Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-08 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Bass, Giordano, Bingham, Cloer, Finkle, Carr and Howe. Armitage was absent. Staff present were Molnar, Knox, Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Carr moved to approve the Minutes of the July 11, 1995 meeting. Cloer seconded the motion and the Minutes were approved. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth from the audience to speak. Jarvis extended her thanks to Steve Armitage for chairing July's meeting, her appreciation to Jim Hibbert for his years of service on the Planning Commission and a welcome to Anna Howe to the Planning Commission. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 95-074 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY ULTIMATELY CONSISTING OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY ATi'ACHED HOMES INCLUDING DUPLEXES AND COTTAGES BUILT IN CLUSTERS OF FOUR, SIX AND EIGHT, A COMMUNITY CENTER, APARTMENTS, AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, AND A MAINTENANCE BUILDING. APPLICANT: MADELINE AND HUNTER HILL The applicant submitted a letter withdrawing their application. PLANNING ACTION 95-084 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A TEN-LOT, TEN-UNIT (NINE TWO-STORY TOWNHOUSES AND ONE SINGLE STORY TOWNHOUSES) MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD AND MARY JANE AVENUE. APPLICANT: RICHARD E. BOULTON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Howe, Carr, Finkle, Cloer, Bingham and Jarvis had site visits. Giordano disclosed that a number of years ago he did about one hour of work for someone (could not recall the name) to find out the status of the property. He felt he could be fair in this current action, Bass declared a conflict of interest and stepped down. STAFF REPORT Madding gave a brief history of the site and a detailed description of the proposal which includes ten units with one-car garages that will be individually owned. Ingress and egress to the property is from Mary Jane. The applicant has shown grass pavers for the driveways and Staff is not certain about the long-term maintenance and viability of the pavers. Staff has recommended approval of the proposal with the attached Conditions. Howe wondered how much parking was available in front of the garage. Madding indicated there would be approximately six spaces and with the added five guest parking spaces, this would be 11 spaces. Also, is there anyplace for public bike parking? Madding explained that bike parking was provided inside the garages. Carr asked about on-street parking and Madding said there was an error in the Staff Report and the applicant is asking for three on-street parking credits. PUBLIC HEARING RICHARD BOULTON, 130 S. W. Bancroft Road, Portland, OR, President of Janus Corporation, introduced the development team. RICK VEZIE, Vezie and Associates, Ashland ERIC JOHNSON AND DICK BATH, Hardey Engineering SUSlE BROWN, Absolute Realty DAN BISH, Plant Oregon (not present) BOULTON stated that the proposal meets or exceeds all standards set by the City. The units should attract active, mature individuals, seniors, or young families including two handicapped accessible units. The design of the development and placement in the neighborhood will buffer Mary Jane from Siskiyou. The development would add to the housing stock at the south end of Ashland. A fence will be constructed along the south side at the corner of Mary Jane to the corner of the property. Bike parking has been provided in the garages. There is room in front of the two extra parking spaces on the south side next to the dumpster area where a bike rack could be placed. (Near the three bedroom units.) Boulton said they have not come to a firm decision on the grass pavers. They are considering hard surface treadways through the development and the grass pavers in between and the sides and in front of the garages. They will be working with Staff before final approval. Giordano is concerned about the repeated travel over the grass pavers and that they could look terrible after awhile. Giordano liked the looks but thought it could be a maintenance nightmare. Jarvis presumed from the applicant's findings that they received the necessary documentation from the various City departments that the criteria have been met. Vezie said the documentation is from the pre-application comments. Madding concurred that the criteria have been met. Cloer addressed Bass' letter regarding setbacks. Vezie said this issue was addressed with Staff initially. Molnar explained Staff's interpretation of the setbacks and the way they have consistently applied this interpretation in the past. Staff looked at the corner lot definition. Siskiyou is considered the front yard for this one tax lot. (This is the narrower frontage.) Under the Performance Standards Chapter 18.88.100, the setbacks fall to the parent zone. The City Attorney has interpreted the setback as the perimeter of the parent parcel with Siskiyou the front yard and Mary Jane the side yard. Howe wondered what the applicant's reaction was to Bass' suggestion to have an arborist help with the trimming and maintain the root areas. Boulton indicated that these things have been agreed to with Bass