Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-09 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Carr, Giordano, Armitage, Hibbert, Finkle and Cloer. Absent members were Bingham and Bass. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Carr moved and Cloer seconded the motion to approve the Minutes and Findings of the April 11, 1995 meeting. Everyone approved. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS Jarvis read the opening statement. PLANNING ACTION 95-029 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FINAL PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. MODIFICATION INCLUDES DELETION OF ONE LOT (FROM 5 TO 4), A PARTIAL IMPROVEMENT OF IVY LANE TO CITY STANDARDS, WITH THE REMAINING PORTION BEING PAVED TO PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STANDARDS. APPLICANT: RADCLIFFE WELLES Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Cloer, Finkle, Armitage, Carr and Jarvis had a site visit. Giordano had a site visit and declared he was an agent/architect for the project prior to the present owner. Hibbert abstained. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported this is a continuation of the hearing from last month. The applicable criteria of approval has been mailed to the affected property owners. There is a request for a reduction of lots from five to four. There is also a request for partial construction of Ivy Lane to City standards with the remaining portion improved to a driveway standard with the entire street being dedicated as part of this application. The unfinished issue from last month was that 75 feet of the remainder of the road that the applicant has proposed not to be constructed at this time, given the uncertainty of whether or not this road will ever push through to the west. When the street is constructed how will payment of those improvements be structured? In the packet, a proposed covenant provided by the applicant has been included. The covenant would require each of the four lots to bear a quarter of the cost of improving Ivy Lane to City standards all the way to the west property at the time needed to access the parcel to the west. Also included in the packet is proposed wording from Paul Nolte for a Condition (modification of Condition 20). This wording would be recorded on the deed of each lot, allowing the property owners to know they would be obligated to pay one-quarter of the cost of the road when installed. There are a number of conditions requested at last month's meeting that have been included in the addendum. Jarvis wondered if the proposed language from Nolte was to be a substitute for the proposed language of covenant in the deed. Molnar affirmed. PUBLIC HEARING RAD WELLES, 1031 Ivy Lane, stated he had read Nolte's language and has no problem with it. He would urge the Commission to accept the proposal with regard to not doing the cut on the last 75 feet of Ivy Lane. It would be worthwhile to consider preserving the woodland as it is. He asked the Commission to accept the modifications. Finkle recalled from the last meeting about having an arborist as part of the project. Welles said he has obtained the services of another certified arborist, Phill Frazee. Jarvis asked Welles for his response to suggested additional wording to Condition 15. "If any deviation or violation of the tree management plan of the tree plan occurs, this approval is rescinded." Welles thought it was an unreasonable condition. Giordano said that during construction it is not unheard of to have trees fenced off. He thought Jarvis' wording goes too far. Finkle agreed that the wording Jarvis has presented is too tight for human nature. McLaughlin said there should be no deviations at all from the tree management plan as long as all precautions are taken. Jarvis merely pointed out that there have been so many problems up to this point in this very sensitive area. Trees have been cut on other property and cut for viewscapes. She is only suggesting that in the past, if there have been deviations, so what, and unless there is a significant deterrent to cuffing down trees accidentally, the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES what, and unless there is a significant deterrent to cutting down trees accidentally, the trees are apt to go. She agrees with Giordano that the wording is too restrictive. Armitage thought this application has been conditioned a lot. There is a reasonable expectation that the plan is to be followed. Carr requested an explanation for Condition 13. Is there a written contract or specific penalties spelled out someplace? McLaughlin said the types of penalties that could occur are: a violation of conditions, a stop work order would be issued on the subdivision or house, or coming back before the Planning Commission. Violations of conditions of approval would result in some sort of action taken on the amendment of the plan. Violating conditions of approval is similar to violation of the Municipal Code and that could result in being cited into Municipal Court. Cloer moved to approve PA95-029 with the added Conditions and proposed language for the covenant (Nolte's). Armitage seconded the motion and it carried it unanimously. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 95-036 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 47.7 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND WEST OF THE EAST MAIN, NORTH OF THE ASHLAND HILLS INN. A ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1-5) IS REQUESTED FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, WHILE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY IS DESIGNATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE APPLICATION ALSO INVOLVES A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 173 LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION. APPLICANT: DOUGLAS LEE, DIAMOND D CORPORATION Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Carr, Giordano, Armitage and Finkle had site visits. Hibbert had a site visit and a call from Ilse Nicholson. She and Jack were opposed to the annexation due to the water and sewer problems. Cloer had a site visit and several ex parte contacts; two with citizens opposed to the proposal. The main issue seemed to be transportation, questions of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES loading onto East Main and compliance with the City's recent desires for pedestrian and bicycles. He had discussions with Kelly Madding and Larry Medinger about the affordable housing element in the proposal and he believes he was persuaded to support all phases of the development because they contain 25 percent affordable housing. He had a discussion with Paul Meyers, a lessor of the proposed property for a number of years. He showed Cloer around and they discussed the absence of affordable E-1 property. Jarvis had a site visit and a call from Ilse Nicholson stating she and Jack were against the proposal. Jarvis saw no sign on the property. STAFF REPORT Molnar explained that this application involves two parts: 1) an annexation and zone change and 2) subdivision request. The applicable criteria have been mailed to the affected property owners. A detailed description of the application is contained within the Staff Report. Sewer, water, and electricity are available to serve the site and storm drains will be provided. Vehicle access is provided along East Main Street with bike lanes on both sides. Public need is demonstrated by providing 25 percent of the units proposed to comply with the affordable housing. The applicant is requesting a zone change since approximately eight acres are zoned Commercial. This area contains slopes from five to 15 percent and is not well suited for the majority of Commercial uses. The subdivision has been designed around neotraditional design elements (gridded street system, alleys, detached garages, planting strip along the street). A concern about the project has been isolation of the property. It is served by a bike lane which unfortunately, has to cross I-5 in two areas and access is poor because of the narrowness of both bridges. There are no sidewalks leading to the property. Staff has recommended as part of the subdivision design that at the southeast corner of the property, abutting the Ashland Hills parking lot, a public pedestrian easement be provided from the hammerhead to the parking area, providing easy access to the transit stop on Highway 66. Staff has made a favorable recommendation on the proposal with the attached 11 Conditions. Armitage asked if some part of the property is in the A-1 (Airport Overlay). Staff said there is a portion in the A-1. Armitage is concerned about the noise and questioned the need for a Conditional Use Permit for residential use in an A-1. McLaughlin said a covenant would be required as part of the CC&R's that would waive the right to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES complain about airport operations. McLaughlin said within the A-1 overlay, conflicting uses are discouraged between the airport and residential. It needs to be shown there is a physical separation or buffering or that the location is appropriate given the airport location and the uses involved. Finkle expressed his concern with regard to safety and access over the freeway overpasses. Whose responsibility is this to make this area safer? Molnar discussed this with Nolte and Nolte said that given the scale of the project, conditioning for off- site improvements is within the purview of the Planning Commission. The difficultly is finding what the improvements entail. Since the overpasses are narrow, would it require cantilevering out to provide a pedestrian and bike facility? PUBLIC HEARING MICHAEL MULTARI, 641 Huguera Street #202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, who represents the owners, believes that the applicant was drawn to his firm because they have had a high degree of experience with affordable housing and neotraditional design. Protecting the special qualities of the community is an important concern. Proper planning of growth and the pace at which it occurs is necessary. They are trying to provide a project that meets the needs and desires of the City while still being economically feasible for the property owners and developers. In reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, the property was shown to be a part of the City's Urban Growth Boundary, therefore, eligible for the consideration of the annexation. The Comp Plan also designated the property for a single family residential neighborhood. Guided by the Comp Plan and affordable housing policy, the applicant is willing