HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-13 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present
were Bass, Gardiner, Howe, Chapman, Armitage, Briggs, and Morris. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar,
Harris and Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Howe moved to approve the Minutes of the December 9, 1997 Regular meeting and the Findings for PA97-
066 and PA97-091. Gardiner seconded the motion and everyone voted in favor.
Briggs noted a typographical error in the Findings for PA97-091 (City of Ashland - at Mountain Avenue and
B Street on page 1, 2), the word in the second line should read "been".
Armitage moved to approve the Minutes and Findings for the December 9, 1997 Hearings Board. With
regard to PA97-075 (Mcintosh), it was clarified that the cart can remain open until December 1st in order
to take advantage of the event that occurs the weekend after Thanksgiving. The cart is not to remain open
for the entire Festival of Lights. Briggs seconded the motion and they were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
McLaughlin announced elections will be held for Chair, Vice Chair and Second Vice Chair at next month's
meeting.
According to McLaughlin, an appeal was filed by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors to the Land Use
Board of Appeals on the hillside ordinance. Staff compiled and mailed the record which was about 1700
pages.
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 97-088
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS OPTION FOR A 49 UNIT MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON WILLIAMSON WAY AND HERSEY STREET
APPLICANT: DOUG NEUMAN
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar reported there is quite a lengthy history on this property and that has been outlined in the Staff
Report.
This is a 7.2 acre parcel located on the south side of Hersey Street. The applicant is requesting 49 mixed
housing units, 27 lots for single family detached home construction and 22 townhomes in 11 duplex
buildings.
Circulation will be provided by extending Williamson Way to the east and ultimately connecting to the
intersection of Starflower and Larkspur which are currently developed in the subdivision to the east. Another
access point to the property would be from Hersey Street south along Starflower which will ultimately
connect to the streets in Mountain Creek Estates. A notable feature on Starflower Lane is the 24 inch oak
tree.
Five units will be accessed from Rogue Place which will be a new street that will go downhill to the north
towards Hersey Street and will end in a turnaround.
The property is part of an 11 acre parcel that was partitioned into two pieces. Part of the partition included
the dedication of right-of-way (Rogue Place) which will ultimately service the four acres of E-1 zoned
property. This was part of the mediation agreement.
Most of the 22 townhomes are oriented toward Starflower Lane or Hersey Street with a public or private alley
system constructed behind the units to access the garages to each unit.
A central open space has been incorporated which is part of the mediation agreement along with a
pedestrian path. The applicant has indicated a path coming up from Hersey between units 1 and 3 which
will tie into a public sidewalk system along Rogue Place. It is not noted on the site plan, but part of the
mediation agreement requires a pathway that extends through the open space as well.
Twenty-seven single family residences will be constructed in the first phase which will require the extension
and improvement of Williamson Way to Starflower and Larkspur. There is a requirement that Rogue Place
be dedicated with the improvements completed or bonded, as well as the open space improvements
constructed.
A landscape plan and irrigation plan has been provided. Because of the sloped nature of the property,
mostly native species will be used.
Phase two will include the townhomes and construction of the public alleys to serve the garages behind the
homes.
A local arborist has evaluated the ten oak trees on the property and found the health to be questionable.
The Tree Commission has evaluated them as well and has suggested remedial pruning but more than likely
many of the trees are in such a bad state they may not live. The current proposal includes trying to protect
and save at least six of the ten trees with four of the trees being proposed for ~removal.
The application is in overall compliance with the Performance Standards aption and the mediation
agreement. The density is well within the 76 maximum units agreed upon in the mediation agreement. All
the public facilities needed to serve the project are in place.
Molnar discussed in the Staff Report some areas requiring more review.
Orientation of units 20-25. Most of the units front directly on the street but because of the curved nature
of Williamson Way, the units have been pulled back from the street with fairly lengthy driveways required
to access the garages. The driveways have been proposed to be paved with two concrete strips. Staff is
concerned with the practicality of the driveway length that is curving at the same time. It could present
difficulty in backing out and trying to keep car wheels on the concrete strips, When a potential property
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
owner comes in for a building permit, he/she will find it easier to pave the driveway to its full width. The
project is subject to the City's site design standards which requires orientation of the homes toward the
street with a strong relationship between the architecture and the street. In some cases, as with unit 21 and
24, they are oriented more towards the side yard of the adjacent unit. Rather than staying with the same
design that has been repeated throughout the other single family homes, maybe a custom design would be
more suitable.
