Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-14 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Steve Armitage called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Kerry KenCairn, Alex Amarotico, Mike Morris, Marilyn Briggs, Russ Chapman, Chris Hearn, and John Fields. There were no absent members. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Mark Knox and Susan Yates. MINUTES & FINDINGS Hearn moved to approve the Minutes of the August 10, 1999 Regular Meeting, Briggs seconded the motion and the Minutes were approved. Chapman moved to approve the Findings (PA99- 062), Hearn seconded the motion and the Findings were approved. Morris moved to approve the Findings (PA99-078), Briggs seconded the motion and the Findings were approved. Chapman moved to approve the Minutes of the August 10, 1999 Hearings Board, Briggs seconded the motion and the Minutes were approved. Chapman moved to approve the Findings (PA99-073), Briggs seconded the motion and the Findings were approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 99-098 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 21 LOT SUBDIVISON (14 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 7 INDUSTRIAL LOTS) UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION. ALSO A REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO CROSS HAMILTON CREEK CONNECTING THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. APPLICANT: ALEX KNECHT Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts KenCairn noted a conflict of interest and stepped down from the hearing. Site visits were made by everyone except Armitage and Fields. Briggs spoke to Keith Avery, developer of the neighboring property. They had a five minute conversation about the land. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported that the applicable criteria has been mailed to adjacent property owners. This is one of the larger underdeveloped properties in the area at almost five acres in size. The most notable natural feature is Hamilton Creek running south to north through the property along the eastern half of the parcel. The majority of large trees are located within the Hamilton Creek floodplain area. There are trees on the southern boundary of the property. There is an existing residence on the property so there are trees associated with the residence. Most of the large mature trees are within the riparian floodplain area. The proposal generally involves a 21-lot subdivision. The property has a split zoning designation with the zoning boundary running along the creek channel. The portion of the property west of Hamilton Creek is zoned R-1-5 and the property east of Hamilton Creek is zoned M-1. There are two components to the application. Lot 12 will house the existing residence on the property. There will be 13 additional lots for new home construction. The existing outbuildings will be removed. Seven industrial lots have been requested. The newer subdivisions to the north, Spring Way Drive and Eagle Creek Lane, were laid out in anticipation of ultimately connecting through this property. This is following the City’s transportation policies for interconnected street systems. The street that is proposed runs through the property in a loop system through the neighborhood. A short alley is proposed which will provide pedestrian movement to the neighborhood and provide rear access to the three lots along Tolman Creek Road (Lots 12, 13 and 14). That will remove the need to have direct driveway access onto Tolman Creek Road. The plan is to move the existing driveway leading to the existing house and provide access to the back of the house and construction of a new garage for the existing residence. The parcel just north of the property, outside the subdivision already has access onto Tolman Creek Road but abuts the alley, allowing for some time in the future, rear access to the parcel if a homeowner so desired. The streets will be constructed to the City’s street standards which include a minimum 22 foot wide paved surface, large seven foot planting strips and five foot sidewalks. In addition, the application shows a public pedestrian easement that extends from the interior street system to Tolman Creek Road, as well as a pedestrian easement walkway and bridge, both crossing Hamilton Creek and linking the eastern side of the creek property to the western side. When there is development in the industrial portion, this will allow for either residents of the development or future employees to have pedestrian access to transit along Tolman Creek Road. There is a large floodplain associated with Hamilton Creek. Building envelopes have to be outside the floodplain. The area adjacent to the creek is proposed to be owned in common by the development and maintained by a homeowner’s association. Phase II of the project involves the industrial zoned property. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into seven parcels, providing a private road from Mistletoe Road to service those parcels. Parking is proposed along one side of the street as well as a walkway adjacent to the curb along the creekside. There are several perpendicular parking areas proposed too. The applicant is most interested in beginning development of Phase I or the residential portion of the property. The industrial portion is somewhat contingent upon whatever happens to the draft of the Tolman Creek Neighborhood Plan. The applicant has an interest in developing mixed- use buildings on A – G with commercial on the ground floor and residential on the top floor. The current zoning does not allow for that. Under Alternate C of the draft Tolman Creek Neighborhood Plan, there is a proposal to adopt more of a mixed zoning overlay in the M-1 similar to A Street. The Neighborhood Plan is still in the draft stage but not applicable criteria at this time. Staff looks favorably on the residential aspect of the application. They are supportive of the street system design that has worked well in Ashland Village. The provision of the alley, while not necessarily needed, eliminates all driveways along Tolman Creek Road, increasing the capacity of that street and decreasing safety issues for all users of the street because Tolman Creek Road is a collector. Hamilton Creek has been incorporated nicely into the design. Approximately 200 feet of the new public street will go along the upper boundary