Archerd to address the drainage and water run-off. Arherd said the driveways will be constructed in such a way that it will comply with engineering standards. POKII ROBERTS, 131 Church Street, spoke about availability and affordability. There are only 12 lots in Ashland presently under $70,000. It is her understanding the price of these lots will be between $55,000 and $65,000. The last time the average price of a lot was under $55,000 was In 1990. While this project is only five lots, it does provide some available lots at an affordable price. She noted the remarkable trees on the property. Much care and sensitivity has gone into saving the trees. This project will provide density as well with minimal Impact on the neighborhood. ELLIS WILSON, 1475 Windsor, Lot 6501, asked if the developer has the right to waive the solar setback requirements for the rest of the project. McLaughlin said he cannot just waive it but would have to show how the design does not significanfiy reduce the solar opportunities on the lot to the north. Wilson mentioned the letter from Herndobler who is quite concerned about TID water lines. Wilson felt this project would be better served with one less lot. When he bought his lot (it was partitioned off from the lot to the north, Dec. '77), the City Council made a point to say the lot never be developed any further with only one residence and that a flag lot never be created. Witson's concern about the road is the slope and drainage but he also wants to see the trees saved. Jarvis read comments from PATRICIA CHOATE AND GLENN CHOATE, 1472 Windsor, and R. W. EVENS, 1484 Windsor. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 NICOLE KAPP, 1480 Oregon Street (Lot 6500), said she submitted a letter to the Planning Department asking that in order to reduce the impact on her property she would request legal access to her rear yard by way of the driveway off Oregon Street. If the driveway is 10 feet from her house, she would like a fence and plantings. She is concerned about drainage from the private drive. Kapp is also concerned about the interruption of irrigation service. Jarvis asked Kapp if she wanted a fence both during and after construction. Kapp affirmed. Kapp would like a gate because she does not have a need to access the back of her lot on a day to day basis. She is looking for access if she needs it In the future. MILDRED WILSON, yielded her time to Dorothy Smith. LORNA AND DYLAN PETERSON, yielded their time to Dennis Smith. The Peterson's left the meeting, therefore Jarvis gave the Smiths ten minutes to present their testimony. DOROTHY SMITH AND DENNIS SMITH, 708 Indiana, owners of 6901 read their letter into the record expressing their opposition to the proposal. Armitage shared the Smith's concems regarding accessing the development the development. If there was a 20 foot street, it would take out most of the trees. What is the Smith's preference? Dennis felt four lots would be appropriate. He did not think anyone was pushing for a through street but there are just too many lots being proposed on the property. The Smith's received the plan outline just seven days ago and the have had very little time to review the proposal. Dennis said everyone is in agreement to save the trees. The open space does not appeal to him. Fifty cars per day is significant. The trips will not be spread out evenly over a day. The zoning is clear--it has been pulled right up to the edge to get the bonus points. Dennis is not looking for the letter of the law but the spirit of the ordinance. The neighbors need to be taken into consideration. Finkle asked why the Smith's would like a six foot fence on the west side of the property. The Smith's responded they would prefer a site obscuring fence for safety and visual aesthetics. Finkle reported that in walking around the neighborhood, it appeared most of the development is just as dense as this development. Smith argued that the first two homes are placed close to the street with large backyards and not 20 feat from each other. The houses are smaller too. RON CLOW, 701 Indiana, who lives at the comer of Indiana and Oregon, said that his 7,500 square foot lot was the main appeal for buying his house. He is opposed to Mill Pond type lots encouraging infill. Parking is non-existent in the neighborhood. The open space requirement has not met. No one is opposed to development. The solar access requirement has not been met. Fire trucks cannot get in and out. Access to and through the development is not provided. Clow said he would prefer a street through the development. He would like fewer homes. The setback requirements has not been met. The houses have no front yards and solar access cannot be met. He is concerned about Giordano using his position to benefit himself. Clow is asking for the development to conform to the existing codes. In response to Clow's comments about Giordano, there has been a legal interpretation of Giordano's situation. It is an ethical problem and Giordano has removed himself from the hearing. Jarvis assured ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 Clow that this is the most independent planning commission she has ever served on and the Commissioners are not influenced by Giordano and they will Independently make a determination. If anything, the Commissioners will bend over backwards the other way because they are fully aware of the situation. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. ARMITAGE SECONDED AND IT WAS APPROVED. JIM SHUI'E, 1347 Prospect, said the applicant is trying to 'shoehorn" too many units in and if it is not done right, it will change the character of the neighborhood. He Is concerned about fire protection. The entry proposed off Windsor will be very steep and he questioned where the turnaround for large emergency vehicles would be. He is concerned about solar access. If houses are two-story, it would be an eyesore from where he is situated. The denaity Is too high and the proposal stretches the limits of zoning laws to get the last unit in. He wants it to blend into the neighborhood. There should be four units. LEON MULLING, 718 Indiana, speaking on behalf of the absent neighbors at 720 Indiana wondered if the walnut tree would be removed. Staff assured him it would not be removed. They want the development of only four lots as they too are concerned with density. DON PAUL, Assistant Fire Chief, discussed the process the Fire Department uses when reviewing an application. Every department is given an opportunity to review the proposal to make sure it meets the standards set forth in the ordinances. The Fire Department looks at the sites and considers grade issues, the width of the proposed access, the distance to available fire hydrants in the area and whether those fire hydrants are capable of delivering the fire flow needed for the proposed amount of square footage of the development. In this case, it was determined, the proposed development met the standards. From a practical standpoint, the Fire Department viewed it as two flag drive developments. The ordinance requires a turnaround only if the length of the flag drive exceeds 250 feet. The width of the flag drive serving the interior structures require a width of 15 feet (paved width). The structures adjacent to the street (Windsor and Oregon) would be served from the street. In the case of severe weather and it appeared to be unsafe, the Fire Department would have the option to access with the all- wheel drive vehicle or elect to serve the property from the street. Sufficient hose is carried on the apparatus to do that. There was nothing out of the ordinary with this project. The Fire Department is bound very tightly by ordinance and that is what is used as criteria in determining if a project is going to be able to be served. Jarvis asked if Paul felt the Fire Department could adequately serve all houses. Paul confirmed. Paul said it takes a little more effort to deal with flag drives because of a little more restricted work area. But there are standards to work infill areas and he feels the minimums are workable. Finkle asked if Paul would see any value in requiring interior sprinklers. Paul said he did not have the means to require it in this development. BRAD HILDRETH, 330 Wimer, explained from a builder's standpoint, this is a pretty well thought out project, The lots are pretty affordable for this type of neighborhood. DANIEL STEPHENS, 1458 Windsor (across the street), said the issue for him is density. He likes the openness; that is why he moved to this area. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 Staff Response Molnar explained how the flag widths are determined. The pavement width requirements were originally developed for those lots that do not have standard legal access onto a city street. For lots not abutting a public street the driveway width becomes greater. The driveway is essentially serving two lots. The existing storm drain connects Windsor to Oregon. The driveway is designed to carry run-off as shown in the preliminary engineered drawings. Staffs concerns about erosion are addressed in Condition 15. The engineered drawings have been made part of the record. The trees can be clearly marked and preliminary fencing has been requested. The ordinance requires six guest parking spaces. The Performance Standards require the spaces be within 200 feet of the dwelling it will serve. There are two or three on-street spaces along Windsor, Lot 1 and 2 are within the two parking spaces, Lot 3 and 4 are within 200 feet of the space adjacent to the open space, and Lots 5 and 6 are within 200 feet of the two on-street space. Each home will have a two-car garage with a 20 foot apron. The request for fencing has not been made a part of this application. If the 854 square feet of open space was removed from the bonus point calculation on the west side of the walkway, it would bring the density calculation would be 5.98 units. The preliminary typical elevations have been designed to anticipate solar. There is also the waiver process, if ne3ded. Rebuttal Archerd said there is existing wire fencing around the property if safety is an Issue but if privacy is the Issue, he can build a fence. With regard to drainage, there was flooding in the area because of water that was left running. A drainage plan has been submitted. Areherd will comply with the relocation of the TID lines and he does not intend to disrupt service. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage suggested the following items: Six foot fence on both sides of the project Minimize disruption of TID flow during construction tree replacement wording. Buffer trees during construction with orange construction fence. Armitage believes, after hearing testimony, it would be wrong to Insist on vehicular access to and through the development. The saving of the trees is Important. The open space bonus is really being stretched. He does not ever envision the residents of the house on Oregon Street using the open space. He believes the street coming off Windsor should be 20 feet wide. He believes the application be more appropriate at five lots not six. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR I~,tEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 Bingham agreed with Armitage to create the flag lots rather than a through street in order to save the trees. He has a problem with the open space being functional. Even though the philosophy of the City Is increase density, do we want to build large houses on small lots. There should be some proportionality. Howe is impressed with the number of trees the applicant will preserve. She believes the open space area will give a feeling of a much older area instead of a new subdivision. The sidewalk looks like it something the people will use from Windsor to get to the school. She believes five is a more appropriate number of lots but she does not see how the Commission can arbitrarily consider the area not to be open space. This is an amenity that could otherwise just be Ignored. Finkle believes the criteria have been met. We have made choices as a city to encourage conservation and open space. He thinks this open space will be used by the entire neighborhood. He is concerned about the size of the building envelopes and it will be up to the sensitivity of those people building their homes. He does not see anything in the criteria that would allow him to deny the application. Carr agreed with Armitage and Bingham and believes five lots would be appropriate. If Bass were a neighbor, he too would want less density, but he agrees with Howe and FinMe and he does not see how it can be denied based on denslb/. Staff has been conservative with open space. Cloer is disturbed by the infill changing the character of the neighborhood. He is persuaded Finkle is right, however, this is a situation where development is being pursued at densities that are different than the established neighborhood. After doing some calculations, Jarvis found that even with 2500 square feet of open space, it comes out very close. Armitage asked if the open space would be an area where the residents would Interact on a day-to-day basis. He feels the code leaves some latitude. Howe reminded the Commission that on North Mountain they approved an open space next to the water that would be most accessible by the homes closest to it and no one ever mentioned whether or not this would be used on a daily basis by the residents. Usefulness is Important but you don't have to go out and be there. Bass added that an open space could be a wetland that would be interesting to view. FinMe moved to approve Planning Action 96-047 with the attached 18 Conditions and add to Condition 14 to minimize the disruption of TID flow during construction and a new Condition 19 that developers or property owners replace any trees that die within three years of construction with new trees and that a six foot fence be erected on both the east and west sides of the property. Bass seconded the motion. Jarvis is very concerned if fences border the property it will give a tunnel look. It is a disregard for the people buying the lots. 01oer agreed with Jarvis. Finkle amended his motion to only construct a fence if the adjacent neighbors desire to have a fence constructed. Bass seconded the amendment. The motion failed with Howe, Finkle, Jarvis, and Bass voting "yes" and Bingham, Armitage, Can', and Cloer voting 'no". ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 Armitage moved deny Planning Action 96-047 based on the discussion about the open space. Carr seconded the motion. Jarvis explained to Archerd that the application Is likely to be denied. Would he like a continuance or go through the appeals process? Archerd said he would prefer to continue. He waived his 120 time limit and requested a 30 day extension. Armitage withdrew his motion and Carr her second. Carr moved to continue the action. Howe seconded the motion and all favored. OTHER Hearings Board assignment - Giordano will take Cloer's place during May, June, July and August. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 10