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