HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-10 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other
Commissioners present were Marilyn Briggs, Ron Bass, Steve Armitage, Russ Chapman, Mike
Morris, Anna Howe, Mike Gardiner, and Chris Hearn. There were no absent members. Staff
present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Susan Yates.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Jarvis nominated Armitage for Chair. The nomination was seconded by Briggs. The
nominations for Chair were closed.
Armitage nominated Bass for Vice Chair and Second Vice Chair. Hearn seconded the
nomination. Gardiner nominated Morris and Armitage seconded. Jarvis nominated Howe and
Gardiner seconded. The nominations for Vice Chair and Second Vice Chair were closed. The
Commissioners were asked to vote for two and the Commissioner with the most votes will be
Vice Chair with the Commissioner receiving the second most votes will be Second Vice Chair.
ELECTION RESULTS: Armitage was elected Chair, Bass Vice Chair, and Howe Second Vice
Chair.
McLaughlin introduced Councilman Alan DeBoer to the Commission. DeBoer is the liaison to
the Planning Commission. DeBoer thanked the Planning Commission on behalf of the Council
for all the Commission does for the community, and stated he was looking forward to attending
the study sessions. He invited the Commissioners to discuss any concerns with him that he
could carry to the Council.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Jarvis noted on Page 10, she said "...to a higher burden", not "...to a higher burden of proof".
Gardiner moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Howe seconded the motion and
everyone favored. Bass moved to approve the Findings (PA97-088), Armitage seconded the
motion and everyone favored.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
Jarvis suggested inverting the order of the agenda to hear PA98-012 first since it does not
appear to be as complex. Howe moved to invert the order of the agenda. Hearn seconded the
motion and everyone favored.
PLANNING ACTION 98-012
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO MIXED USE (TWO-
STORY) BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF: RETAIL, WAREHOUSE, OFFICE, AND
APARTMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT 498 AND 508 OAK STREET.
APPLICANT: JOHN FIELDS
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
All Commissioners except Morris had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar outlined the details of the proposal from the Staff Report. The proposal is to construct
two, two-story buildings, separated by a plaza at the intersection of Hersey and Oak Streets.
The structure, oriented toward Oak Street, is anticipated to be the new site of the Furniture
Depot currently located at Fourth and A Streets. The building will consist of 7,000 square feet of
ground floor, 1,500 square feet of second floor showroom space, and a 500 square foot
apartment accessed from an exterior stairwell. The building facing Hersey is a total of 7,000
square feet (5,000 square feet on the ground floor and two upstairs apartment units). Both
buildings are over 100 feet in length and are subject to the City's large scale development
standards.
One parking lot is anticipated to come off Oak Street and serve a parking area behind the
building with another smaller parking area off Hersey Street. There is a large undeveloped area
to the rear of the parcel zoned E-1. A plaza area is shown between the buildings as a main
component of the design. The plan shows a water feature and a pond at the intersection. The
plaza area will be landscaped with lattice overhead to provide shade as well as protection from
the wind. There is an existing sidewalk along Oak Street. A new sidewalk will be constructed
along Hersey Street. There will be curbside parking along both Hersey and Oak. There is an
area between the sidewalk and the building (noted as a dashed area on the map) which will
consist of recycled concrete pavers.
Staff is pleased with the design as it is consistent with the City's Site Design Standards. Staff
has recommended approval with the attached Conditions but would suggest further discussion
of a couple of items. This proposal is the first development of a much larger area of vacant E-1
land. Since this is the first commercial development in this area, Staff is trying to anticipate what
the overall circulation needs will be in coordinating the access to this development and walkway
systems with future retail office, business, and residential that would occur on the vacant land.
Staff has discussed the feasibility with the applicant about obtaining mutual access easements in
order to coordinate points of access on Oak and Hersey, reduce the number of curb cuts in
order to keep the capacity of those streets up while minimizing the conflicts between bicyclists
and cars along Hersey Street. If and when the property in the rear develops, if those businesses
have larger parking areas, it makes sense to connect the parking areas with one another. The
applicant appears willing to consider these items. There will be some legal issues with regard to
granting easements. Conditions 3 and 5 address the mutual access easements and easements
to connect walkways.
Molnar said the middle portion of the entire vacant area is wet and boggy and the applicant is
trying to stay away from this area. He does not want to trigger any wetlands issues. The
pavement from the development stops short and will be graded in such a way that the limited
runoff of the 1000 square feet will be able to naturally drain down the grassy slope and either
percolate in the surface water or be collected.
