Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-14 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Mike Gardiner at 7:00 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Russ Chapman, John Fields, Chris Hearn, Mike Morris, Marilyn Briggs, Alex Amarotico, and Ray Kistler. Kerry KenCairn was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hearn moved to approve the minutes of the October 12, 2000 meeting, Briggs seconded the motion and the minutes were approved. PUBLIC FORUM BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, spoke about the city activities that support the Valdez Principles, in particular, the sustainable use of natural resources. What this would mean, is that city projects need to use land in an efficient or thrifty way or it violates at least one of the Valdez Principles. For example, when the city is an applicant or proponent, they should not favor anything that would waste the land or consistently recommend approval for something that does not go to a maximum building height. By not building in a way that would utilize the land efficiently, it would necessitate the condemnation or acquisition of neighboring parcels, which in turn would displace businesses or residences from those parcels. That then creates more pressure toward outward growth of the city. He is asking the Commission to begin thinking in these terms where any public body is the applicant (City of Ashland, SOU, etc.). The Commission and Staff need to think of shrinking footprints. The city is built planning action by planning action and the sum total of all those planning actions determine whether or not you end up with a sprawled city or a compact urban form which is far more sustainable. To not do this, is a violation of the Valdez Principles which means planning actions could be subject to appeal because they are not being consistent with this overriding philosophy or body of principles that we have to guide us in everything. Thompson also discussed Quiet Village (the largest subdivision the city has ever had) and their covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s). Those CC&R’s prohibit any building in the front yard closer than 20 feet. They also, to his knowledge, prohibit any accessory dwelling units and any activity on the properties for commerce or business. All of these things are very inconsistent with our vision of the town now. He thought the homeowners in Quiet Village might be interested in discussing some of these things that restrict the use of their property, therefore, lessening the desirability of it. REQUEST BY PAUL RICHARDS (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ASHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE) TO INITIATE A TYPE III PLANNING ACTION AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP. McLaughlin noted that because Scott Kurtz has an application that is involving this area, he cautioned the Commissioners not to get into any of the specifics about this request that would effect Kurtz’s property. This is outside the public hearing process. Any discussion should not be held before hearing Kurtz’s application. He recommended, if the Commission wishes to further discuss this issue, it be placed as an agenda item after the public hearings are held. PAUL RICHARDS, 1345 Romeo Drive, is speaking on behalf of his neighbors who have asked him to present a petition signed by 53 neighbors in the immediate area of the subject development (Kurtz). Richards read the petition which was entered into the record. The petition noted their concerns regarding Kurtz’s development and the connecting of Romeo Drive and Mill Pond Street. They have (1) safety and aesthetic concerns, (2) believe there is a lack of identifiable real benefit to the community, and (3) have expressed their widespread support of the bike path alternative. He and the neighbors are seeking the help of the Commission and specifically, they hope the Commission would consent to direct the city to open a process to officially review this matter. The neighbors would like to be participants inasmuch as they would like to generate information and make presentations that would reflect their concerns. They have great enthusiasm to have a bike path rather than a dead-end street. They believe they have some substantive information to bring forward. Finally, if possible, can the Commission make a determination on this request before November 20, 2000 when the planning fees go up? Richards said they think it would be better for their neighborhood to have a bike path, not a through street. The area has suffered continuously from water and flood problems. They would rather not have more collecting surfaces in their neighborhood. Many in the neighborhood are bikers and walkers and they would love to have something that encourages connecting the neighborhoods that is an alternative means of transportation. The neighbors feel very strongly about the safety issues that seem to be built into the bulb of a cul-de-sac. It features a fire hydrant and parking in the middle of it. It could be an accident waiting to happen. It is hard to imagine people pulling in and out of the center and parking while traffic is trying to go around the circle. Their experience tells them that people use it as a turnaround. They believe there would be more turnaround traffic than through traffic. There is a lot of kid participation in the use of the cul-de-sac. They feel there could be a speeding problem if the street goes through. They have an aesthetic concern. It would be nice to have something lovely that would make a statement about their neighborhood (like Mill Pond) and something that members of the community beyond their neighborhood could also enjoy. They use the cul-de-sac for public gatherings. It has been confusing from a maintenance standpoint just exactly who is responsible for maintaining the curbing, etc. He believes it could be a more significant problem if traffic is traveling through the area. Richards asked, “Is connecting the street really a necessary