Open Space. The six units on one side of the open space are set back about five to seven feet. The swath
of open space is 40 feet in width (similar to two rear yard setbacks of 20 feet each). It is designated for
open space but if it were not for the fact that there are not fences, it is really no wider than the normal
separation between two, two-story homes. It might be better to look at a normal setback from the open
space (ten feet per story). Staff would like the open space to function as open space.
There was a similar situation on Dogwood Way which had a narrow open space behind the buildings. The
yard became difficult to maintain because it was so narrow. Eventually the homeowners approached the
Commission and were granted approval to give the open area to each homeowner as a rear yard area.
Pedestrian Walkway at North End of Rogue Place. A sidewalk is proposed on the east side of Rogue Place.
It will cross behind the garages of units 1 and 2, enter the open space, and then down Hersey Street. Staff
thought there might be a better way to form the connection instead of going through the driveway access
to three different garages. There is a conflict between the paved driveways, the turning movements in and
out of those garages as well as the turnaround area at the end of Rogue Place.
Howe questioned the decreased density, asking why there are almost half the number of units that would
normally be appropriate. McLaughlin said there is no minimum density ordinance. Throughout the process
on this property, density has always been an issue. The mediation was designed around an apartment style
development. The proposal tonight is based on a different style based on current marketing trends. Also,
there are grade issues too.
Howe noted the public lane and Rogue Place is a cul de sac. Molnar said the public lane that ends in a
turnaround allows for limited access on Hersey Street and the units can be oriented towards Hersey Street
without having separate driveways. The turnaround has met Fire Department requirements. Staff felt the
lane will give rear access to the properties and not so much that a dead end situation has been created.
Molnar said with regard to the extension of Rogue Place, the mediation agreement discussed having only
one entrance onto Hersey Street as there is not a good location to bring another road into Hersey Street
because of vision clearance problems. '_
Armitage said it appears there will be a solar issue with unit 25 too and should' be added to Condition 7.
Briggs believes Rogue Place is a cul de sac that exceeds the five hundred foot limit that is allowable.
McLaughlin said since there is a connecting street, the measurement is made from Williamson Way to Rogue
Place.
Jarvis asked for an explanation of (9) in the Mediation Agreement. McLaughlin noted the Exhibit A Mediation
map, in the top right hand corner (18 apartments) that is the only ingress/egress agreement that was done
as far as mediation. While the cul de sac is shown on the map, it was not agreed to by all the parties so
the condition states as much. That ultimately led to the connected streets.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
Jarvis inquired about the site review committee as mentioned in (14) of the Mediation Agreement.
McLaughlin said Mark Murphey, Dave Sebrell, Mike Mahar, Paul Mace, Doug Neuman (applicant), Tom
Giordano (applicant's agent) met and reviewed the application. They discussed the specifics of the
mediation agreement and some modifications were made. Agreement appeared to have been reached at
those meetings.
Bass wondered if there were plans for a sidewalk along Hersey. Darex agreed to construct a sidewalk when
they begin expansion. The connection is indicated on the City's Transportation System Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent
DOUG NEUMAN, 4240 Clayton Road, Ashland, applicant
Giordano said they were constrained somewhat by the mediation agreement. He believes this plan was
more acceptable to the site design committee than the original apartments that had been proposed. The
committee wanted to see a road that would extend Rogue Place all the way through the E-1 property, (not
presently owned by the applicant) which the applicant is willing to do, all the way to the railroad property.
A six foot high fence is proposed along the other portion of the E-1 property. A pedestrian path is being
provided through the open space.
Giordano thought there could be some minor refinements so the front yards are not as far back as shown.
They should still be able to be within the ten percent modification between Outline Plan and Final Plan. He
thought there could be minor adjustments made also to the townhomes by offsetting the buildings to provide
a little more space in the backyards, also within the ten percent.
