Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-14 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ron Bass at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Marilyn Briggs, Anna Howe, Russ Chapman, Barbara Jarvis, Mike Morris, Mike Gardiner, and Chris Hearn. Armitage was absent. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Chapman said under Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts on Page 1 of the March 10, 1998 Minutes, it should read "All Commissioners except 'Chapman' had a site visit". Jarvis moved to approve the Minutes as amended, Howe seconded the motion and they were approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING 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 STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported this action was continued to allow the applicant time to provide additional information. He feels the information provided is complete so the Commission can reach a decision. One issue raised involved the proximity of the proposed building to transit service. In other applications in the city, when adequate transportation has been studied, the requirement of transit service has not been specifically required for new office buildings. A finding was made by this Commission and the Council in the original application for this building and Staff believes that finding still applies. In addition, Rogue Valley Transit District has announced they will be instituting a new route as of July 1 st that will pass this site going both directions. Another issue raised at the hearing was compliance with the Site Design and Use Standards. Commission discussion suggested moving the building closer to the sidewalk. The City has chosen to pursue the application as originally submitted following their original campus master plan from the 1980's for this site. The Site Design ordinance that refers to placing buildings close to the street occur in the Detailed Site Review zone. The proposed site is not in that overlay and not subject to those standards. Consistency with the Downtown Plan was another issue. McLaughlin read a paragraph referring to City Hall. This application does not involve moving any of the office currently in the City Hall building downtown. The proposal involves moving the offices of Public Works Administration and Engineering, Fire Administration, Computer Services. It is Staff's opinion that City Hall is remaining the same as far as function and use and not in conflict with the Downtown Plan. Based on the above information, Staff is recommending approval of the application. Chapman asked what will remain at City Hall downtown. McLaughlin said Administration, Mayor, City Attorney, Finance Department, Utility Billing, and Community Development and all support staff. If those functions need to expand, the Council has directed Staff to develop a financing plan for an addition to downtown City Hall. PUBLIC HEARING GREG SCOLES, Assistant City Administrator, is representing the Council in this application. Scoles gave a brief overview of the history of the project. 10/93 Planning Commission approved a 10,100 sq. fl. building Appealed to the City Council 11/96 Council directed Staff to proceed with the project, reducing sq. fl., housing fewer divisions 8/97 Study Session with Council - reviewed alternative plans for keeping City Hall functions as indicated in the Downtown Plan in the downtown. Discussion about expanding the usable area within the existing City Hall, reconfiguring, or going up an additional floor. 9/97 Application filed for downsized building of 7800 sq. fl. Application approved by Staff as Type I and called up for a public hearing. 12/97 Application sent back to Council for authorization of the application. The Council took affirmative action and moved to make the application. 1/98 Planning Commission heard application and issues raised - action continued. The Council believes the application complies with the Site Design Standards and is not in the Detailed Site Review Overlay. This project started in the mid-80's as a campus design project and this is the last piece of the project that would complete the campus. Scoles referred to page 5 of the Staff Report concerning consistency with the Downtown Plan. It recognizes the City will have some growth. "Some functions will have to be relocated." The proposed building will staff anywhere from 18 at present to 25 with growth over the years. The Council is in a unique position. They will be the hearing body if this project is appealed. The Council would like to begin construction this season. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. Briggs had a conversation on January 21, 1998 with John McLaughlin. She suggested taking the existing building at 1175 East Main Street and add to it for more space. On February 10, 1998, she phoned McLaughlin to see if Council had discussed and Council had said at the goal setting session they did not want any more studies and wanted to go ahead with what they have. Briggs expressed her disappointment that the building design is the same as it was four years ago except someone chopped off some of the building on the plan. She feels the City could save space and money if the whole Fire Department moved to the site and the Council Chambers could move to the Fire Department. Scoles can relay Briggs' message. RICK VEZIE, 446 Walker, thanked Barbara Jarvis for her years of service. He is opposed to the project because the costs of the original project were never disclosed to the Space Needs Committee. He believes decisions continue to be made on faulty or incomplete information. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 Referring to page 5 of the Staff Report (Detailed Site Review Overlay), Vezie said, as a designer, he is told all the time by the City to comply with the standards of the Detailed Site Review Overlay. It may not be an official standard, but if you want to get your project past, you have to do it. The parking lot on the proposed building is in front of the proposed building. Vezie said the Downtown Plan associates movement of personnel out of the downtown with growth. He does not believe the City has grown so much that movement of personnel can be justified. Once the proposed building is built, who is housed there will be an administrative decision and he cannot trust the Council. Section 18.72.010, Purpose and Intent, Vezie stated, is to insure that high quality development is maintained throughout the city. He challenges how the proposed building is high development. If we want "Green to be Mainstream", why is the City using clear cedar siding for the building? He would like the Planning Commission to take a leadership role and plan. RON ROTH, 6950 Old Highway 99 South, feels the Planning Commission should deny the request because it violates at least the spirit, if not the letter of the Downtown Plan. Roth pointed to two examples: Roth never went to downtown Sunnyvale in the 13 years he lived there because the city built a large urban campus surrounded with lots of parking and wide streets, detached from the downtown. Palo Alto has an incredibly vibrant downtown where one finds a parking space and walks around. City Hall which covers a square block which was built in the 80's. Roth maintains it is vibrant because the City Hall is downtown. He asked the Planning Commission to do more research on downtown areas. Jarvis quoted the Downtown Plan (first sentence): "...City Hall will remain in its present location for the immediate future." (written in 1988). What is the immediate future? She is hesitant to rely upon this document when reading the first paragraph. From the wording, it sounds as though the writers did not expect City Hall to stay downtown. Staff Response Howe said there needs to be directional signage at the proposed building. Also, there is a planter that sticks out which will not allow for direct and easy access into the building. Molnar said that can easily modified. Rebu~al Scoles said the comments he is hearing relate to decisions made by the Council about design and the desire to build this building, the location, etc. It is Council's feeling and Scoles' feeling that it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning standards and the Downtown Plan. The Council is very committed to keeping City Hall downtown. However, they do not believe it is prudent to keep the uses mentioned earlier in the downtown core area. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe believes the "hall" is the Council Chambers and it has already been moved. She has no problem with the building because the facilities now being used by some departments are currently housed in poor facilities. However, to have the building hidden is an emotional statement to the residents. The City is saying: "We don't want to be heard or found". The citizens deserve to have an up-front proud building enhancing the streetscape with parking behind. She would feel hypocritical voting for this site plan when we require more of everyone else. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 Jarvis said the problem is the Planning Commission's job is to look at the criteria and see if this application meets it. Although it would be nice for the City to do a design that would fit into the Detailed Site Review Overlay, the Commission cannot do that because it is not applicable. The Commission cannot base a denial on the basis of design because it would be overturned. Briggs feels the Council is overwhelmed with critical decisions and they do not have time to do long-range planning. When the plan was approved a long time ago, it sufficed but it no longer meets with the high level of expectation we have now. Though Heam agrees with much of what has been said, he believes the Commissioners have to follow the criteria and be objective. He feels compelled to approve it even if he personally disagrees with the more subjective aspects of it. Bass said it is unfortunate they are relying on a ten year old Downtown Plan with fuzzy language and in some ways it is unfortunate the City has not taken any of the suggestions that have come up in the last couple of months, but agrees the project meets the criteria. Jarvis moved to approve PA97-100 with the attached seven Conditions. Hearn seconded the motion and it carried with Jarvis, Morris, Hearn, Chapman, and Bass voting "yes" and Gardiner, Howe and Briggs voting "no". 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 The Planning Commissioners had an organized site visit a few weeks ago. Hearn has a potential conflict of interest with this action as well as the next action (PA98-081-930 Tolman Creek Road), therefore, he stepped down and will not participate in the hearings. STAFF REPORT Molnar said at the February meeting, the applicant was asked to provide information regard street improvements, the timing of those improvements, and how they would be paid and whether or not the applicant met the burden of proof for access to and through the development. Molnar said the applicant's new submittals state the street improvements will remain the same but with the improvement extending all the way down Strawberry to the intersection of Strawberry and Alnutt with some improvements to that intersection. The entire street system will be done under one phase. The applicants made it clear in their proposal that the three property owners would bear the full cost of all improvements and they are not proposing to improve any streets through a LID. The walkways have been revised showing a standard city concrete sidewalk on all streets. There is an open space area to incorporate more of the drainage swale as shown on the latest site plan. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 The building envelopes on the Hwoschinsky property have all been modified to have at least a minimum setback of 20 feet from top of bank. Staff was hesitant at the time the Staff Report was written to recommend approval because they were uncertain about the timing of the Strawberry Lane improvements from Hitt Road to Alnutt. Staff feels the application can be approved with a Condition that all Strawberry Lane improvements be done as part of phase I in conjunction with the survey plat for any of the home sites and the project not be broken into phases. Molnar suggested additional wording on Condition 16 to clarify that there will be interior residential sprinkler systems required in all new homes. As clarification on the street improvements, McLaughlin explained the applicant is proposing asking the City to join in a LID to pave the City's portion of Strawberry. The City has done this in the past and it is likely the Council would do it in this instance. Part of the land is owned by the City and part by the Parks Department. If the City and Parks choose not to participate, the applicants have said they would either carry the whole burden themselves or choose not to proceed with the project. Howe wondered if special wording is needed for the extension of the sidewalk down to Alnutt. Molnar said, "yes", it would help to clarify. Chapman asked about "capacity". McLaughlin explained the applicant has to show there is capacity of public facilities to allow for the development of the property. If there is a route to this property that is less than 18 percent, paved and meets the standard, there is capacity for development. The applicants are saying there is adequate capacity by using the Strawberry/Westwood/Wimer as the route that provides capacity for development of the property. The remaining part, going to Strawberry and Alnutt is not part of the consideration. It has not been relevant in past decisions whether or not people use the route. Gardiner asked if the Commission will not even consider lower Strawberry to the comer of Alnutt. McLaughlin said the applicant has provided a solution to pave and allows the neighborhood to remain with unpaved streets. Gardiner wondered if the comer of Alnutt and Strawberry will change. McLaughlin said it will change, especially at the comer. The city owns additional right-of-way beyond the travel surface now being used. PUBLIC HEARING TOM G1ORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent for the project stated he has submitted additional information for clarification. PAUL HWOSCHINSKY, lives on Strawberry and he can see how people use the area - walkers, hikers, joggers. After the moratorium was lifted, they went through neighborhood discussions which was over three years ago. Out of those discussions came 37 ½ acres of open space and useful discussion. During the neighborhood discussions there were many who did not want to widen Alnutt. He believes Alnutt should be made one-way going up and one- way down Strawberry. About half the time, he goes out Westwood. Giordano stated the project is all one phase. His group will pave all the way to lower Strawberry and Alnutt. The road will be engineered at Final Plan. There has been no formal agreement with the City on paving their portion. Giordano estimates there will be 92 vehicle trips out Westwood and 138 out Strawberry (based on both being ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 paved). Even if the traffic does not split this way, he believes they meet capacity and criteria requiring access to and through the development. Briggs noted on Lot 10 (Brown property) the driveway meanders up passing close to the building envelope of Lot 9. Giordano can make adjustments or have a reciprocal agreement. Briggs said the map does not show trees over six inches dbh and it appears they are in the building envelopes 4, 5, 6 and possibly 2. Giordano said all building envelopes were laid out to avoid trees. Briggs said there are not elevations for sites over 35 percent. Additionally, there is an extremely steep entry onto Lot 2. Giordano did a grading detail of that specific area to show how the driveway can go up. Lot 4 appears to have an extremely steep driveway and she is concerned with cuts. Giordano said the road will run parallel to the contours and believes it meets the criteria. JERRY MANDELL, 1111 Strawberry, said if the project is approved, he wants to make sure there is an adequate turning radius at the corner near him so the residents are encouraged to use Westwood access. He would like the Commission to think about the rest of it--Alnutt and lower Strawberry. SID FIELD, 525 Tucker Street, hopes to live there someday. The trees are identified and efforts have been made to preserve the open space. He goes to Medford a lot and he would prefer using the paved street. CHRISTINE CRAWLEY, 124 Strawberry Lane, read and submitted a letter that will be go into the record. If the road is widened, she will lose four trees. During most of the winter there is ice. The added trips will be cause for safety concerns. DENISE EWING, 144 Strawberry Lane, submitted a letter too. She has street safety concerns because Strawberry will be a major traffic egress. JAN HARRELL, 225 Nutley, read her comments. Jarvis asked Harrell if she had signed an agreement to participate in a LID as some point. Harrell said she probably did but did not realize it. JACK BLACKBURN, 805 Oak Street, believes the neighbors should not be expected to pay for development done by developers. Streets are a city facility. He does not think the transportation criteria has been adequately addressed. SUSAN HUNT, 220 Nutley, said she believes the required burden of proof that adequate access to through the development has not been met because the streets below Strawberry and Alnutt have not been paved and are going to expect 138 vehicle trips per day after this development is built. PATRICIA HALEY, 400 Alnutt, does not want the Commission to approve until she knows what they are doing with her street. She thought she remembered McLaughlin saying if upper Strawberry is paved, lower Strawberry would need to be paved because of runoff. JON PEELE, 234 §trawberry Lane, lives on a private drive off Strawberry. It is between .5 and .6 miles from the Ditch Road to the Plaza. By way of Westwood, it is over two mile. Safety is his issue. He does not use lower Strawberry and his neighbors do the same. Alnutt is narrow with a blind, steep curve. He would like to see a study done to make sure this is safe and adequate access. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 LAURA DUNBAR, 152 Strawberry Lane, expressed the same concerns as comments she had from the last hearing. On page 6 of the Staff Report, Conclusions, financing of improvements--is it fair for the other neighbors to pay? CHARLES SCHULMAN, 135 Westwood, said he is part of Anna Hassell's subdivision. He takes Grandview to get to town and it is dangerous. He wants the Commission to take into consideration the other projects going in. LARRY BRESSLER, 152 Strawberry Lane, does not like the unplanned costs, loss of ambiance and safety. He believes Staff is remiss in their interpretation of the of Criteria B. The applicant has failed to address construction issues which will be imposed on the residents. It appears the storm drainage will go down Strawberry to a storm drain. McLaughlin said the storm drainage has to be handled by the applicant to where there is a storm drain system in place. Jarvis moved to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Briggs seconded and all approved. HARRY BARTELL, 365 Strawberry Lane, referred to the Transportation Plan. "Auto oriented land uses should be discouraged from using neighborhood streets as the primary access route" (page 16). Page 27, "Cut through traffic in established neighborhoods disrupts life and erodes the neighborhood integrity". HENRY KNEEBONE, 449 Orchard Street, pointed on the map to the property he owns. He plans to subdivide some day. The City has a drainage easement on the property but the City will have to be responsible for it unless they make the developers responsible. There are no rocks in Wright's Creek Canyon and it really washes. With regard to Criteria B (development of adjacent land), if Hwoschinsky develops, it will cut out about six acres. The City should also think about a fire trail. The Commission postponed PA98-081 until next month. DEBBIE FITZPATRICK, 450 Orchard Street, is concerned with safety on streets. She suggested a STOP sign at the base of Westwood where it T-'s into Orchard. SUSAN POWELL, 180 Nutley Street, is amazed the Commission could consider there is adequate transportation to and through the development. She believes people are going to use her road even if it is not paved. She is concerned about the storm drainage. She is concerned about the construction vehicle trips. Will heavy equipment use her street every time a new house is built? Staff Resvonse McLaughlin noted the City's efforts over the years regarding this property. In the 1970's the zoning for this area allowed for 200 units. It has been downzoned since that time and, in addition, the City has also purchased some significant parcels for open space, helping to reduce the development impact. In the attempts at the neighborhood planning process, further downzoning was discussed which the applicants have followed, using one acre zoning, so the total development of the area dropped to 50 units. There has been much testimony in the past two meetings where paving is proposed for those narrow streets and as a result the neighbors are concerned about loss of ambiance and the feel they have for the area. Equal concerns about safety (driving on paved rs. unpaved) were raised. The developers are proposing paving those over which they have control. With regard to access to the development, a recent planning action was approved with access out Westwood towards Grandview. Jarvis wondered with regard to lower Strawberry what is expected of the property owners and what were they led to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 believe. McLaughlin said the City has agreements to pave on file for different properties along Strawberry. The same is true of Alnutt. Jarvis moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. The motion was seconded and approved. Rebuttal Giordano said even though the neighborhood plan is in draft form, the proposal is designed with the plan in mind. He believes the applicants have met the criteria showing transportation to and through the development by paving out Westwood leading to Wimer. Giordano said his own work was checked by transportation consultant, Wes Reynolds who said all streets concerned are under capacity. Reynolds said the county standard for a dirt street is 800 vehicle trips per day. Giordano said the City is not going to allow the applicants to dump drainage off Strawberry and Alnutt. There will be a connection. Giordano explained that Kneebone's predicament is that he cannot develop because of the creek and terrain. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe is impressed the developer will take responsibility to pave and sidewalk to Alnutt. That is acceptable. Morris does not believe Strawberry and Alnutt are at capacity. Jarvis said the precedence is very clear. The Commission has said in the past (Ivy and Mountain) if there is one road accessing in and out of the development, that is adequate transportation. She does not see how that precedence can change mid-stream. Jarvis wants to make certain all the recommendations regarding drainage are addressed. Bass believes the developer has gone the extra mile to make the development compatible. Briggs wanted to add a condition with regard to construction vehicles avoiding Strawberry and Alnutt. McLaughlin said such a condition would be difficult to enforce but a condition could be added to suggest construction traffic go by way of a paved access. Chapman believes the improvements to lower Strawberry need to be addressed before approving anything father up. Jarvis moved to approve PA97-054 with the attached conditions including interior sprinkling of proposed homes. There will be no phasing of the project with no permits issued until the paving is completed. Also there will be a sidewalk that goes through the property to the comer of Alnutt. Gardiner seconded the motion. The motion carried with Briggs and Chapman voting "no". APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Jarvis moved to approve the Findings for Trinity Episcopal Church. Howe seconded the motion and the Findings were approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 OTHER Land Use Planning Week will be May 3rd through May 9th. The Planning Commission's retreat will be May 9th. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998