or a significant benefit to our City?” There may be reasons they do not know about as to why it is needed and why a bike path would not address the need for a connection. The neighbors are aware there was quite a major look at this area in 1995 when the street was added into the plan. When the traffic plan was applied to this neighborhood, whole sections of housing and accompanying streets were not there. At that time Fordyce was very isolated. Today the neighborhood and flow of traffic has changed. He believes it is less clear today than it might have been in 1995 as to why that 150 feet of road is there. In 1995 there were less people there to be affected negatively by the addition of the road. There are a lot more people today as reflected by the 53 signatures. Also, in 1995 when this was brought before the Council, we had yet to have the flood. The flooding in the Romeo Drive area did approximately $100,000 damage. The emphasis on paved road surfaces as a collector has increased in that time. Richards said there are enough concerns that this area warrants examination. The neighbors are willing to spend their time and money looking at how some other alternatives could be made to work that also works for Scott Kurtz. Would the Planning Commission consider opening this up for consideration? Gardiner suggested if the Commissioners wish to discuss this topic that it can be added as an agenda item after concluding the public hearings. Fields is not sure how the Commissioners are supposed to disqualify themselves from doing anything with this request and still look at the two other actions that pertain also to abandoning ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 cul-de-sacs and connecting streets. Gardiner said that is the purpose of discussing the issue after the public hearings. McLaughlin said the Commission has to consider Kurtz’s application by applying the ordinances as they exist when he applied and not based on potential change. Briggs wondered how the Commissioners can decide on Kurtz’s proposal when it really hinges on what the neighbors are asking. Gardiner said it does not hinge on that. Kurtz’s application was before the Hearings Board and the neighbors brought up the same issues. At that time, it was asked to be brought before the full Commission. McLaughlin added that the Commissioners cannot change the street dedication map and not require the street. That is a Comprehensive Plan Map requirement and ordinance requirement that can only be changed by the Council. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2000-091 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 1.32 ACRE PARCEL, TW0-LOT LAND PARTITION AND A SITE REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED AT THE END OF CLOVER LANE APPLICANT: WILLIAM H. THOMPSON The applicant has asked the hearing be continued at the December meeting. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2000-090 REQUEST FOR LAND PARTITIONS TO DIVIDE THREE LOTS INTO SEVEN PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 556 FORDYCE STREET. THIS PROPOSAL ULTIMATELY INCUDES THE IMPROVEMENT OF ROMEO DRIVE SOUTH TO MILL POND ROAD. APPLICANT: SCOTT KURTZ PUBLIC HEARING SCOTT KURTZ, 676 Liberty Street, is asking for approval of his application. He believes it meets the criteria for approval. His intention is not to build the road until the neighborhood committee has had an opportunity to see their request through to completion. The road has a dedicated right-of-way. He is willing to start building on the westerly lots (1 and 2). He will not start building on the remaining lots that are off the proposed Romeo Drive until the road is completely developed. He would have a year to amend his application so if the efforts to amend the transportation map are completed within the year, Kurtz will amend the design of the road to meet the final design the Commission and City Council deem appropriate. Kurtz supports the neighborhood efforts and their opposition to the road. He believes the connectivity is important but he does not see the need for the automobile connection in this case. It was never designed to be connected and there are significant safety issues. Since Munson Drive was connected through Ashland Village to Mountain Avenue, we now have two ways for safety vehicles to get to Romeo Drive. There are three avenues of direction to get to that end of Mill Pond. He believes his lots would be adequately served by having driveways off of each end (two off Mill Pond and two off of Romeo Drive). He agrees with the neighbors that a connected bike path/sidewalk would enhance the neighborhood. This is an opportunity to have a multi- modal connection that excludes automobiles and he believes this is an appropriate place to try it. He would encourage the Commission to direct Staff to look at the transportation plan for the connection between Romeo Drive and Mill Pond. Gardiner apologized for not asking for a Staff Report before Kurtz’s public testimony. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Hearn had a conversation with Andy Burt concerning what was said in the preliminary remarks made by Paul Richards. The substance is what Richards testified to earlier. Gardiner spoke with Kurtz about a month before the Hearings Board about procedural issue. STAFF REPORT Knox said this application was originally approved as a Type I. It was called up in September and in October it went to the Hearings Board. There were a number of neighbors that came to that meeting. The applicant changed positions regarding the street and the Hearings Board preferred the full Commission try to make a decision to resolve the issue. The proposal is for seven lots. Clear Creek goes through the property and is a protected drainage channel. The applicant shows an easement over it which will not be encroached upon. The criteria for the application is noted on the back of the notice map. Criteria G notes the applicant is required to improve streets when they are adjacent to them. The street in question was originally