Howe tried to envision the sidewalk easement. At the corner where there is no circulation
between the two parking lots there could be an easy easement to both adjoining properties.
Molnar noted the Staff exhibit highlighting the driveways and sidewalks. There is some
uncertainty with the wet area what can be done with it and how many points of access across it
will be allowed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10~ 1998
Howe wondered if there was a cut for New Street and an area for sidewalks, why would it be
necessary to have another sidewalk next to it? Molnar said there might not be a need for the
other connection.
Fields circulated a conceptual master plan with an idea of what could happen at full build out.
Gardiner asked if there would be a four-way stop at the intersection at Hersey and Oak.
McLaughlin said it is being examined as part of the Transportation System Plan and the
intersection is being recommended for a signal (if money is available) or a four-way stop.
Jarvis asked about the boundary line adjustment that is mentioned in the Staff Report. Molnar
said it would be appropriate to include as a Condition.
Jarvis asked about the final floor elevations. Molnar said there is some grade to the property.
In past commercial applications, included in the City's Detailed Site Review Zone, one
important design element is the necessity to try and keep the floor elevation of the business
(entry) the same elevation as the sidewalk. It appears the finished floor of the final elevation will
be about nine to 12 inches below sidewalk grade. Staff would prefer at the main entrances of
the building to be able to walk directly from the sidewalk into the building at the same elevation.
PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN FIELDS, 845 Oak Street, stated his findings are complete. He addressed the sidewalk
easement issue. He sees a natural flow that he described on the overhead. How the wetland
gets developed is probably more significant. He can envision a greenway. Unless the waterway
gets filled over, it should be a natural dividing line.
His concern about mutual access easements is that some of the railroad property cannot be
partitioned off because the clean-up could cost more than the land is worth. He is willing to
give easement through both ways to create a connection, however, it will be triggered with the
development of the other land. It could be a consent and mutual agreement to participate in a
reciprocal relationship.
Fields addressed the elevation. There is an accessible route around the building. The sidewalk
elevation is approximately ten to twelve inches above the elevation of the door. The alternative
would be to split the building and put the obstacle on the inside of the building. The
compromise now is to have the plaza in balance. When the final survey and engineering plan is
done, it may change the elevation slightly.
Howe wondered what Fields thought about a sidewalk along the south side of the property.
Fields said if there were to be an easement it should be jointly with the property next door.
They could each give up two and one-half feet. It is a huge dedication; he believes the
pedestrian traffic will cut across New Street or use the existing sidewalk system on the other
side of the driveway.
Armitage commended Fields for adding the residential component to the project.
Staff Response
Molnar said after listening to Fields' discussion about pedestrian circulation, he does not see a
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
need for the walkway on the south side of the drive.
Fields is amenable to Condition 5.
Molnar believes the final floor elevation showing a ten inch drop will probably work as long as it
does not go below that. Fields makes a valid point in juggling accessibility and the change in
elevation through the courtyard. The front door area is wider and will have planters and
benches, giving it a stronger sense of entry so an approximate ten inch drop from the sidewalk
will be workable.
McLaughlin suggested adding wording to Condition 3 at the end of the second sentence "...and
with the provision of reciprocal access easement from the adjoining property".
Armitage thought Condition 6 would need re-wording. Jarvis suggested deleting the first
sentence and then: "Finished floor elevation and sidewalk to be indicated on the site plan at the
time of submission for a building permit and not to fall below the elevation as indicated on the
applicant's plans".
McLaughlin noted that through an electronic transfer problem, the publication of notice in the
newspaper for this public hearing and the next one were not published. In order to meet
requirements and keep the applicant on the same timeline, the Commission can give Staff an
indication of their decision tonight, keep the public hearing open until next month's meeting, at
that meeting re-open the public hearing, allow testimony after publishing of the notice, grant
approval at that time and adopt findings at the same meeting.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
It was decided the final vote will be taken next month. Everyone favored the application.
McLaughlin said the applicant can handle the boundary line adjustment.
McLaughlin announced the hearing will be continued at the March 10th, 1998 meeting at 7:00
p.m. and notice will not be mailed out again.
Bass moved to continue the hearing until next month. Gardiner seconded it and the motion
carried unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 97-054
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 25-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT STRAWBERRY LANE.