in previous conversations. Howe suggested the use of grass pavers for the one double parking space near the trees to allow for the access for air and water to the tree roots. RON BASS, 2190 Siskiyou Boulevard, questioned the setback interpretation of whether his property is the side or the back. The rear of the two homes are facing his property. Also, the mature trees on his property are three to four feet from the property line and hang over 25 to 30 feet. He is concerned that the trees be kept as in tact as possible. He realizes some selective tree trimming will be necessary. The Tree Commission expressed some concern about the root system and made an informal recommendation the applicant be as careful as possible not to disrupt the root system. Bingham wondered if the project were pushed back, could it still be done as proposed? Bass said he met with the applicant and the applicant said it was tightly designed and could not be pushed back. Jarvis asked if Bass needed any screening between his property and the development. Bass said the applicants are proposing a privacy fence from his garage on back but in the front he suggested to the applicant a rail fence that would still leave an open feel. Giordano asked if Bass was concerned with the air-conditioning units located about three feet from his property line. Staff said mechanical equipment cannot be located in the setback area so that will be included as a Condition. Rebuttal Vezie believes Siskiyou should be held as the front yard setback. As far as moving the project a few feet to the west, it would be impossible to provide as much apron parking as the development is showing now. Jarvis asked if the applicant would mind if a Condition is added to ask an arborist to be involved in dealing with the trees. Boulton had no objection. Boulton explained that when the project was designed they took into consideration the trees and buildings on Bass' property. Units five and six are aligned with the mature trees and the garage. Madding suggested wording for two added Conditions. Condition 13: 'q'hat temporary protective fencing be placed around the trees prior to site preparation. That if construction is to take place within the canopy of trees, an arborist be retained on site during construction. Also, that a pruning plan be reviewed at the time of Final Plan approval". Condition 14: "That mechanical equipment be located outside the setback areas". Boulton asked if an arborist had to be on-site at all times? Staff answered no, just to make sure the trees are handled properly. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Giordano had reservations about the limited parking especially if grass pavers are used, but this will undoubtedly be worked out at Final Plan. Bingham shared Giordano's concern about grass pavers. Howe would like to see an area povided for guest bike parking and vehicular parking in back of Unit 4 to be kept open with grass pavers or something similar to allow maximum root growth for the mature trees. ~ MEETING M#aJI'ES Jarvis wanted to add to Condition 12 the following: "....to insure that the grass pavers will be sufficient to deal with the proposed traffic in that area". Howe moved to add Condition 15: "That provisions be made for four exterior bicycle parking spaces". Carr seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Howe moved to add Condition 16: "That there be grass pavers or other permeable material maintained for the compact parking spaces in back of Unit 4". Carr seconded the motion. Finkle commented that the trees are along the whole area and would like the developer, landscape architect, and arborist to decide what is best for the trees. The motion carried with Howe, Bingham, Jarvis, and Giordano voting '~jes" and Carr, Finkle, and Cloer voting "no". Carr moved to approve Planning Action 95-084 with the 12 original and four added Conditions. Howe seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 95-053 AMENDMENT TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF RECYCLING FACILITIES FOR ALL COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS. STAFF REPORT The Conservation Committee met and suggested the amendment. The suggestion for recycling in the past has come up over and over again under Site Review and has become a standard Condition to add recycling facilities. Bingham said the wording is not very specific. He thought a dumpster would be used and all recycling materials would be mixed up. Should some language be added about compartmentalized recycling? He is also concerned about keeping the facilities clean and maintained. Finkle is not comfortable with the language as it does not allow for much flexibility, for example, that the recycling area should be next to the solid waste area. In some cases, that might not be the best situation. If a common receptacle is not provided, is an Ashland Sanitary bin provided? Carr thought the wording "opportunity to recycle site" and the "common waste" is vague. Molnar said the terms are defined in the ordinance. RE~UI.