of the floodplain and there will be a public sidewalk that meanders. This will allow access for the residents and others in the neighborhood to walk adjacent to the floodplain. Staff has the most concern with Phase II and recommends that portion cannot be approved because it fails to meet certain City ordinances. It is proposed as a private road. If you create more than three lots under City code, one is required to have a public street that needs to be designed to City street standards. Staff is concerned about how this property will integrate with ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 the property to the north. The design needs to have a public street, terminating at the northerly property line to allow it be extended northward at a future date. The other issue surrounding Phase II is the development of the lots and how they would comply with the design standards. Staff feels the future orientation should probably be toward Phase I. If the Commission feels the residential portion of the property complies with the criteria for approval, it is possible to approve the 14-lot residential subdivision and deny or require the industrial not be approved at this time. Staff would recommend a pedestrian easement be retained so if at a future date the industrial lot is a developed, the connection could still occur. Staff also would recommend approval in this manner because much of this development is contingent upon the outcome of the Tolman Creek Neighborhood Plan. If the Commission chooses to approve the residential subdivision which Staff believes meets the criteria, they have recommended 16 Conditions. Also, a Condition 17 indicating the eight-lot industrial subdivision be denied and that the industrial zoned portion of the property east of Hamilton Creek be incorporated as one lot and that a pedestrian easement connecting both sides of the creek be incorporated on final plat. Any commercial development on the industrial portion will require a Site Review approval. Fields wondered if the alley would be developed as an alley. Molnar said the alley is proposed to be dedicated to 16 feet with a 12 foot paved surface. Adjacent to the alley is a scored concrete walk that will be continuous through the development and across. Fields asked if Tolman Creek Road would have any off-street parking. Molnar said Tolman Creek is on the verge of forming a Local Improvement District. Parking is anticipated to be on one side of Tolman Creek or just a planting strip and a six foot sidewalk with no on-street parking. This might mean that guests visiting Lots 13 and 14 would have to park within the neighborhood street. Fields wondered if this would be a place for parking bays on Tolman Creek. Molnar said some of the draft cross-sections show there would be enough room to provide on-street parking. However, the new street standards are trying to get away from using bays. There will be more neighborhood discussions on parking. With regard to the Local Improvement District, Molnar said the developer would have an option to improve the street. The City would prefer it all be done comprehensively and it might work out to be less expensive for the developer. Amarotico asked if the pedestrian path included bicycles. Molnar said it is a multi-use path that is six to ten feet in width. The intent is to allow both facilities. It would have to be ten feet wide to allow for joint use of pedestrians and cyclists. PUBLIC HEARING TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, is testified with the owners and developers of the land. They tried to meet the open space and street standards. He believes it would be an excellent connection between the two existing subdivisions, creating a nice, livable area. He shares the same concern as Staff’s with regard to the industrial property. They tried to lay out the plan according to the draft Tolman Creek Neighborhood Plan. After meetings with city Staff and neighbors, he is in agreement that the area should be studied more in detail because there are some things that could work better for the City and applicant as well. They would agree then with Staff to make this area one lot and in the near future coming back with a plan for that land area. Giordano referred to the existing house off Tolman Creek Road with the driveway (Lot 12). The residents feel, conceptually, it is a good idea to eventually have their garage off the alley, however, it would seem the driveway should stay on Tolman Creek Road until the improvements to Tolman Creek Road are completed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 The walkway will be a paved surface so bikes can use it. Signage could be placed indicating bicyclists walk their bikes. The path that goes from Spring Way to the industrial portion, because of the creek environment, would not be solid pavement but something such as decomposed granite or shale to allow percolation of moisture. ALEX KNECHT, applicant and developer, reiterated that the owners of the existing home on Tolman Creek Road would like to retain the driveway off Tolman as it is. He believes the residential area will be a neighborhood the residents and community can enjoy. He is in agreement with Staff regarding the industrial side of the development. He would hope the Council would come to some conclusion in the near future so he can develop that portion of land. He believes Mistletoe needs a jump start. Armitage asked if the pedestrian bridge and path are a portion of Phase I. Giordano said the easement will be there. The purpose of the pedestrian bridge is to accommodate the development on the industrial side, according to Molnar. His only concern is if the bridge path is not constructed at this time, that (1) the easement be dedicated, and (2) there is indication in the CC&R’s for the residential portion that there is an easement linking the open space to the other side so if the industrial property is built out, residential occupants that would ultimately govern the common open space could not deny the ability for the pedestrian bridge to occur. Fields wondered if the easement is private or public. Molnar said it is Staff’s intent the easement is public. Fields suggested adding “public right-of-way” to Condition 14. Molnar agreed. MARK JERNIGAN, 2520 Spring Hill Drive, asked if the map is to scale. It looks like the proposed streets are much narrower than the Spring