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