APPLICANT: DOUG NEUMAN/MEG BROWN/PAUL HWOSCHINSKY
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Site visits were made by all. Hearn abstained and declared a potential conflict of interest. Bass
did not see a sign on the property. Howe came across a City worker who mentioned there is a
culvert that goes under Strawberry even though the street is not paved.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar stated notices were mailed with the applicable criteria. Molnar said a number of issues
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
have been raised in the Staff Report and the recommendation is to continue the hearing
because of the problem with public noticing and because there is insufficient information for
Staff and the Planning Commission to make a finding that this application complies with all
approval criteria.
The proposal involves approximately 25 acres owned by three property owners. There are two
existing residences on the property so the proposal will be a net increase of 23 new homes.
Molnar showed an overhead of the site. The proposal will be done in two phases. The
applicants propose in the first phase to improve and pave Westwood from the Hassell
development to Strawberry where it intersects with Hitt Road. At that point, the gate would be
removed, Hitt Road would be widened to a two lane road up to the new street as part of the
subdivision that loops around to Strawberry. This area would include 21 of the 25 lots.
Phase 2 would begin at Strawberry and Hitt, paving Strawberry down to where the Ditch Road
intersects with Strawberry at the end of the Brown property. This phase would access four
homesites including the existing homesite.
Within certain aspects of the project the applicant proposes non-conventional pedestrian
walkways such as a meandering pathway. The addendum provided by Giordano states the
pathway will be a brown asphaltic concrete surface. The long-term maintenance of the pathway
would be the responsibility of those in the subdivision through the CC&R's and homeowner's
association.
The applicants are proposing non-traditional means of storm water retention so the runoff from
streets and roofs, where possible to accommodate, would flow into an open ditch or swale
adjacent to the public street that would most likely be lined with stone and ultimately go through
the open space area with a series of detention facilities. The intention would be to reduce the
rate and volume of storm water from the project into Wright's Creek. Staff feels this is an
admirable goal but the type of treatment suggested is difficult to use as street grades increase.
However, the cross section and street information received with the application, indicate the
storm drain system would be used for the majority of the project. Staff did not feel there was
enough information provided to show that public facilities are adequate to serve the project.
There was no preliminary engineering in terms of the location of detention facilities and their
capacities. Giordano has submitted addendums showing anticipated location of the ponds which
Staff would have to have time to review. Staff also needs more detail.
Building envelopes define the setbacks of where a building can be built on each lot. In some
cases, specifically on the north side of Strawberry Lane on the Hwoschinsky parcel, some of the
building envelopes seem very close to the top of the Wright's Creek bank. It appears there is
room to back the envelopes away from the top of the bank. Giordano addressed this in his
addendum, showing the envelopes set back much further but Staff has not had an opportunity
to review.
Phase 2 street improvements include taking Strawberry at its intersection at Hitt and paving
downhill to where it intersects with Ditch Road. There was no indication in the application of
when those improvements were to occur. Staff made it clear that the platting of homes serving
off lower Strawberry would not be able to occur until those improvements were completed or
bonded for and that has been addressed in the addendum.
The applicant indicated there was an assumption the City would participate in the financing of
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
the paving of the area from Westwood from the end of the Hassell LID and from Strawberry up
to its intersection with Hitt Road. The applicant would need to agree to fund improvements
themselves or not move ahead with the project. Girodano's addendum has indicated they would
fund the improvements.
Are the improvements to access the project sufficient? The criteria states there needs to be
paved access to and through the development. The applicants are proposing they meet the
criteria in a similar fashion as interpreted in past applications. They show a paved route to the
development (Strawberry/Westwood/Orchard/Wright's Creek/Wimer/North Main) to a city
collector street where the grade on those residential streets does not exceed 18 percent. They
will pave the streets throughout the subdivision.
The other part of adequate facilities is demonstrating that adequate transportation exists. That is
less clearly defined in the Comp Plan and the Land Use Ordinance. In the past, the question
asked is: Are the transportation systems leading to and from the site adequate in addition to the
systems in the development and the paved route that is proposed? Are the walkway, bike and
pedestrian systems adequate and what are the demands that will be placed on those systems
from the proposal? Even after the second phase of the development, the improvement down
Strawberry is proposed to end at the Ditch Road, leaving an area of unpaved roads (Strawberry
to Granite and the intersection of Strawberry and Alnutt). There was not much discussion by the
applicant as to why those roads that will be kept unpaved when additional traffic will be placed
on those roads as a result of the subdivision. The application does not state whether adequate
transportation exists. The applicant and Commission should consider the questions on page 9
of the Staff Report.