to provide 25 percent affordable housing. Over the course of several months and after meetings with Staff, the applicant has prepared a design which incorporates many of the features the Commission has been thinking about that would be appropriate for the City. Multari showed an overhead of the project. They have tried to protect the slopes and trees, put waterways in the wetlands, and provide open space. One significant shortcoming to the site is that it is on the other side of the freeway. However, Multari believes convenient linkages have been provided to the existing streets and the actual distance from the site to shopping, work, etc. is relatively short. They remain open to considering other ideas for improvements and support Staff's recommendations. Multari said there would not be a problem making the noise ASH~D P~ANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES covenant applicable to the entire subdivision. With regard to the open space, Multari said they would prefer that the park and open space would be public and the maintenance costs be borne by the City. If that is not acceptable, the applicant is willing to maintain privately and assume it would be private property at that time. Armitage has a strong dislike for walls along freeways, and inquired about buffering. Multari agreed and said in order to try and make the project as invisible as possible, the back 15 feet of the lots along the freeway would be an open space easement that would be heavily vegetated. They also envision a combination of berm with a wall on top. The freeway lots are longer. Perhaps the garage walls could be integrated into the buffering. There are about 45 units per phase and the first phase includes 50 percent affordable units. That can be spread out. Hibbert thought the affordable housing should be spread out throughout the project. He wondered about the feasibility of of pedestrian walkways screened on the outside edge of the overpasses. Multari knows the protective devices have been added. He thinks if the developer has to bear the cost of cantilevering accessways, it could be more than the project could afford. He will research this item. Finkle asked if there was a willingness on the part of the applicant to integrate the affordable housing more generally throughout the development. Multari said generally yes, but it could depend to some extent on the burden the developers are asked to bear for infrastructure. Multari, in answer to Jarvis' questioning about the cost of homes, stated that the affordable housing will meet the standards required in Ashland. The others will vary with the desirability of the lots--they will start at about $120,00. The larger homes with views to the east will cost about $175,000. Square footages will vary from 1500 to 1800 square feet. Cloer was pleased with the phasing and distribution of the affordable housing. McLaughlin said he would have to check with the Parks Department for their input on whether they would want publically maintained open space. Generally, unless common open space is of benefit to a large neighborhood, the open space would be best maintained by the homeowner's association. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES Another option, Multari interjected, would be a combination of open space maintained by the homeowner's association but a public easement for a walking path with liability picked up by the City. Hibbert felt most people wouldn't be going there to use it. It would be used mostly by those that live there. KELLY MADDING, Affordable Housing Officer for the City, gave a brief overview of the affordable housing program which addresses moderate income people, not low income. The median household size in Ashland is three and median income is $28,000. Primarily, people buying homes are single moms that hold professional positions. To date, there has not been an annexation to test the affordable housing provision. The program thus far has provided about 36 units. Homes in the program are selling below the cap of $110,000, well below the average for homes in Ashland. Comments from Ron Bass, Ahrens, Mandell were entered into the record. BARBARA RYBERG, 373 Vista Street, referred to page 6 of the Housing Element in the Comp Plan which says that the City should encourage development of land inside the UGB before annexing new land. Ryberg believes if we are going to adopt a policy of infill, and at the same time, build a satellite community on the other side of the freeway, aren't we doing something to our livability? This application seems to be opposite of the direction we are going as was discussed at the Visioning Conference. She is concerned about the Commission following the Comp Plan. She is also concerned about people having to drive to and from this area. MARILYN BRIGGS, 590 Glenview Drive, is opposed to the annexation. The applicant is trying to meet the criteria of need and the need is affordable housing. Briggs read passages from Pattern Language. The book states a city is continuous, not broken up. The suburb is obsolete and no longer in fashion. A major road through a neighborhood destroys it. Briggs asked the Commission to think of Ashland as the whole neighborhood. A community should never be split by a high-speed road. DEBBIE MILLER, 160 Normal Avenue, asked the Commission to keep long-range goals in mind. All actions make up a city. The City is required to plan so there is consistency in preserving the character and appearance of the City, according to the Comp Plan. This includes a more compact, rather than sprawling kind of urban design. Miller sees no compelling circumstances and no need can be proven to annex this land. About 110 lots in fiatland subdivisions have been approved by the Commission in the past year. Affordable housing is here as seen advertised on Fordyce and East Main. This property is an isolated island. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES Miller said the Transportation Plan requires an equity in planning for various modes of transportation. The State rule demands modal equity. She runs across the E. Main bridge and it is a scary thing. Anyone living in the proposed development would be forced to take a car. If there is increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic, there will be problems. This is not fulfilling the Comp Plan in regard to transportation. Residents of Ashland are concerned about the wise use of finite resources available to its citizens. There is no more water, no solution to the sewer problem, and there is school overcrowding. The criteria has not been proved and no need demonstrated. Jarvis said a public need does not have to be shown. Public need for additional land can be demonstrated oz- that 25 percent of the lots are affordable. The applicant does not have to show any public need. Armitage asked for more information about Ashland's vacant lands. McLaughlin said a planning intern is finishing a study. About four-and-a-half years ago, there were roughly 345 acres of vacant R-1 zoned property in the City. This study was done by volunteers from the community. Thus far, 188 acres are vacant. These include vacant lots in existing subdivisions as well as other large parcels of land. The largest parcel is probably nine to ten acres of R-1 on North Mountain Avenue. SUSAN HUNT, 220 Nutley, said even though the proposal meets most of criteria, she agrees with Miller that it does not meet the Comp Plan. She referred to page 6 (2) (c) of the Housing Element and concluded that there is already almost twice as much available land within the city limits. If someone can provide affordable housing, can they annex? In answer, Armitage and Jarvis said as long as the other four criteria are met, that is probably correct. JULIE SCHWARTZ, 237 Almond Street, agreed with the previous opponents. There is no public transportation to this subdivision. DEAN ING, 1105 Ivy, opposed the project and was especially concerned with pedestrian access and bicycle safety on the overpasses. He also mentioned the perception of risk with people living in the shadow of aircraft; it is not just a noise problem. He believes approval of this application would create a problem for the airport. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES Staff Response Some people are asking the Commission to make decisions about growth and whether it should occur on this site or not, however, that decision was made in the late 1970's when the Urban Growth Boundary was drawn and the first Comprehensive Plan was written. The UGB was set up to grow into for the next 20 years. That is the policy decision and that is the decision that determines the future of this area. The main issues have already been decided in a long-range plan for the community. The Commission has to deal with the tools before them--the Comp Plan and Ordinance. Armitage, after reading the affordable housing section and transportation plan, finds the two in conflict. McLaughlin explained he would need to find the proposal is not in conformance of a specific part of the Comp Plan. McLaughlin referred Armitage to the policies and their implementation. He explained that the policies are implemented by the criteria. Giordano agrees that the Comp Plan supports "need" through affordable housing. He has a problem with the transportation element because it is more vague. If the applicant can potentially mitigate the problem of transportation (bridge is inadequate), in Giordano's estimation it would satisfy the Comp Plan policy. Can the applicant spend more time in searching for ways to mitigate the transportation problem? McLaughlin explained that there approved subdivision that do not have continuous sidewalks or bike paths to other areas. The difference is that the traffic is slower or there is a shoulder. At what threshold do you find that transportation is inadequate? How do you interpret equally? There is a different level of impediment on the overpasses than on streets with slower traffic and no sidewalks. The Commission could direct the applicant to find the threshold. McLaughlin agreed that there is no specific policy in the transportation plan that requires clear pedestrian access to primary destinations. Giordano believes there are criteria the Commission can use to say the street (bridges) are inadequate for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The State has standards for bikeways. Cloer mentioned that ODOT's District Program Specialist wrote a letter stating the Highway 66 overpass was inadequate and needs a left-hand turn lane. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES MULTARI, in his rebuttal, stated that as he expected, there is considerable community concern about a project of this size and its location. In discussions with Staff, they felt they have met policies. The Comp Plan says at least a five year supply of land should be part of the City's inventory. With regard to similar quality of property mentioned in the Comp Plan, there are features about this piece of property such as size, price, ability to develop at affordable levels, that differentiate it from in-fill pieces of property. Another Comp Plan directive is to insure a variety of housing, which this development does. One reason affordable housing can be provided is because of the price of the land. It provides an opportunity for an extraordinary design. The neotraditional plan is striving to incorporate with the City. If there are deficiencies, Multari would like the opportunity to cure the deficiencies before denial of the project. The transportation policies are somewhat vague. In general, the application has provided adequate transportation. He acknowledges that crossing the bridges for pedestrian and bicycles is a problem, however, the judgment is whether that is a sufficient enough problem or is there no mitigation for the applicant. Giordano thought it ironic that this is a neotraditional development but residents would have to drive to the grocery store. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Giordano believes affordable housing is very important to the community and this is an opportunity to allow the 25 percent to come into the City under affordability. This is probably the only chance the City will have. On the other hand, Giordano feels strongly about the transportation and would like to give the applicant time to come up with some creative ways to handle the transportation issues. Armitage does not see how the project is in conformance with the Comp Plan with regard to urbanization. Cloer wondered what the applicant could do to address the transportation element. Giordano thought maybe the applicant could phase the development according to the Ashland Street Plan, make wings over the E. Main overpass, reroute the bus, use a shuttle system and park and ride. Hibbert did not believe this development is leap-frogging or sprawling or split by high- speed roads. It does create a problem for bike and foot traffic crossing the overpasses. But by putting a development in this location, this will be filling a transportation need because you cannot fill a need when there are not enough people ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES 10 to ride a bus. With Highway 66 being worked on, this would give more impetus to work on transportation solutions. There are some things the applicant could do to help such as charging each lot $100 to be applied to transportation solutions. By denying annexations, the number of available lots will continue to be reduced until no one can afford a house in Ashland. This project is infill. Forty-four affordable homes will help solve some of our problems. Hibbert thought contract annexation with the County should be considered also. Carr said the Commission has merrily dealt with Oak Knoll and Crowson Road which are relatively as inaccessible as the proposed area and it has never bothered the Commission before. She does not believe people go grocery shopping on their bikes anyway. The opportunity for this level of affordable housing is healthy. The project meets the criteria. Finkle would not be comfortable voting for annexation unless the applicant can answer the public safety issues involved with bike and pedestrian traffic crossing the overpasses. He would recommend Staff and the applicant work on solutions to this problem. He does not envision property owners from the northern end of the development making the trek to Ashland Hills to catch a bus. Finkle agreed with Hibbert that bus service will eventually be needed on East Main Street and it would be reasonable to have discussions with RVTD regarding this development. He is concerned about losing any C-1 land and though this is not very good land, Finkle suggested finding eight acres or something similar somewhere else. Hibbert recommended two added conditions: 1) All properties sign a waiver from the airport, and 2) the applicant set up a $100 per lot account to applied for or whatever can be done for pedestrian and bicycle and enhancement on either one or both of the two freeway crossings. After reviewing the criteria for annexation, Carr moved to approve PA 95-036 -- request for annexation. Hibbert seconded the motion. Cloer would favor the annexation. This will not be a neighborhood incorporated into the City. It will be similar to Oak Knoll and people who decide to live there would not be the same people who like to live in the Railroad District. Carr amended the motion to include the possibility of contract annexation. Hibbert seconded the amendment and the motion carried with Hibbert, Carr, Jarvis, and Cloer voting "yes" and Armitage, Giordano, and Finkle voting "no". ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES 11 CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO 10:30 P.M.. HIBBERT SECONDED THE MOTION AND ALL. APPROVED. Carr moved to approve PA95-036 for a zone change from C-1 to R-1-5P. Hibbert seconded the motion and it carried with Jarvis, Cloer, Armitage, Hibbert, and Carr voting "yes" and Finkle and Giordano voting "no". McLaughlin asked that the Commission recommend continuation in order to make findings for a Conditional Use Permit in the A-1 overlay, therefore, Carr moved to continue PA95-036 -- Outline Plan approval for consideration of the Airport Overlay. Hibbert seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Multari agreed to waive the 120 days for completion of his application in order to add the Airport Overlay findings. Armitage will be asking to add a condition about noise and hazard at the next meeting. PLANNING ACTION 95-014 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE AT 930 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BE REMODELED (8730 SQ. FT.) AND APPROXIMATELY 3600 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE WILL BE ADDED WITHIN THE "L" SHAPE OF THE BUILDING. APPLICANT: DEAN CROPPER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Hibbert, Armitage, Giordano, and Carr had a site visit. Cloer had a conversation with a neighbor, but had nothing to report. Finkle had a site visit and spoke with a neighbor. Jarvis had a site visit and talked with Cropper and Martin about the location of things on the lot. STAFF REPORT The Staff Report reflects the history and description of this application. Knox reported this application is adding 3500 square feet of office space centered in the L-portion of the building. The revised application shows a 20 foot access drive. There is a property line discrepancy because of an error in the survey leaving a distance of four ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES 1¸2 feet from the fence to the neighboring house. No development can occur in this area and Condition 1 should cover this. A drainage plan will be required at the time the building permit is issued. There is no proposal by the applicant to change the irrigation ditch. TID is requesting culverting of the ditch. PUBLIC HEARING DEAN CROPPER, 1820 Greenmeadows Way, Cropper Medical, expanded their plan because their business is growing. He asked for a correction on Page 3 of his findings to state "Type II procedure". He and Mr. Martin are working on solving the property line discrepancy. The proposed modifications to Cropper's facility will not be impacted if the property line is in the wrong place. Also in Cropper's findings, he is interested in pursuing a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit for installation of a picnic area in the creek area. He will obtain the necessary permits. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE TO THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. HIBBERT SECONDED THE MOTION AND ALL FAVORED. DAVE RICHARDSON, 1105 Siskiyou Boulevard, stated the property drains naturally toward the creek. They may put in some vegetation to aid in draining. He agreed to put a trap in the drive. CROPPER said the well is on the north side of the house and there is a significant drainage moving away from that area. He said most pick-ups and deliveries are done by UPS and the largest truck is a short trailer. The deliveries are done during the day and Cropper agreed to cooperate in insuring his deliveries would occur at times that would not conflict with children going to or from school. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Giordano moved to approve PA95-014 with the added Condition that a sand/oil separator be installed for site drainage. Armitage seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 95-044 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 955 B STREET. APPLICANT: FRED COX ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES 13 Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Carr, Hibbert, Finkle, Jarvis, and Cloer had site visits. Giordano drove by. Armitage had no site visit. STAFF REPORT History of the site and a detailed description of the proposal is included in the Staff Report. Overall, Staff favors this application. However, there are some design issue that need to be fastened down. The biggest concern is the two units along B Street with garages oriented toward the street. PUBLIC HEARING FRED COX, 1280 Kirk Lane, tried to incorporate porches in his design. He has tried to answer some concerns of Staff and the neighbors. Ann Bass will be behind a one- story building. Cox agreed with the solar and foliage on Barchet's plan. A construction fence is agreeable to Cox. ED MCCURRY, 375 Otis, is with Century 21 and is the listing agent for the property. He asked the Planning Commission to approve this application. This development will create considerably less traffic than 23 units (highest density) would cause. Staff Response Staff would recommend continuation of this application in order to polish the design issues and return with a finished product. There is not a site plan to adopt that meets the requirements. The Commissioners wanted to see the driveways located per Staff recommendation. Cox agreed to waive the 120 days for completion of his application. Carr moved to continue PA95-044 for the applicant to comply with the Site Design Standards. Finkle seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER Jarvis read Hibbert's letter of resignation effective midnight, May 9, 1995. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 1995 MINUTES 14