There should be an opportunity by narrowing some of the lots so an area could be opened for a pedestrian
path around lots 1 and 2.
If Rogue Place was to be extended to Hersey, there is a dramatic dropoff between unit 1 and Hersey Street.
There would be no way to put a road through there. Looping it to the other alley would disrupt the open
space.
NEUMAN, said they are trying to create a neighborhood that is compatible with other neighborhoods.
Briggs said there are no cross sections or elevations in the packet. She would like to see how the area of
lot I falls away and why it could not be engineered for access. She is a fan of Ar~res Duany, a planner who
advocates the grid system being the best way to create good neighborhoods. Giordano said there is no
way a road could meet city standards for grade that would connect Rogue Place to Hersey Street because
of the severe dropoff. Briggs asked if the cross section was in the packet. Giordano said "no" He said
topography needs to be considered and thought needs to be given to excessive cutting and grading
needed. Molnar said the difference in elevation is probably 12 feet which necessitates a seven or eight foot
cut.
Gardiner asked how they would adjust the orientation of townhouses 44-47 to take the pressure off the open
space. Neuman said the slope in the open space is about 33 percent which will create a natural barrier.
The space will have a pedestrian path but will not be suitable for a play area.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
Howe noted that unit 45 is so far from any sidewalk that it does not even have its own entrance. Giordano
said it could be moved forward.
Howe noticed that the driveway apron is squared and backing out could be difficult. Giordano said the
sides can be flared and this can be shown at Final Plan.
Armitage said unit 49 does not appear to have room to stagger. Giordano said some units will not be able
to be moved. Armitage said Condition 11 is worded "10 feet per story per building". Giordano could do it
with units 45-48.
Jarvis asked about on-street parking. Molnar said they are roughly two spaces short. It appears the right-
of-way could be taken care of as part of the engineering.
Giordano said Pete Seda looked at the site. There is not a written evaluation. The trees are all scrubby but
they will attempt to save as many trees as possible. The landscape plan shows more than an abundant
replacement of the trees. Jarvis asked for a written evaluation by the arborist and Giordano said he would
comply.
Jarvis asked about solar access for units 38-43. Giordano said in shortening the driveways (units 20-25),
that might help solar access.
Jarvis is concerned about the plan changing more than ten percent and this becoming planning by
committee. They do not have something they can approve because it is not in front of them. Giordano said
everything, with the exception of realigning the road, is within the ten percent. McLaughlin said Outline Plan
can be approved and all the issues brought up can be brought back at Final Plan.
MARK MURPHEY, 492 Lynn Street
PAUL MACE, 345 Clinton Street, said he owns the building at 400 Williamson Way.
Mace explained he and Murphey are two of the parties who have been a part of the mediation process
which began in 1989. He wanted the Commission to be aware that some of the questions that have been
asked tonight are a result of some mistakes probably made out of naivete in the process of bringing this
original project to mediation. The Planning Commission approved a zone change on this property which
at the time was all E-1. The compelling public interest at the time is that infrastructure be put in place on
the section of land that remain E-1 to make that land more developable. The project was not built, the zone
change was made, the E-1 property that remains except the small lot, has bee? sold and that property is
the subject of litigation. We are left with a proposal that is substantially different from the original proposal.
After another round of negotiations and a couple of compromises, the developer will either bond or pay for
the extension of Rogue Place to the $P line. It does not represent anywhere near what the expectation was
when the original proposal went through and so in the end, Mace reluctantly agreed to the proposal
presented tonight.
He would hope in the future, when weighing public interest in making trade-offs in the hopes something will
be gained by granting concessions for development of a piece of property, that the City/Commission have
thought through the potential legal issues for the future development if the original development does not
happen.
Murphey was one of the original appellants of the first project. He is in favor of the project because it is
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
5
what was agreed to in the site review meeting held in the Planning Commission offices which complies with
the mediation agreement. During the process, some things changed as Mace mentioned. Substantial
changes had been made to the original plan. Everyone had concerns about the road. The fence was part
of the original agreement. He is in favor of this project as it stands at present. He would like all of the
record for this planning action, going back to the 1989 to be part of the record as well as the Mediation
Agreement.