Jarvis asked about the status of the Strawberry/Westwood Neighborhood Plan. McLaughlin
said a committee worked on the plan for a couple of years, taking a comprehensive look at the
future development of upper Strawberry, how many units will be ultimately developed,
opportunities for open space, and how to deal with transportation when development occurs.
There was agreement on open space and the City bought 20 acres (Hald property) and
additional parcels for open space which all resulted in substantial reductions in the total number
of units that could be built. The discussions on density, whether or not to downzone to one
acre lots or two and one-half acre lots, got bogged down. When the study session was held
with the Planning Commission and Council and they walked the area, the Planning Commission
wondered why it should be downzoned. The density issue has stalled the planned project as
well as how to deal with the improvement of the streets. By reducing the ultimate development
(number of units), how do you spread out the cost of the improvements throughout the
neighborhood? A solution was never arrived at. In the midst of that discussion, the whole
discussion of LID's city-wide began occurring. This application is coming in at a reduced
density of 1.2 units per acre rather than the .5 acre zoning. They are not proposing to form an
LID. They are leaving it up to the Council and neighborhood to provide a solution.
Jarvis wondered if there was any way to direct the majority of the traffic out Westwood and is
that feasible. McLaughlin said no study had been done. In the plan a traffic analysis was done
and it was assumed that at full build-out of the area, approximately 60 percent of the traffic
generated in this area (25 homes) would make trips down $trawberry/Alnutt, assuming the
roads are all paved. Those percentages are probably not as valid if only one way out is paved.
Bass asked if it Staff's opinion that there is adequate transportation for the existing community
there now. McLaughlin affirmed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
Briggs asked if there could be a site visit done by the Planning Commission.
Chapman always hoped that if any development occurred in this area that the traffic would be
directed down Westwood, except there should always be an emergency exit route so if there is
a wildfire, people could get out by an alternate route(s).
Howe said it appeared the large map she has been referring to has been modified. She has
concerns about the long wishbone driveway access to Lots 4 and 5 on the Hwoschinsky parcel
as well as turnarounds and guest parking. McLaughlin said there is no document showing the
City has granted access across the City's property. Giordano submitted an alternate drive
proposal. Howe had additional concerns about Neuman property Lots 11 and 10 turnaround
and back-up areas.
Howe said the blackberries and swale are off to the west. The map shows a knoll and she
wondered if the open space has been modified.
Jarvis entered a letter from Susan Hunt stating her objections to the hearing because of
improper noticing. She placed a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Ewing in the record and a letter from
the Taylors. Giordano's response will be entered in the record.
The Bartholomew letter will be copied and placed in next month's packet.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, introduced Doug Neuman, Meg Brown and landscape
designer, Kerry Kencairn. Giordano explained their original submittal for application was in May
of 1997. Staff recommended holding up proceeding until some of the issues regarding LID's
could be solved. He noted the Commissioners had the incorrect large site plan.
Giordano said the application is close to the density in the neighborhood plan and they have
tried mostly to comply with the new hillside standards. Their application was submitted before
the hillside ordinance went into effect.
Giordano believes he has addressed the pedestrian path. Also, the plan has been modified to
allow for more of the open space and allow the drainage to occur. They have a letter from
Paula Brown, Public Works Director stating the drainage is a good idea and final engineering
can be worked out at Final Plan. The building envelopes have been modified to address Staff's
concerns. With regard to street improvements, the drawings, the narrative, the findings,
conclude there is access to and through the development out Westwood. That is why Phase 2
will develop when the Council decides what method of payment they would like to see occur.
Traffic impacts will not occur all at once. There will not be full build-out immediately.
DOUG NEUMAN, 4240 Clayton, Ashland, mentioned he was involved in the Strawberry
neighborhood meetings. Through those meetings they came up with a plan with a much more
rural type of environment. The hillside standards came out of those meetings and there are now
standards they will be applying in their subdivision. They spent years figuring out the best way
to pave the roads and are willing to pay their share. Neuman noted that through the
neighborhood process, he, Brown and Hwoschinsky came together and decided to put in one
application.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
MEG BROWN, 385 Strawberry Lane, lives in the neighborhood as does Paul Hwoschinsky. She
would love to see the road improved with storm drains.
