Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-14 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 CALLTO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Cloer, Howe, Bass, Finkle, Armitage, Glordano, and Bingham. Carr was absent. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Finkle noted a change on Page 8 of the October 10, 1995 Regular Meeting Minutes where he commented. Instead of "...if it would cause a shift from commercial to residential" it should read "...if it would cause a shift from residential to commercial'. Finkle moved to approve the Minutes of October 10, 1995 Regular Meeting and the October 24, 1995 meeting as corrected above. Howe seconded the motion and it was approved. Howe moved to approve the Findings of the October 10, 1995 Regular Meeting (PA95-100 - Craig Black). Finkle seconded the motion and everyone approved. Howe noticed that there is no indication in the Findings of who voted which way. When she has voted against a proposal how does she vote to the approve the Findings. McLaughlin explained the Findings are a documentation of the decision and the evidence used to reach that decision. The minutes reflect the voting on a proposal. All Commissioners voted in favor of the Findings for Craig Black, Planning Action 95-100. PUBLIC FORUM Brent Thompson, P.O. Box 201, discussed how the suggested state guideline of 300 feet for a linear block length (1200 foot perimeter) is a parameter to use for pedestrian trip lengths people will take. If blocks are more than 1200 feet, the Commission needs to look for other means of pedestrian access. Even though the Commission may approve paths to nowhere, there may be future redevelopment to create areas with pedestrian travel. Adequate transportation to and through the development includes pedestrian traffic too. There is always an opportunity at Final Plan to add pedestrian paths. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 95-075 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL OF A 17-LOT, 17-UNIT (15 TOWNHOUSES & 2 RESIDENCES) MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 963 B STREET. APPLICANT: WILLIAM D BARCHET Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Giordano had a site visit and was called by the applicant to see if Giordano might assist him. He did not feel it would be proper to assist the applicant and so Giordano referred the applicant to Staff and Staff concurred. Bingham, Howe, Finkle, Armitage, Bass and Jarvis had site visits. Cloer abstained because he was not at the previous meeting. STAFF REPORT This proposal is a request for Outline Plan and Site Review approval that was reviewed a couple of months ago. Testimony was given at which time several Issues were raised by the Commissioners and relayed to the applicant so he could provide additional information. Those items are outlined in the Staff Report Addendum. Conditions 9, 10, and 11 have been added. Howe wondered what Fred Cox's letter was talking about in terms of setbacks for new construction. Molnar explained that Cox wanted a ten foot minimum setback be met on units six through 14. A similar condition was placed on Cox's development to Insure an adequate private rear yard. Since the original proposal by Barchet, the units have been pushed to the east and the rear yard setbacks have been increased. The average setback is from eight and one-half to 12 feet (Condition 3). A comfortable private space needs to be a minimum of ten feet. Since some of the units will be two-story, Bass wondered why the rear yard setbacks did not have to be greater than ten feet. McLaughlin explained that the entire property functions with each "real' side yard functioning as a 'rear" yard. The street frontage is the front yard. The ordinance requires that the units have a 'private" yard. Molnar continued with Cox's letter (item 2) and said the garage is single covered story. Item 3 of Cox's letter discuss the existing structures (16 and 15) which have non-conforming setbacks. It appears from the proposal that the applicant does not plan to expand the structure to Increase the non-conformity of the building. The applicant would require a Conditional Use Permit to expand the building. With regard to item 4, the solar panel or structure must meet the setback if it is over 18 Inches above ground. If solar panels were used on top of the building, the building could not be built. Jarvis is concerned about whether the applicant has considered screening the pool from noise. McLaughlin said the Commission could require full fencing and planting. Molnar said Staff still has concerns about the level of detail presented for this project by the applicant. The applicant submitted some typical elevations that indicate siding, but sometimes the computer rendition does not give the Commission what the ultimate product will look like. Last month, the Commission requested additional elevations on the west side. This type of unit is being repeated over and over so the applicant has given one elevation of a particular rear yard and has chosen not to show the entire eight units and it is difficult without the entire elevation to get an idea of how it will relate to the rear yards of the adjacent development. The applicant has met the letter of the ordinances because all the information is available, but as the project gets larger, the Commission can ask for the necessary detail to feel comfortable with what the end product will look like. Howe noted that on unit 17 there is an indication there is a basement, first story and second story. At the last review the Commission was concerned about the ultimate height and wanted to see measurements. There are no measurements this month. Molnar said he talked to the applicant and has gone over the provision of a daylight basement. Half the floor has to be underneath finished grade. There is no indication of where finished grade is with no additional information submitted. Staff added a Condition that at final plan, final grades have to be shown to be sure it complies. The height requirement is 35 feet. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING BILL BARCHET, 734 Elkader Street, responded to Cox's letter. When he began the process, he was under the assumption the minimum setback was six feet. Barchet thought the average setbacks on his project are ten feet. The garages on units 16 and 17 are single story with a deck on each. Barchet has no plans to expand units 16 and 15. He plans to add a deck on the north side and a deck will not encroach into the six foot setback. Bamhet was hoping to mount the solar panel (Cox's item 4) in a privacy fence so it would supply shade underneath. McLaughlin said fences have a specific setback along a property line and anything over 18 Inches is a structure. Barchet said there will be a fence next to the pool (between five and six feet). The distance from the pool to the bike path is about four and one-half feet. The typical west elevation was submitted for the record. Finkle said Barchet wrote a letter on October 23, 1995 suggesting the possibility of using entirely different building materlals (horizontal siding and asphalt roofing) which would make a major difference in the overall appearance of the development from all directions. Barchet said his initial preference was for stucco and tile and he would still like that but he is concerned about the cost involved. He would be open to approval by the Commission for the alternative materials. Jarvis read letters of support from Barbare Allen, Coldwell Banker, and Bob Hall. C. D. MCKEREGHAN, 77 Sixth Street, was speaking against the development because it is completely incompatible with the Railroad District. Stucco siding does not fit the neighborhood and even if the applicant were to install wood siding, the neighbors are still faced with the equivalent of townhouse structures that do not fit the neighborhood. PHILIP LANG, 758 B STREET, stated that he appeared on September 12, 1995 in opposition to the application. He read from a second letter he has written in opposition that was distributed to each Commissioner and made part of the record. Staff Response Howe wondered why under Condition 3 that only the odd numbered units needed the adjustments. Molnar said it was to pick out single story units that did not appear to have a full ten foot yard. From the information submitted, it appears that the two-story units have a full ten feet. Howe thought unit six appeared to have no overhang with less than a ten foot yard. Molnar said that should be included in Condition 3. Howe asked how the pedestrian walkway would come along the side of unit 15. Molnar said they are not sure at this time and would like to see it now or at final plan some way to Incorporate the walk next to the deck and possibly at the rear of the compact space and at a right angle back to the walkway. For 17 units there will be a considerably large bike parking space according to Howe. Is the small bike parking rack at the back of the property an area sufficient to accommodate bicycles? Molnar said the area is 18 feet long and it could be tight if all the bike parking is put there. There has been some discussion with the applicant locating Individual racks or U-bars closer to the unit entrances off the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 walkway. Armitage asked about the percentage of landscape breakdown. Molnar said general landscaped area is 20 percent and the recreation area around the pool area and beck yards is another 11.4 percent. The pool can be included in the recreational area. Molnar said a condition could be added about fence height. Philip Lang brought up issues about adequate fire access that Don Paul could address. McLaughlin noted some of the difficulties for Staff with this application. There may still be some average private yards of less than ten feet that need to be addressed. The Commission can consider this tonight or at final plan. The Commission may also want clarification from the applicant about the building height, the number of stories, and final grade for the unit near the street. It is not clear how the pedestrian access requirement off B Street and into the project will be handled. The bike parking Is not clearly addressed. The solar panel as proposed on the plan would not be allowed if over 18 Inches which it would have to be or it would not be secure. Fencing and screening of the pool has not been adequately addressed. Except for Molnar's clarification of the landscaping, the calculations have been addressed in terms of meeting the 25 percent requirement. The applicant should address this clearly. BARCHET, rebuttal, said he would like to avoid putting steps in the pedestrian walkway. If it hugs units 15 and 16, steps would be necessary, otherwise he would have to put in some fill next to the apple trees which may destroy the root systems. The building footprints on his proposal are approximately 65 percent of the footprints on Cox's buildings (a considerably lower density). Half of Barchet's are single story, compared with more than half of Cox's at two-story. If larger side yard setbacks are desired, there will be a more concentrated structure in the central portion of the property. Upon taking an informal vote, all of the Commissioners favored a minimum ten foot setback for each unit. Jarvis thought if this requirement was placed on Barchet, there would be a substantial amount of redesign that would need to be done. This may include not making a decision tonight but letting Barchet come beck next month. Barchet thought he could accommodate the ten foot setbeck without any major redesign. Based on that, Jarvis did not think the Commission could approve anything. McLaughlin affirmed. Bingham agreed with Barchet that the architecture does not have to imitate the Historic District. Because the project is a substantial size, he felt the application was too vague. He would like to see a sound attenuating fence.. If the solar penel cannot happen, he would like to know now. Exactly where is the pedestrian walkway going to be constructed? Average setbecks are inadequate. Giordano and Armitage agreed and added concern about the landscaping detail. Finkle is sorry this project does not connect with other properties. The connection with the pedestrian bicycle path is not shown on this plan. Bass said since Cox's project has been approved and is somewhat similar, it would be very inequitable to treat Barchet's proposal very differently. Bass is troubled with the idea the yard areas are side yards. The purpose of setbacks is to create a sense of privacy. There are going to be houses 20 feet apart, two stories high and he feels this will be a privacy problem. If the ten foot setbeck can meet at least the one story beckyard concept, he can live with that. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 Howe believes the provision for the covered bicycle area has to be more detailed. She is not sure the "bike rack' notation on the plans is for 18 spaces or not. Where will they be? She does not know what the bicycle covering looks like. She would like to see what the proposed fence and landscaping looks like near the bike path. Jarvis told Barchet it looked like this would be continued. Would he be willing to waive his 120 time limit for approval? Barchet said he wanted to bring his application to a vote as he thought he provided all the Information that was requested at the last meeting. DON PAUL, explained fire truck access. The staging area would be on the street or the truck could come in. Ideally, it would be nice to drive in and through or have an adequate turnaround. In lieu of being able to do this, residential sprinklers would be a benefit to reduce the fire risk. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe moved to deny Planning Action 95-075 on the basis of an incomplete application. Giordano seconded the motion. Armitage stated he would have to agree with Barchet in that he addressed the concerns from last month and has met the requirements of outline plan. Armitage is not comfortable with the amount of detail provided, however, he does not believe the amount of detail is inadequate and he feels most items could be taken care of at final plan or conditioned. Howe is concerned the way the application has been presented does not show basic information. Is it the Commission's fault if given information slowly as we go along and come up with more questions? Finkle, Bass, and Bingham believed items could conditioned. The items the Commission is asking for are minimal. Howe withdrew her motion and Giordano his second. McLaughlin warned the Commission that as they condition changes, they need to look at the impact of the conditions. Jarvis is afraid that as conditions are made up, the entire plan will be changed in one way or another and this turns out to be designing by committee. Giordano does not believe there is enough information to make a decision and he does not want to design by committee either. Jarvis listed the items the Commissioners were having trouble with as: bike parking, fencing, screening of the pool, constructing the solar panel, meeting the landscaping requirement, pedestrian access, grade, setback Issues, and auto back-up area. Jarvis took a straw vote to see who wished to add conditions to the application in order for the applicant to obtain an approval. Those in favor of conditioning were: Bass, Armitage, Finkle and Bingham; those opposed to conditioning were: Howe, Giordano and Jarvis. The following conditions were proposed: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 Bass proposed that units one through 14 have a ten foot setback. This is the minimum setback from the nearest point of the structure to the property line (not an average). (This is a modElcation of Condition 3.) Modify Condition 9 by removing "..,along a diagonal line." and replacing with "and connects to bike path.", The solar panel is a non-issue, Add a condition that fencing and screening of the pool Is required with a six foot solid wood fence all the way around the pool. (Condition 13) The Commission is agreeable to Condition 7 to cover the landscaping requirement. The bike parking is covered under Condition 10. There are two conditions numbered "7" that need to be adjusted. Bass moved to approve Planning Action 95-075 with the above named conditions. Bingham seconded the motion and it carried with Armitage, Bingham, Finlde and Bass voting 'yes" and Giordano, Howe, and Jarvis voting 'no". Giordano left the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 95-125 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.24.030.K.7 AND 18.28.030.J.7 OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE INVOLVING JACKSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATIONS. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported that the ordinance needs to be consistent with the County's requirements. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised ordinance. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 95-126 REQUEST FOR THE MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.92 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO OFF-STREET PARKING. SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE BICYCLE PARKING SECTION. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT McLaughlin said Staff has worked on the bike parking standards but some other changes have been made to clean up the ordinance. There are comments added Into the text. A section has been added ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995 on parking for the disabled. Finkle was concerned (page 15) that trees be planted that don't drop sap. McLaughlin said the recommended street list is being refined and in the next six months a new chapter will be added addressing landscaping standards. Finkle referred to 18.92.070 Automobile Parking, add Section B(4) back in again (shared use of driveways and curb cuts). McLaughlin noted that there has been an increase in the percentage of compact spaces allowed. Armitage moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and carried. McLaughlin reviewed the bike parking changes. Finkle wanted to make sure the Bike Commission could only make recommendations to the Staff Advisor with regard to 18.92.040 J(1). McLaughlin affirmed. Finkle noted on Page 8, 18.92.040 1(3) that clusters of bike parking should not he limited to 16 spaces. It was agreed to remove the last sentence in (3). At the top of Page 8, delete "...or creation of guest rooms". McLaughlin said what is intended is to only require additional parking spaces when dwelling units are added. It may be necessary to add something about "non-residential use". Finkle disagreed with the Bicycle Commission (Page 6 - 18.92.040 A) about parking in the downtown. He feels there is need to allow for flexibility because it is more difficult to create bicycle parking spaces inside and outside because buildings are packed up against each other. Bingham said it would be difficult to find a space inside the building. McLaughlin said he would add back in the exemption for the downtown overlay. Cloer moved to recommend the changes to the City Council with the modifications as noted by Staff. Bingham seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER A commun~ visioning workshopisbeingsponsoredbythe CivicLeagueto beheld Wedne~ay, November2~h. A letter was received from Friends of Ashland regarding hillside development standards. McLaughlin said the Council will determine at their noon meeting on November 15th if this should be pursued. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. ASHLAND PLAHNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1995