Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-14 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Armitage, Bingham, Giordano, Bass, Carr, Finlde, and Howe. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL MINUTES AND FINDINGS Jarvis amended the word "disregard" on page 9 (second to last paragraph) of the April 9, 1996 Regular Meeting Minutes to "disservice". Carr moved approval of the Findings and amended Minutes, Giordano seconded the motion and the motion carried. Jarvis moved to approve the Minutes and Findings from the April 9, 1996 Hearings Board. Everyone approved. PUBLIC FORUM ROBERT MCCOY, 160 Orange Avenue, noted in the packet a copy of his letter regarding the subdivision (Daryl Bonin) on Orange. After talking with the Planning Department, there are now huge rocks in the driveway that will prevent care from driving through the development. Unfortunately there is no one to see the contractor is living up to the conditions of approval. Unless a neighbor is watching, an approval can be violated. Jarvis requested McCoy go to the City Council and ask them to hire a compliance officer. McLaughlin noted one of the Council's goals is code enforcement. Some time after the first of July, a code enforcement officer will be hired. DARYL BONIN, 359 Kearney Street, said he has nothing to do with paving the street. He has been told by Engineering that it will be done. MCLAUGHUN congratulated Barbara Jarvis for her receipt of the James Ragland Volunteer Service award. Jarvis thanked the Commission for their help and considered them part of that volunteer effort. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 96-047 REQUEST FOR OUTUNE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION 1452 OREGON STREET APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. Giordano stepped down because of a conflict of Interest. STAFF REPORT The applicant submitted an alternate site plan showing five lots. The major change is that with five lots, there is no need for density bonus, so the open space has been removed as well as the public walkway between Windsor and Oregon. There are Findings submitted by the applicant showing why the six lot development would be preferable. Staff has concluded the six lot design is more desirable not only to project residents but beyond the project site to othere in the neighborhood who can benefit from open space. Twenty conditions of approval have been attached with the six lot proposal. The applicant has presented the five lots to compare with the six lots. He is asking for approval of the original plan considered with modifications, not five lots. The modifications are included in the applicant's findings. Howe wondered what kind of open space the Commission should be trying to achieve. Molnar read from 18.88.040(d). The residents should be able to interact with the open space on a day to day basis. PUBUC HEARING EVAN ARCHERD, 120 N. Second Street, stated the reasons for continuing to propose six lots can be found in the applicant's findings dated April 29, 1996. Howe reiterated that the open space seems to be an amenity to the neighborhood. Finkle asked Archerd's thoughts about including the mid-street path under the five lot plan. Archerd said in looking at the five lot plan as a whole package, it is less in keeping in every way with development patterns, lot size and all the other Issues. Jarvis asked Archerd to confirm what she understands with regard to the open space. What he has done and how the open space is planned meets not only the land use ordinance, but also every request the Commission has had for open space. Archerd confirmed. He read from the ordinance that the purpose of the density bonus or common open space is to permit areas to be retained in the their natural state "or' to be developed as a recreational amenity. Jarvis said that in order to deny this application, testimony has to be heard that the open space does not meet the standards in the land use ordinance or that it does not meet any other previous standards that have been set. Armitage asked that a wording be added to the covenants and restrictions to address the preservation and maintenance of the trees in the common area. McLaughlin said a fee could be required to be collected from the property owners. Armitage was bothered by the strip of open space that protects the one especially notable tree located in two front yards. How many times can open space be added to someone's front yard and be called open space? Molnar gave an example of Millpond where the rear yard envelopes were allowed to get much closer because the open space was part of the rear yards. In Oak Knoll, most of the rear yards are within five feet of an open space. This is not unusual to developments in Ashland. Archerd responded they could have moved the path further to the east, but because of the trees, it seems better where it is. Staff is satisfied there is adequate open space and with the density bonus REGULAR MEEnNG MINUTES MAY 14, 2 calculation 6.1 units would be allowed. The sidewalk will act as a buffer and distinguish between common open space and someone's front yard. DENNIS SMITH relinquished his time to Dorothy Smith. DOROTHY SMITH, 708 Indiana, read her comments into the record. Jarvis explained that the Commission cannot insist the applicant submit a five lot plan. The applicant has decided to show a five lot plan to show how it could be developed but they do not intend to submit it for consideration. The Commission will only be considering the six lot plan. At the last meeting there was a tie vote and the applicant was given the opportunity to make adjustments. Procedurally, the Commission has done this in the past. Smith expressed frustration at not having the expertise to interpret the ordinances and she relies on the Commission to hold steadfast to the ordinances that are in place. She believes the applicant did not try to make the five lot plan look as good as the six lot plan. The six lot proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood. Smith believes there is a serious conflict going on with the agent/architect. Jarvis explained, as she did at the previous meeting, that the agent/architect is not present and no one on the Commission is influenced by Giordano. Smith does not see how the Commission could