Jarvis said she does not see where there is adequate transportation. She wants to know how
many cars will be generated by how many homes, how many trips that means and how that
paving is going to adequately accommodate it. How does that work into the phasing?
Giordano estimated 230 vehicle trips per day (vtpd) would be generated. The improved streets
can accommodate 1500 vtpd.
Howe commented the driveway from Hwoshinky's Lots 4 and 5 come off Strawberry, with a
significant U-turn needed in order to get out. Will the house orientation change on Lot 4?
Giordano said the driveways are in approximate locations and the house designs are subject to
modification.
KERRY KENCAIRN, 147 Central, said the addendum reflects changes of the lot lines for the
open space and building envelopes both south and north of Strawberry. More of the open
space is open for more defined drainage on the north side and on the south side the lots lines
were moved way back. Kencairn explained the drainage system. Howe would like to see
pedestrian paths to the open space. Giordano said they did not intend to have paths to the
open space. The open space is to preserve and protect the trees in that area and for the
drainageway.
Howe asked about lighting and Giordano said the applicants have a strong desire to limit the
amount of lighting in the rural setting with low scale lighting. Larger taller lights will be used at
the .intersections for safety reasons.
No one came forth to speak in favor of the application.
Jarvis read the letter from Kristi Owens, 495 Fernwood Drive, into the record.
Giordano said the applicants are willing to extend the time for making a decision another sixty
days.
Jarvis read comments from Ben Stott, 155 Strawberry Lane.
Armitage moved to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and approved.
LARRY BRESSLER, 152 Strawberry Lane, was not notified of today's meeting. He is concerned
with the cost of improvements of lower Strawberry. Are there adequate sewer and storm drain
facilities to handle the increase in effluent coming from this development? Will lower Strawberry
be widened and paved? This application should not be approved until the access issues are
addressed.
SUSAN HUNT, 220 Nutley, expressed her objections to this hearing because of improper
notification. There was no notice in the Daily Tidings. The application should be deemed
incomplete at this time. The City/Planning Commission should not and cannot compel the
applicants to sign a waiver on the 120 day requirement for a decision.
Hunt read a letter from Cici Brown, 171 Church, into the record objecting to the development.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
LAURA DUNBAR, 152 Strawberry Lane, read comments and entered them into the record. She
is concerned about the impact to the residents on Strawberry. Widening of Strawberry will
mean removal of 12 trees in front of her house. The area is zoned rural residential. The slope
of Strawberry does not lend itself to foot traffic but if it is paved it would not be good for bikes,
skateboards or strollers. Ice on a paved surface would be hazardous. The beneficiaries of
paving would be the developers.
ROB EWING, 144 Strawberry, said if new development generates 200+ trips per day, it would be
wishful thinking to assume that most of the traffic will go out Westwood. He believes most
people will choose to visit activities in the City center, therefore, most trips would be down
Strawberry. In order to have paved access to and through the development would suggest
paving of Strawberry. Would the paving continue to Scenic and Granite? There are many
unresolved issues that need to be addressed.
PATRICIA HALEY, 400 Alnutt, submitted a petition with ten signatures opposing the formation of
a LID.
CHRISTINE CRAWLEY, 124 Strawberry Lane, submitted a petition signed by her neighbors
opposing a LID. She addressed adequate transportation and believes it is reasonable to think if
someone lives on Strawberry they will travel down Strawberry to get to town; that would make
Strawberry the primary access. She wondered how the 21 percent slope of Strawberry would fit
into the hillside development standards. She noted the street standards concerning
development of streets over 18 percent grade and wondered how that would work. She
opposes the development.
Jarvis read GERRY MANDELL'S comments, 1111 Strawberry Lane.
SUSAN POWELL, 180 Nutley, would like to know specifically how many vehicle trips per day will
be generated by this development. If this development is built piece by piece, the neighbors
below will be feeling the effects of this development for years. The construction traffic will be
horrendous. She would like a condition that all construction traffic be required to use paved
roads. She does not believe residential traffic will travel north out of the development because
there are no services at the north end of town.