He thanked Mike Mahar and Doug Neuman for trying to accommodate the neighbors and limiting the size
of the development to fit more into the neighborhood. He thinks it would be a mistake to change the
density.
Staff Response
Molnar said this project includes improvements along the Hersey Street frontage, including continuation of
curb, sidewalk, and parkrow.
Molnar believes three or four of the five trees to be retained are in open space areas and the landscape
designer thought those trees would see the benefits of the pruning. In addition, there will be wider than
normal right-of-ways to allow for nine foot wide parkrows, giving the applicant an opportunity to plant large
stature trees.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Armitage said he is not concerned about the ten percent and would be willing to exclude lots 44 and 49
under Condition 11.
Briggs felt enough adjustments needed to be made to warrant a continuance.
Bass and Gardiner agreed with Armitage.
Since there was consensus the Commission decided to let the applicant proceed and if at the time of final
plan review, the changes are over ten percent, the full commission will review it. Howe reiterated the
Conditions. Condition 11, units 44-49 are replaced by 45-48. Add Condition 21 that pedestrian walkway
extend through the open space connecting Hersey to Larkspur and also to extend a pedestrian access up
to Williamson Way through units 7 and 8. Add Condition 22 that the orientation of units 20-25 would more
directly address the street. Howe moved to approve the above. Armitage s?conded the motion and it
carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 97-100
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 7800 SQUARE FOOT CITY OFFICE
BUILDING
1175 EAST MAIN STREET
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
All Commissioners had a site visit.
Briggs reported four years ago she sat in on the Ad Hoc Space Needs Committee meetings.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
STAFF REPORT
Molnar stated the applicable criteria for Site Review are found in Chapter 18.72, and notice was sent to
property owners within 200 feet. The packet contains the history of this site. The hearing was originally
scheduled for November. It was pulled off the agenda because there was some uncertainty whether the
City Council had directed Staff to go ahead with the site review application. The Council had a study
session and indicated an intention to pursue the site review approval. There was no formal vote. At the
December 16, 1997 Council meeting, they voted for Staff to process a site review.
This is a scaled down version of the 10,000 square foot building that was reviewed in 1993. The intent is
to house public works, fire and computer services. The building will be located behind the Council
Chambers in the lawn area off the parking lot. It is a single story building area with a small loft area to
house mechanical equipment. The materials and design are similar to the existing campus buildings.
In October, a request for a public hearing was filed. The request stated various items were not complied
with. There is a lengthy list of requirements for site review, but Staff oftentimes take the liberty to base some
assumptions on information that is already known and not requiring it on the plans. For example, utilities,
storm sewer systems are in place and Staff knew they existed and did not require that information.
Staff re-evaluated the off-street parking and found that even with the construction of the proposed
Community Works building, the parking requirement can still be met.
Of the 8.5 acres involved, 6.8 acres are covered by buildings, paving, and other impervious surfaces.
Roughly, 1.6 acres or 20 percent would be landscaped. This is based on the assumption the Community
Works building will be built.
A transit stop is only a half-mile away. A quarter-mile would be the best, however, the ordinance does not
set a minimum or maximum distance required for site review approval.
Staff felt there was sufficient information to make a finding by the Commission that the requirements of the
Site Review Chapter have been met and Staff recommends approval with the attached six Conditions.
Molnar suggested modification of Condition 2 to change to "six covered bike parking spaces" and "six
additional spaces be provided".
Jarvis noted that Thompson submitted a letter stating parking is in the front of the building and does not
conform to the site design standards. McLaughlin said the doorway faces East Main.
Howe mentioned that it is difficult to park a second bike on the existing bike ra~ks without standing on the
lawn. She believes these racks only function for one bike. Molnar said one side probably does not meet
the separation standard. The Condition could be reworded: That bike parking be brought up to the
standards in accordance with 18.92.
Bass wondered, as this part of the City develops along East Main and Mountain Avenue, what does the
Transportation Plan say about transit serving the area? McLaughlin said the plan ultimately is to provide
transit on greater routes throughout the City and East Main is an arterial which would be likely. Chapman
said with the development on North Mountain, it is time to look at public transportation of the area.