not be influenced either by his presence, whether he is in the back of the room or sitting beside them. McLaughlin said the applicant is not required to notify the neighbors of the continued hearing. The hearing was continued at last month's meeting and that was the notice of tonight's meeting. The applicant has to submit any new materials to the office seven days prior to the meeting. NICOLE KAPP, 1480 Oregon Street, believes it is a good idea to protect the trees and she wants to see as little of the lot paved as possible. She Ilkes her neighborhood and would like it preserved. She thinks the smaller lot sizes will significantly change the neighborhood. She is requesting legal easement off the Oregon Street driveway to her home to access the back part of her lot. Cart said there is nothing the Commission can do regarding access. RON CLOW, 701 Indiana, said all his testimony from last month's meeting still pertains to this meeting. It was his recollection that Archerd was told to come back with a five lot plan. The neighbors have been made to feel like criminals in this action. He does not think the Planning Department has been an advocate for the neighborhood. If Archerd is so concerned about the neighborhood, why doesn't he resubmit the five lot plan retaining the open space? The subdivision has not been made to comply with the ordinances. He was excluded from a neighborhood meeting held by the applicant. Armitage stated with reference to Smith's comments regarding last month's meeting that Jarvis would never coerce him into withdrawing a motion if he did not want to. He withdrew the second proposal because the Commission cannot legally meet past 11:00 p.m. in the interest of letting all parties look at the proposal. Jarvis feels mediation would be a better forum than a Planning Commission meeting for resolving community problems. ASHLAND PLANNING COBFB~i~SION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1006 3 ELLIS WILSON, 1475 Windsor Street, still believes there are one too many houses. It is not in keeping with the naighborhood to have that many houses that close together. He is concerned the public sidewalk may have skateboarders. McLaughlin said they can post the sidewalk prohibiting skateboards and bikes. Staff Response Bingham asked if the Commission approved a five lot proposal, can they require a pedestrian walkway?. McLaughlin said a finding would have to be made that the pedestrian traffic generated by this project was significant enough to require a connected walkway. The walkway would alleviate the Impact caused by these lots, but the walkway could not be required to be public. It would be a private walkway. The only way to restrict the size of the building envelopes would be if some natural feature needed to be preserved. Molnar added that Condition 18 addresses lot coverage. Bingham asked about the nature of the "infill policy". McLaughlin said in the urbanization goal (Chapter 12 of Comprehensive Plan), it states the city of Ashland's goal is to maintain a compact urban forum. Other goals and policies are in the housing element. Rebuttal ARCHERD said his proposal at the last meeting was not denied. The vote was a tie. He has returned this month showing why a five lot plan is Inferior to the six lot plan. There is an underlying thread of testimony that the ordinances are being violated. Areherd is comply with the Performance Standards Ordinance. They held a second neighborhood meeting. They did not specifically exclude anyone. He invited those neighbors adjacent to the project and thought a smaller group could accomplish more. He has clearly shown previously and tonight that open space has been provided. This open space meets the criteria and the same criteria has applied to numerous other subdivisions in Ashland. Trees are being used instead of creek areas. The area will provide a natural area and visual amenity. Secondly, the code requirements have been met either within the plan or by conditions imposed by Staff. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage was concerned about the calculation of open space at the last meeting but he believes the requirement has been met and that all ordinances have been met. The six lots proposed are not out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Bingham agreed with Armitage with regard to open space. He disagreed that six lots are compatible. This will be a block in transition. By the time you take the open space away, you will see large houses on small lots. Bass continues to support the project. He believes the City gets a better project overall with public access with the six lots and the amenities that come with it than with five. Whether it has been clearly ASHLAND PLANNI!~ COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1996 stated or not, the State has an infill policy even if Ashland does not. By encouraging infill, it is the only possible way to preserve agricultural land, forest land, and other open spaces. Carr is still not certain about open space calculations. She does not believe this particular clustering is in keeping with the property or the neighborhood. Finkle said the only potential conflict with the ordinances would be daily interaction with the open space. It seems the open space would be used by SOSC students or other pedestrians. Howe explained that the Commission is getting the Performance Standards to do the sort of things they want it to do instead of cookie cutter development that has little variety and little public amenity. This is something that promotes the community, not just individual lots. The Performance Standards is more flexible zoning so more can be done to become more energy efficient and provide open space. If the Commission does not consider high trees as an amenity, then there won't be many trees. Howe moved to approve PA96-047 as conditioned by Staff. Bass seconded the motion. Jarvis said the density bonus is infill. If a developer does certain things (energy efficiency, low cost housing, open space) they get to build more houses. The ordinances are a community decision, not the Planning Commission's. The Commission Just makes sure the ordinances are followed. As Archerd mentioned, creek areas are used all the time for open space and no one has ever questioned it. However, trees are just