JOHN PEELE, 234 Strawberry Lane, (P.O. Box 566), expressed safety concerns on lower
Strawberry and Alnutt which he does not consider roads; maybe they are alleys or lanes, but not
roads. He uses Alnutt because lower Strawberry is too steep. Bikers use Alnutt to get to upper
Strawberry. He constantly worries about hitting pedestrians. He does not see the solution to
include lower Strawberry to Alnutt but somehow close upper Strawberry and direct all access
the other direction.
Briggs moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. The motion was seconded and approved.
GERRY MANDELL said he lives in the county and noted that any discussion of diverting all traffic
down Westwood would bring a firestorm of protest from his neighbors. He also wondered if the
density would be acceptable to the state. McLaughlin said the application remains consistent
with the Comp Plan and would not pose a problem with the state.
HARRY BARTELL, 365 Strawberry Lane, said his property is at the corner of Strawberry and
Alnutt which poses a safety concern. If there are 200 + vtpd on Strawberry, he will be fighting to
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
get out of his driveway because of the blind corner. What about pollution and fire danger?. He
opposes a LID.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
The LID discussion is not within the purview of the Commission.
Briggs is concerned with lengthy driveways and neighbors opposition.
Bass would like to see the applicant provide an explanation of how this project meets the criteria
relating to adequate transportation. He would like a demonstration that this development can be
served by an access besides Westwood. Transportation is Armitage's concern. Chapman
would like to see a design plan to put traffic on Westwood. Gardiner believes there is a major
traffic problem.
Morris would like information on the capacity of Strawberry (numbers). McLaughlin said there
has been recent development along Strawberry in the last few years. These were the last lots
created before the standards were put in place not allowing any further partitioning on unpaved
streets over 18 percent grade. Capacity is a relative term. There is engineering capacity or
neighborhood environmental capacity.
Howe would like to see a current map that begins at Alnutt showing Ditch Road, the driveway
for house 3, where the house for Lot 8 is located and its access to Strawberry. On the other
side, she would like to see where the drive to the county is, the location of the drive across city
property, or anything that the applicant is expecting to connect to or impact. Howe would like
the map to reflect what is really going to happen (driveways, turnarounds, guest parking). When
something is drawn it tends to turn out that way and what is on the map is important. She is
disappointed there are no pedestrian paths through the development. The neighbors on the
Strawberry side seem coherent about their objections to more traffic. Would the neighbors on
the Westwood side be as adamant if they were notified? Jarvis said neighbors within 200 feet
was the legal notification requirement. The notice sign needs to be posted by the applicant.
Jarvis wondered if Neuman meant the application would comply with the new hillside standards.
Could that be indicated next month? She would like Staff to investigate if there is any legal
ability to limit access down Strawberry.
Jarvis suggested noticing all the people who have testified this evening about the time of the
next meeting. McLaughlin said notification is not normally sent out for a continuation but that
can be done. It will be up to the applicant to decide the date of the next hearing.
Howe expressed her dismay at receiving materials from the applicant five minutes before the
hearing. It does not allow the Commission any time to adequately review them.
Armitage wondered how much information is required for Outline Plan. McLaughlin said all the
information about turnarounds is not required; adjustments will occur. As development gets into
the hillside, the driveway length is important and concerns are valid.
Armitage moved to continue PA97-054 to a future date. Bass seconded the motion and it
carried unanimously.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
10
OTHER
Jarvis stated that the American Planning Association selected the new Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan as the winner of the 1998 professional achievement and planning award
and McLaughlin will be receiving that award at the conference this week.
A site visit on Strawberry will be held on Sunday, March 8th at 8:00 a.m.
Jarvis will be out of town from the end of February until March 7th.
The Planning Commission retreat will be an agenda item for discussion next month. McLaughlin
suggested doing goal setting among the Commissioners. Armitage wanted an opportunity to
talk about running the meeting and how they interact during the meetings since there is never
an opportunity for this type of conversation at the meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
11
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mike Gardiner at 1:40 p.m. Other Commissioners present were
Anna Howe and Barbara Jarvis. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris, and Susan
Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
The Minutes of the January 13, 1998 meeting were approved. There were no Findings.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 98-009
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT
372 IOWA STREET
APPLICANT: STEVEN M. MEEKS
STAFF REPORT
Knox said this application it to construct a 650 sq. ft. accessory residential unit off the rear of the
property. There is an existing 1,320 sq. ft. house. The Historic Commission reviewed the proposal and
recommended approval. The unit is a craftsman design which is in keeping with the historic character of
the neighborhood. Two parking spaces will be provided off the alley. The property has a 25 percent
slope to the north. This action was called up for a public hearing by the neighbors.