McLaughlin said he does not believe by moving public works, administration, and engineering from the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
downtown to this location as well as fire administration is out of compliance with the Downtown Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
GARY AFSETH, 313 Ravenwood Place, Ashland, architect, explained that the floor plan may change but the
exterior dimensions would remain the same. There is potential for expansion at a later date.
RICK VEZIE, 446 Walker, distributed copies to the Commissioners items required for site review (18.72.060).
He highlighted portions that were completed by the applicant and items not highlighted are the items not
provided. He believes the application is incomplete. There are substantial components that are missing.
Vezie asked McLaughlin if Vezie turned in an application that was this incomplete, would it be acceptable?
McLaughlin said it would depend on the nature of the application and what it is. Vezie wondered if the
parking lot for this facility is closer to East Main than the front of the proposed facility. McLaughlin affirmed.
Vezie said there should be a complete site plan with lot dimensions so it can be reviewed by the average
citizen. He would like to see the City assume a leadership role by setting an example.
Armitage asked Vezie what critical things are missing. Vezie responded that the proposed Community
Works building is not shown on the site plan even though it is proposed for construction. Also not shown
are: parking, ingress and egress on the site, fire hydrants, lot layout and dimensions for all lot lines(g, i, j,
and o).
BRENT THOMPSON, P.O. Box 201, Ashland, explained that he does not believe the application meets
criteria A under site review (All applicable city ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed
development.) This application cannot be reviewed as any other application. There are overview documents
that dictate what the City does. Therefore, there is a different standard that should apply. Everyone may,
at some time or other have to visit a City office. This differs from a privately owned operation.
He does not believe the application conforms with the Transportation Plan. He drove from the site to the
closest bus stop. It was over one-half mile. The Transportation Plan is quite clear that it should be between
one-quarter and one-half mile, therefore, it does not conform to that element. It is important to look at
transportation because everyone could visit the facility.
Thompson said the Downtown Plan and the Comprehensive Plan have to be considered applicable City
ordinances. Some functions (city government) may have to be relocated f[om the existing City Hall,
according to the Downtown Plan, however, no license is given to move them from the traditional center of
government in Ashland. This is an overriding document that is dictating to the City after many hours of
public meetings as to what is going to be done with government operations. The wording, 'the continued
presence of municipal government" ties it to the downtown and therefore the people, and infers that if
government is not in the downtown, it is being removed from the people and that is against the public policy
in Ashland. The application does not meet criteria A. Tradition dictates that government be in the
downtown.
Thompson noted Criteria B, "all requirements of the site review chapter have been met". In any site review
ever done, when there is the option, parking should be at the side or behind the building. Parking would
be far better if located behind the Council Chambers.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
JOHN FIELDS, 845 Oak Street, wondered why we are here. He had a detailed site review application
scheduled this month that was withdrawn because it was inadequate. Does the City hold itself to higher
standard in how we regard public buildings? Where is the entry and how does it address the streetscape?
How does pedestrian accessibility of this project greet the street? Now that we have resolved that City Hall
will remain downtown and this is the expansion of the campus, will the Commission address the basic
architectural and site flaws according to how we are prescribing private developers to develop their site?
The entire campus in relationship to the street is three to four feet below grade. He did not see a topo map.
In a city "Where Green Becomes Mainstream", Fields questioned why clear vertical grain cedar, old growth
forests for siding with no eaves to protect it, giving it a 50-60 year lifespan would be approved for a building.
Look at the life cycle cost and ask where the energy efficiency is. If this were a private developer, there is
no way this application would be approved. What is more California architecture than uneaved walls using
clear vertical grain. It is a quintessential civic center of California.
Fields' real criticism is process. The Commission is reviewing a decision that was made in the early 1970's
about how to expand City Hall when in fact, there have been changes in the political landscape and value,
making this worthy of further review.
RON ROTH, 6950 Old Hiway 99 South, Ashland, explained he was part of the process four years ago. He
believes transportation is a critical issue. He takes pride in living in a progressive community and does not
see how this can be built one-half mile from public transportation. Roth mentioned #4 of the public hearing
format - failure to participate. Has the applicant really participated tonight? If it is like any other building,
Planning Staff cannot be the applicant. On the application, Brian Almquist is the applicant, but has retired.