Hill that is built. He would suggest a wider street with six foot sidewalks and eight foot planters as well as additional on-street parking. He is concerned about the amount of traffic coming out of this area. Eagle Creek Lane is windy and twisty and located to the south which is the route most people will not take, therefore, everything will be channeled through Tolman Creek, making that a very busy street which is very narrow at present. Who is responsible for maintaining the Hamilton Creek floodplain? Molnar said the map is not to scale but does show the relationship between the two projects. Eagle Creek Lane and Spring Way were developed under the older street standards (20 ft. wide). Under the City’s new street standards, the minimum street width is 22 ft. The streets in the subdivision will be a minimum two feet wider and allow for parking on one side. The area adjacent to the floodplain is proposed at 26 ft. wide perhaps allowing for additional parking on both sides. The floodplain is owned in common by the homeowners of the project. There is a landscaping plan showing certain dead trees to be removed and installation of additional riparian plantings and trees. The overall maintenance is the responsibility of the homeowners and will have to be addressed in the CC&R’s and the approved plan runs with the subdivision. The City also requires a drainageway easement that is usually close to the bottom of the creek channel so if the City needs to clean out debris in a flood situation they can do so. Molnar said traffic generated from the proposed subdivision will use Spring Way, however, it is well within capacity to handle up to 1500 trips per day. He did not think the vehicle trips per day would exceed 500. Jernigan asked if the houses would be single story. Molnar said they would have to meet the City’s solar access standards. There has been some discussion that Lot 13 and 14 might be the most difficult for solar and will probably be single story homes. Rebuttal – Giordano said the street to the north is the “stralley”. One side is set up like a street with a seven and one-half foot planter strip and five foot sidewalk. The other side is set up more like an alley. The building envelopes will be 20 ft. back from the alley so is definitely a ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 landscaped area of at least 20 feet for Lots 4, 5, and 6. Molnar added that these lots are under public street fencing requirements. At the back of the properties, the maximum height of a fence is four feet. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn moved to approve PA 99-098 with the attached Conditions, including Condition 17 which would be denial of the industrial phase as it stands now but approval of it as a single industrial lot. Add Condition 18-- the easement for the pedestrian path be dedicated and noted in the CC&R’s that the bridge would need to be installed as part of the industrial development. Amarotico seconded the motion. Fields would like to see the three houses on Tolman Creek Road still have access to Tolman. Molnar said there is a Condition 6 regarding the driveway. At the time the street network is built, as the Condition now stands, they will need to abandon that driveway. It is up to the Commission to determine whether the Condition should be amended until Tolman Creek is redeveloped. Hearn amended his motion to allow the existing residence on Tolman Creek Road to use their existing driveway accessing from Tolman Creek Road. After the improvements are made on Tolman Creek, the driveway will be abandoned. Molnar said if the owners were to come in before Tolman Creek Road gets improved and request a building permit for a new garage, the Condition could read: That the existing resident’s driveway on Tolman Creek Road be eliminated at the time of street improvements to Tolman Creek Road or construction of a covering. ARMITAGE RE-OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING - He asked the applicant if he approved the ARMITAGE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. amendment. Knecht said he approved. Hearn amended his motion to include Molnar’s wording for Condition 6. The path is not a concrete path. The concrete section is the bridge. Hearn said amend Condition 18 to include the future path and that it would have a porous surface. Morris noted Condition 13 should be changed from Clay Creek to Hamilton Creek. Briggs is absolutely opposed to a street becoming an alley and an alley pretending to be a street. The City is committed to a grid system. The proposed alleys are not exactly truth in labeling. The dictionary defines an alley as a thoroughfare through the middle of a block giving access to the rear of buildings. The proposed alley parallels the side of one of the properties. This happened last month. It was shrugged off as okay and we are letting precedent become policy. Last month the architect described it as “creative”. She disagreed then and she disagrees more strongly now. The front/back problem will be a perpetual problem, throwing off the setbacks, making our intentions ridiculous. Also, the lots get squished in and create a solar problem. Lot 8 is going to throw a shadow on Lot 7. You are asking people to live on lots that are too small. The applicants are asking the garages and utility rooms be on the south side of the building envelopes, limiting as much as possible, windows on the south side of the building envelopes. The most desirable light comes from the south. Briggs believes this is not a good street plan that is constraining the lots and making solar problems. Molnar said the term “stralley” does not exist. It is more accurate to say these are public streets. Both sides of this street are required to have curb and gutter and are required to be 22 feet in width. There are three lots that have double frontage, similar to the lots fronting Dewey and Morse. Briggs does not feel this is something we want to perpetuate. An alley should technically not face the side of a property. She wants the Commission to be aware of what is a street and what is an alley. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Chapman believes the development fits in with the compact urban design and he is supportive of the application. The motion carried with Briggs casting the only dissenting vote. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1999