At the time the adjacent lot was partitioned, Staff met with the Fire Department and other departments
and agreed that the alley would not exceed nine feet in width as long as fire equipment could still travel
down the alley. The applicant will be required to do his proposal according to the alley improvement
plan.
There is a definite history that Staff has tried to accommodate the concerns voiced by the neighbors. At
the same time, it is difficult to do relatively sensitive planning with the current infill zoning rules. Staff felt
this proposal had a good design and if development is going to occur, the alley will be the front yard.
The Cooley property is providing a pedestrian easement along the flag to the alley.
Staff has recommended approval with the five attached Conditions. Knox suggested a Condition 6
stating: That prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory unit, the applicant shall submit a
landscaping/site plan that identifies a physical barrier (i.e., shrubs, boulders, etc.) along the west side of
the front unit's driveway. The purpose of the plan is to delineate vehicle parking in the driveway and
not within the front yard. The improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy Permit for the accessory unit.
Knox explained paragraph 4 on page 2. The applicant shows on his site plan an 18 foot, two space
parking bay. The alley is eight to nine feet wide. Meeks needs a total of 36 feet for a head-in parking
space with back-up room. It appears the applicant will need to clear out shrubbery along a rise of about
eight to nine feet to accommodate the parking. It will be about a three foot cut. Molnar said the
applicant has agreed to relocate the steps in that area. Knox noted this is part of Condition 4.
PUBLIC HEARING
STEVEN MEEKS, 1537 Woodland Drive, said he met with the Historic Commission and two members
liked the design enough they would like to use it as an example. The alley will be developed minimally.
The parking pad will be graveled. Vegetation has already been removed by the neighbors to create
more of a space through the alley.
Howe wondered about removal of the vegetation on Iowa. Meeks thought it was possible for tenants to
park in the narrow area in front of the privacy hedge. He will rectify this situation.
Howe suggested use of landscaping to more clearly define the parking.
Meeks does not have a problem doing something with the shrubbery on the alley. He would be happy
to work out something with Ledbetter regarding relocation of the stairs.
ROBIN NORDLI, 269 Gresham, said she is concerned with the traffic on the alley because the Gresham
end is the only end being developed. She is concerned where the alley will be cut into the
embankment. The alley traffic will go right by her bedroom window. She is also concerned about
construction traffic and the residential traffic.
AUGUST SHILLING, 280 Meade Street, said his home is at the corner of the alley and he is concerned
residents would use their end of their driveway for a drive. Their house is small and they will notice
anything that goes by. He is concerned about privacy, earthmoving while improving the alley, drainage,
damage to trees if there is uphill scraping of the alley, and particularly he would like special attention
paid to the madrone trees.
LYNN LEDBETTER, 280 1/2 Meade Street, explained there is an evergreen tree she planted to screen
the alley. The traffic will change greatly with construction equipment and noise. Howe asked about the
stairs and it appears they are in the right-of-way.
Staff Response
Knox said the crushed gravel on the alley should make construction traffic easier. Ledbetter's propane
tank might be in the right-of-way. He said the potential for future development off the alley is minimal.
Molnar said it is good to remember this is a public alley. Every property would be allowed with a
building permit to construct a garage off the alley.
Rebuttal
Meeks said he will not allow cement trucks in the alley. He is trying to be sensitive to the environment
and neighbors. He feels some of the steps are unsafe and he is concerned about the propane tank in
the alley. He would like clarification about siting it in the alley.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Molnar does not think there is a safety issue with the propane tank.
Jarvis moved to approve with the six Conditions. Howe seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
MINUTES
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 98-018
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING
420 WILLIAMSON WAY
APPLICANT: HABIB SHAHIN
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 98-019
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR 75 CONDOMINIUMS AND A CLUBHOUSE LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DRIVE
APPLICANT: MOUNTAIN MEADOWS LLC
Jarvis noted that something should be stated in the Conditions about an administrative variance being
granted.
Howe wanted the assurance of a pictorial layout of the parking stalls. Molnar said spaces 1-6 are under
the building.
Change Condition 10 that there be a patio hardscape addition at the northwest corner of the clubhouse.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
MINUTES