The acting City Administrator is not present. McLaughlin said at one point the City Council is the applicant
but there are no City Council persons present. Before the opposition speaks, those in favor get to speak,
but there was no one in favor. Gary Afseth's presentation would have to be as the applicant. Did the
applicant participate?
With a public process, the Planning Commission should be part of the planning process and their personal
opinions about whether or not we should move City functions from downtown, is a very important criteria.
The idea of moving City offices away from the downtown core is an idea of the 1960's and 70's. Medford
has moved so much out of downtown, no matter how hard they try, there is still really no downtown. If
there are ten or 30 or more people working at the East Main site, especially without public transportation,
there are going to be important transportation issues. He believes City functions should remain downtown
as much as possible. ~
Roth believes a space needs master plan is needed. The committee should in(~lude a couple people from
the Planning Commission, a couple from the City Council, City staff people, including, but not limited to the
Fire Chief and the Planning Department, along with private citizens.
BOB TABER, 97 Scenic Drive, said this is a significant issue for planning. It does not just represent whether
or not we build at the civic center, but whether or not we further erode the presence of the government from
the downtown location. He believes all the City ordinances have not been met. According to the history
he has, there has been very little public input given to whether or not any sort of a building should be built
at the civic center site. In 1993, there was a great deal of opposition to building on the civic center site.
At that time, the City did enter into a resolution agreeing to adhere to six conditions. That was not
accomplished. It would indicate the Council has no regard to public input because they did not adhere to
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
the agreement they signed. There are available spaces in the downtown.
Howe moved to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Bass seconded the motion and it was approved.
Staff Response
McLaughlin said the issues raised by Vezie are valid and some of the items are incomplete and he would
request a continuance to allow the applicant to provide additional information. The City Administrator filed
the application on behalf of the Council. Bass said he was rather shocked to find there was no one here
representing the application. McLaughlin waived the 120 days. He does not believe the issues raised are
substantive.
Would the Commission like more discussion regarding orientation to the street? Bass said the site design
standards describe the situation exactly the same as this parking lot as a situation we would not want.
Armitage moved to continue, Gardiner seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the items they would like to see at the next meeting. They would like to see a
complete application. Bass is concerned with orientation of the building. He is not convinced, based on
the information presented tonight, that it is consistent with the Downtown Plan. He would like information
showing it is consistent with that plan. Howe would like to see a site plan. Since the Commission was
looking at a City site at the last meeting and now this, she is beginning to think this applicant is trying to
come in on a piecemeal basis without taking a broad view of the campus. Howe, as proposed, has some
specific areas that seem to be barriers to accessing the building rather than easing the access. There are
places where the walkways jog around planters in order to make it more difficult than ever to figure out
where the front door is. This kind of design is indicative that public access should be made a little more
difficult than need be. She wants signs and handicap access with very easy access. Howe does not believe
this application can be reviewed like any other application. As a Planning Commissioner, she believes her
higher purpose is to plan the City the best way possible. Given the Mark Antony, the parking lot of the Elks
building, the Hillah Temple, is it impossible for the City to adhere to the downtown plan?
Chapman would like the applicant to have made contact with RVTD about including this site as part of a bus
route.
Briggs like Howe's comments. She would like a map to include the storage area across the street and the
footprint for the teen center. She would like the architect to refine the building. Armitage would like some
very specific transportation information. How far is the nearest bus stop? O[ientation of the building is
extremely important to him. Do the building materials, design, fit what we a?e doing? Have the plan
requirements been fully met? What is the location and existing size of existing public areas?
Jarvis believes the City should be held to a higher burden of proof.
McLaughlin said this would probably not be completed in 30 days.
OTHER
Election of Officers
Armitage announced he does not intend to leave the Commission in May.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
10
Study Session
Wednesday, January 21st, the Council is having a study session on the water supply for the City.
January 27th, there will be a public forum organized by the Communications Commission regarding future
water use. The Commissioners are strongly encouraged to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 1998
11