as beautiful as creeks and just as usable. There is significant area to be used for sitting and enjoying the open area. Jarvis also noted Condition 20 (six foot fencing). It seems the trees are beautiful and to cut off the view with a fence seems short-sighted. She has never heard the Commission say that a creek should be fenced. After taking a straw vote, the Condition will remain. Finkle expressed his appreciation and respect to the neighbors for their valuable input through letters and testimony. It is difficult for him to make a decision when there is conflict. The Commission is doing their best to follow the ordinances in Ashland. The motion carried with Armitage, Howe, Jarvis, Bass, Finkle voted "yes' and Bingham and Carr voted "no". PLANNING ACTION 96-068 REVOCATION HEARING TO REVIEW VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAN (PLANNING ACTION 93-121) APPROVAL GRANTED IN JUNE OF 1994 FOR A FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. -,Bingham saw Welles and he offered to answer Bingham's question. -~Armitage said Welles called him at work and they talked of nothing substantive. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1~6 -,Jarvis had an ex parte communication from Ted Mularz. Jarvis was unaware there was a revocation happening because she thought there was an approval on the project. She walked through the property with Dana Wilson, but there was no communication. STAFF REPORT There has been a considere ble history with this property, in particular with the sensitivity of the property, due to its steepness and the density of trees. At the last application it was brought to the Commission's attention that the arborist that prepared the original true management plan for the site had resigned (Pete Sada). Concerns were re ised by the Commission about who would oversee the tree management plan. This is a revocation hearing to analyze the potential violation of conditions of approval for the project. There are specific conditions stating what format should have been used when trees were removed in conjunction with subdivision improvements. Basically, there was to be a site visit by Staff, the arborist and the applicant, then the arborist would mark trees to be removed in conjunction with the road improvement, and written authorization where that removal would be granted. That was conducted initially, but about a month ago when the applicant came close to doing the subdivision Improvements and initial grading of the road, Staff received notification from him that additional trees needed to be removed that were not agreed upon. Staff contacted the applicant by letter stating the same procedure would have to be conducted. Unfortunately, the applicant proceeded and removed the trees pdor to what was required by the condition in the findings by the Planning Commission. Shortly after, it was brought to Staff's attention that the project arbodst had resigned from the project because of apparent philosophical differences of how the site should be managed. The intent of this proceeding is not necessarily to seek revocation of the subdivision but to obtain assurance from the applicant in conjunction with the general contractor, engineer, and arborist that the conditions and tree management plans that were filed and made part of the record will be followed and get the proposal back on track. Them am two main concerns: overall tree protection on the site and assurance that there is coordination between the parties that the tree plan will be followed. Three conditions have been proposed as a starting point. Jarvis said there are two points to consider. If a condition of approval has been violated (18.12), and Welles has admitted there has been a violation, instruct Staff to have Welles cited for the violation and referred to Municipal Court. Second, decide if revocation or not--the permit may be revoked but that is discretionary. Howe wondered if to Staff's knowledge trees have been removed beyond the cut and fill boundaries. Molnar said the trees that have been removed are in conjunction with the engineered design presented to the Engineering Department. One question is whether the design was coordinated or developed by the engineer or the arborist. Howe said that if someone had cut down a whole forest for a road, it would be one thing, but if the trees cut are actually the extent of the cut and fill, is the revocation of the permit recommended? McLaughlin said that will be what the Commission needs to decide. Since the process was not followed, it is not known how many more trees could have been preserved. It is possible that what has been cut is what would have been approved, however, the City was never given an opportunity to review the trees prior to removal. ASHLAND PLANNING CC)~ 'lSSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 19~6 Jarvis asked if there was a better design suggested for the street or was there an opportunity for suggestions. McLaughlin said the arborist was not involved with the engineer with that part of the design and in marking the trees after the slope stakes were established and determining if there were ways to preserve any trees within that area. The City reviewed the approval of the design of the road, but they were not involved in the tree management plan. Molnar said Staff walked the site with the arborist and Welles and the centerline of the road was staked. The road is approximately 20 feet in width. They all agreed on most likely which trees would need to be removed. At that time, it was probably unclear to the arborist how much was going to be fill and what other trees could be jeopardized. It was assumed after that walk that the Information taken from the site by the arborist would be taken to the engineer and he would coordinate the cross-section drawings with the arborist. Giordano thought It was a flaw on the part of the Commission not to get a design professional involved with this project. Molnar showed an overhead indicating the cut and fill. Howe suggested changing the wording on Staff's condition 2 by eliminating first sentence. PUBLIC HEARING RAD WELLES, noted his letter dated May 14, 1996. He discussed with the engineers all the possibilities of what should be done before a road design was created. The alternative they chose will allow plants to grow on the entire bank. There are lots of dead trees. No trees have been impinged upon by anything he did. What he did in not waiting to go through the process was wrong. He cut down trees that he did not have authority to cut down. They made sure they were not cutting down any trees not required in the plan. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE TO 10:30 P.M.. HOWE SECONDED AND EVERYONE APPROVED. Welles was trying to speed up the procedure because he had someone there to do construction and he wanted to get the City to come up and look at the trees. Howe mentioned having seen U-shaped blocks with hollow centers for planting on steep walls. Has he considered these type of construction techniques? Welles said he had considered but the cost would be about $200,000. The cost per lot would be prohibitive. Jarvis reminded Welles that the Commission made restrictions on this subdivision that were very firm so if any work happened, it was to be coordinated with an arborist. She recalled Sada quit because of what had gone on. It appears that Welles has done precisely what he intended to do and here we are and what are we going to do now?. Once the trees are gone, no one can make them come back. The option of another road design is no longer left to the Commission. The restrictions were imposed to avoid precisely this type of hearing. What security does the Commission have that what he is telling them Is true? Considering the history of what has happened, how can the Commission be assured in the future they won't be sitting here again with the same problem? ASHLAND PLANNING CO~141SSION REGULAR I4EETING MINUTES II~Y 14, 198~ 7 Welles said he made sure nothing was done to the trees outside the area where the trees could be saved. He does not think his error expressed any lack of concern for preservation of all the trees that could be preserved. Jarvis wondered what Welles would suggest so it would work for everyone. The conditions imposed are very Important, not just to the Commission but the city as a whole. Welles thought the only way to enforce would be through a penalty provision. PHIL FRAZEE received a professional trade journal and asked it be included in the record. There is an article that might help the City move forward in this process. Giordano asked Frazee what happened when he submitted the letter asking not be involved in the project and why did he get involved later. Frazee was initially involved last year. After a group of low impact trees were tagged, approved and removed properly, Frazee was paid and he was contacted about moving ahead on the project and he did not have the time to respond. Then he became available. He has tried to keep in touch with all parties. It would have worked out better if the site could have been walked together with a City engineer and planner, the developer's engineer, and arborist. He has had a difficult time with the process because everyone needs to be in the loop. The City needs someone in a neutral position that is just Interested in the trees. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND APPROVED. Armitage asked Frazee if any trees were cut that did not have to be cut to build the road on the centerline. Frazee responded that he did not think so. He cannot say absolutely without a doubt, but he doesn't think so. Frazee noted he has a contract with Welles. MIKE THORNTON, Thornton Engineering, 670 Superior Court, Medford, OR, said the delineation of trees to be removed was done without proper delineation of what the boundaries of the cut and fill areas would be. When those trees and apparently additional trees were removed, the extent of the excavation slope stakes created a wide swath which is disturbing, but necessary for the design which was approved by the City. Had the slope stakes been delineated prior to the marking of trees, there would not have been the concern. Thomton has worked on the project for about a year and a half. It was his assumption that his plans and draft plans had been reviewed and approved by the arborist. During the seven or eight months that lapsed, there was never any objection to this design and he assumed everyone had reviewed and approved it. Giordano asked If Thornton knew he was to coordinate with the arborist as a condition of Welles' approval? It was Thomton's understanding that the plans were being reviewed and approved by the arborist and Welles acting as the hub for project. Staff Response Staff said if it appears there has been a violation of conditions, a citation can be prepared. Jarvis said a fine of up to $500 can be imposed. Armitage said since no trees were removed that were outside the cut and fill boundaries, he does not believe taking up the court's time would be worth it. He would ASHLAND PLANNING C01~MISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1906 suggest the applicant follow the additional conditions suggested by Staff and that there would be no additional trees cut except those that have been approved. Howe agreed. Bingham said there is a clear history of problems with this site and the applicant. He believes it could be demonstrated in a court that there has been a willful disregard for the conditions of approval. But, if the Commission can get assurance from Welles tonight, perhaps going to court will not be necessary. Giordano feels there was a violation of Condition 15. There was no time required from Staff for written approval. In the future, perhaps written approval should occur within 10 days. Bass wondered if the City has the authority to hire an arborist. McLaughlin thought it would be an option if it was paid for by the developer. This could be done Instead of revocation. Jarvis asked for a bond to hire someone to help oversee the project. Carr moved not to revoke as per Staff's three conditions in the Staff Report and that an independent coordinator be hired (under approval of the Planning Director), if necessary, at the applicant's expense to make sure all the conditions are met. Armitage seconded the motion. Armitage asked that the engineer meet with the City and work out Condition 2 so it is to the satisfaction of the engineer and Planning Department. The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COI~T! $SION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 14, 1~06