~I ~ I~lI IINU'rES PUBLIC HEARING Hagen said the term "opportunity to recycle" is out of the State law. The reason for instructing the landlords to provide the blue Ashland Sanitary bins in the units is because there is a better chance the bin would stay in the unit when renters leave (it's part of the property, not their own). There is an ordinance that requires the landlord keep this area clean and gives sorting instructions. It is not tied into the land use ordinance. Hagen said the intent is to make recycling as easy as possible and that by providing it next to the garbage, it would be a reminder to tenants to use and also an opportunity to educate as to what is recyclable. Finkle suggested that in A. and B.2 - "...shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to 'or with access comparable' to the solid waste receptacle...". Most of the Commissioners agreed that "opportunity to recycle" should be shortened to "recycle" but settled for adding hyphens (opportunity-to-recycle). Cloer moved to recommend that Planning Action 95-053 be presented to the City Council with the Planning Commissions suggested changes. Howe seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS Planning Action 95-074 - Finkle moved to approve and Carr seconded the motion. Howe noted in Section 3, Item 2, "...area approved is as indicated on Staff Exhibit "A"." Staff Exhibit "A" is just the housing area and the Commission had included the roadway and the open space as part of the plan approval. On number 9 on the last sheet, it is clear that the open space is to be connected to the development. She would like Item 2 to say: "Area approved is as indicated on Staff Exhibit "A" as modified by Condition 9." Finkle amended his motion to include the correction. Carr seconded and the amended motion carried with Giordano abstaining. Planning Action 95-057 - Finkle moved to approve and Howe seconded. The motion carried unanimously. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 95-085 REQUEST FOR OUTUNE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 55-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE AT HERSEY STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A SEASONAL DRAINAGE ON THE PROPERTY. APPLICANT: DONOVAN GILLILAND Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Giordano is the agent for the applicant and he stepped down. Site visits were made by Bass, Cloer, Finkle, Bingham and Carr. Howe was hampered in her site visit by a barbed wire fence and no visible sign. Jarvis viewed the site from the Williamson Way area and noted blackberries growing and wondered if the water tables were described or involved. STAFF REPORT Molnar gave some background about the site and detailed description of the proposal. The proposal is for a 55-1ot subdivision. There are two entrances to the project: one on Mountain and one on Hersey. Staff has a major concern with the treatment of the drainage way; first as an amenity and second as a storm drain facility. The City's master storm drain plan notes this area as a significant part of the City's storm drain system and calls for a 42 inch culvert. Staff is hesitant to give approval to this part of the plan without first studying in detail, what will be involved in modifying the drainage way on this property to make it a viable part of the storm drainage system. Staff does not really know at this time how much fill will be needed to fill the drainage way area and if the dimensional requirements of the open space are wide enough to accommodate the culverting. Molnar noted there is an alley system that surrounds the drainage way providing rear access to 14 units but also involves two additional culverts. Part of the review is to keep culverting to a minimum and reduce the changes to the area. Staff feels there might be some slight modifications that could occur to the alleyway to reduce the number of culverts needed by creating common driveways to four of the units. This would cause less disruption to the drainage way. Staff had some discrepancies with the applicant with reference to the open space calculations. The applicant considered the planting strips as part of the open space, colaaim therefore, Staff has calculated 54 units rather than 55. If the alleyway was removed, there would probably be enough open space to maintain 55 units. Staff is recommending that Outline Plan approval be granted for the area south of the drainage way and is included in a Staff exhibit to explore different designs for the drainage way. Bass asked if it was Staff's opinion that it would not matter to separate the project and Molnar responded that he did not feel the area south of the drainage way would have to be modified unless as a result of the deletion of units 1A and 2 the applicant wanted to relocate one unit to the area for which Staff is recommending approval. The Commissioners discussed that additional development will increase traffic and the need for a four-way stop at Mountain and E. Main. Carr suggested that if there were peak traffic times, that the Police Department could provide an officer to direct traffic. Howe wondered about the street at the southern border of the property and if the street is designed to continue up the hill and if so, have provisions been made for a hammerhead? Molnar said at this point, no, however, it should be addressed. There is an existing house at the southern edge of the property with a very large yard and Howe questioned if that land was subdividable. Molnar understood the owner of the residence wanted to have a larger lot to maintain a buffer between the house and project. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING DONOVAN GILLILAND TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morning Light Drive, agent for the applicant stated that he believes this project meets many of the City's desires for neo-traditional design. The larger lot (with the existing house) belongs to the owner's mother and she wanted the larger lot. Giordano disagrees with Staff with the regard to the design and layout of the drainage system. The alleyways provide a continuous loop through the development. He had a wetlands consultant that they met with and came up with a design that met with the consultant's recommendations. The proposal should enhance the drainage ditch. He believes they have adequately addressed the criteria to support the design. Giordano presented photos of the site, an aerial map and a topographic map. At Final Plan, the applicant will have a licensed landscape architect and engineer who will work with the wetlands engineer to finalize a design to show the Commission how the drainage area will look. The applicant will make Unit 35A an affordable unit which will give the bonus density needed and a total of 55 lots. They designated a six inch water line and it should have been eight inch. The applicant would be happy to participate in a local improvement district for a signalization of Mountain and E. Main Street. He is also supportive of a four-way stop sign or perhaps a traffic circle. A hammerhead turnaround can be accommodated, if the Commission desires. Howe wondered where the second pond gets its water and where the water goes. Giordano understood that the pond was created for irrigation for livestock. It does not hold that much water but has the potential to hold water. It is on the City's wetland map and they keeping it as a wetland. It will be cleaned out. It filters water that comes from the storm drain upstream before entering Bear Creek. All the interior storm drain systems will be tying into the pond area that will be created. Howe asked the applicant's reaction to elimination of the alleyway system and the possibility of shared driveways. Giordano feels strongly about keeping the alley system. He distributed an alternative that he does not like as well because it does not align the alleys. Gilliland calculated there was less impervious surface with the alley system than if driveways were created. Molnar further explained the problem with the "crossings". How much engineering is involved to create the manmade crossing of the culvert to make a house fit. It will take a substantial amount of fill for each crossing. Is there a better design? Does the Commission want them filled? The City has made an effort to identify these places to limit culverting because it is a manmade disturbance to a natural area. How much of the drainage way is going to be filled? If this area is not filled, it will leave a larger area to create a riparian area. There is just not enough information to make the finding. Engineered studies would be helpful. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND CARRIED. [CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The following planning action has been continued until the September meeting. PLANNING ACTION 95-075 963 "B" STREET APPLICANT: WILLIAM BARCHET] PUBLIC HEARING JILL MURPHEY, 492 Lynn Street, stated that the whole neighborhood had concerns about density and traffic. There is a problem with school buses turning onto East Main. The northern portion of the property is standing in water anytime from November through April. It goes against the Goal of Chapter 4, to protect the quality of riparian lands and preserve wildlife habitat. It is a major storm drain area. Murphy made further references to the Comprehensive Plan which are outlined in the letter submitted to the Planning Commission. Murphey shared Staff's concerns with storm drains. What happens if the pond overflows? She is concerned with contamination from the "A" Street property. Are Hersey and Mountain at capacity? She is in agreement with Staff on the density bonus calculations. She would like nothing built on the fiat area. JOE GECSEY, 495 Lynn Street, is concerned with density. He referred to criteria B and discussed the high probability of a sports park on Mountain Avenue and the width of Mountain Avenue. Is it wide enough to allow for a sidewalk and bikeway on the opposite site? He mentioned the poor visibility at Hersey Street and the potential problems at Mountain and E. Main Street. Gecsey wondered if anyone will benefit from the proposed open space (criteria C). MARIE MOREHEAD, 310 No. Mountain, agreed with Murphey on traffic at Mountain and E. Main. She is concerned that the only access to the units on Mountain is along the alleyway. This seems like a long flag lot. How is the dairy barn being accessed? Is there a turnaround for emergency vehicles? Are the units energy efficient? The hearing will be continued at the September regular meeting. Giordano waived his 120 day time limit for approval. The hearing will be left open for additional testimony. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. 10