noted on the City’s transportation plan map. In 1996 a Minor Land Partition was proposed by a previous property owner. At that time, the individual dedicated the street. The applicant is proposing to create those lots and improve the extension. The street is proposed to be a 22 foot wide paved surface and a six foot parkrow and a five foot sidewalk. Knox said Staff is recommending approval of the application. The applicant has met all the requirements for approval. There are eight Conditions attached to the application. Gardiner asked if it would up to the City to determine the configuration of the Romeo Drive cul-de- sac/parking/fire hydrants. Knox said when Romeo Drive was originally approved (1990) the applicants skewed the tip of the cul-de-sac. The street was always intended to go through. The City’s Engineering Department knew it would be a future street connection. From Knox’s communication with the Engineering Department, he believes the connection will work Fire trucks can get around the 20 foot radius. Fields asked if the storm drainage system uses the creek. Knox said the four lots on the west side of the creek have a storm easement that connects back to Fordyce Street. There is also a connection in the Mill Pond area. Public Works has said there is not a storm related issue. PUBLIC HEARING ANDY BURT, 1355 Romeo Drive, said he disputes this would be a safe corner with the road connecting. He said the neighbors are worried they will look back if this goes through and it will be a dangerous situation. There are people that will come to the intersection and turn left immediately and not go around the circle. There is no other roundabout in the city. No matter how it is configured, people will cut across the parking lot and turn left immediately right into the traffic. The alternative plan the neighbors have presented does not change the concept of connecting neighborhoods. They believe their proposal is more consistent with the bigger vision. Narrowing the road will discourage people from walking and riding their bikes. He asked the Commission to consider the alternative proposal. PAUL RICHARDS, 1345 Romeo Drive, said he supports Kurtz’s development. Their only reservation is the road. He is hoping to pursue a minor modification that would bring about a change in the plan and the addition of a bike path. He presented a statement into the record. PATTY RICHARDS, 1345 Romeo Drive, said they have not had that much precipitation this year ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 so far and their back yard is sopping. She is concerned if we get another flood what that might look like in her area. She is concerned about safety. She knows that trucks can get around their turnaround but she doubts drivers will look at arrows drawn on the pavement. She believes they will drive left coming from Mill Pond. SCOTT TURRELL, 1335 Romeo Drive, supports Kurtz’s application. He has begun to feel more strongly that they need to look at the street situation. He believes the neighbors have come up with some reasonable ideas for alternative connections that he supports. The emergency issue is a concern for him. The following had comments but did not oppose the application: LINDA SMITH TURRELL, 1335 Romeo Drive KAREN GREEN, 1365 Romeo Drive JEFFREY BENSON, 1315 Romeo Drive CONNIE MAGARIAN, 1315 Romeo Drive BETTE KINSELLA, 1320 Romeo Drive Rebuttal Kurtz said it is his understanding that the curbing lets the water run right into Roca Creek. Knox wanted to make sure the Commissioners understand the actual street improvement. Condition 4 discusses a deed restriction for three lots. If there is going to be some development that is partitioned out of the whole project, we would want a monetary bond instead of just a deed restriction. McLaughlin said it is in an ordinance requirement that if you have a partition or subdivision as a full street improvement, either the street improvement has to be complete or it has to be fully bonded before issuing a building permit. Kurtz said he can understand that for the lots fronting the future Romeo Drive. He has to put up a sizable amount of money that he receives no interest on for a year. He believes this is a significant burden. McLaughlin said it has to be resolved at some point to see who is responsible for the road construction. Kurtz said his intention is not to build the road until the road issue has been resolved. Briggs noted that Parcels 3 and 4 are reversed on the notice map. McLaughlin said Condition 4 could be amended by adding wording after the middle sentence saying a lien in the amount of one-third the amount of the street improvements shall be placed on each lot (5, 6 and 7). COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs asked when Romeo Drive was built. McLaughlin said it was approved in 1990 and built out in the next couple years. When the subdivision was approved, the Planning Commission recommended it would ultimately connect with Mill Pond Road. The street plug was put in place at that time. There is also a street plug at the end of Mill Pond Road. This was explicitly taken before the Planning Commission and City Council for a public hearing and made a part of the street dedication map in 1995. The plan, even in 1990, was for Romeo to connect with Mill Pond Road. Hearn moved to approve PA2000-090 with the attached Conditions and the amended Condition 4. The motion was seconded by Fields. Morris asked if it changed Condition 3. Knox said all the things designed in the original plan and ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 a value placed on that would be the lien amount. The motion carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 2000-082 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OUTLINE PLAN FOR A 25-LOT SUBDIVISION. THE AMENDMENT INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF SUBDIVISION LOTS FROM 25 TO 20, AS WELL AS A CHANGE TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STREET SYSTEM THAT HAD PROPOSED CONNECTION TO STRAWBERRY WITH HITT ROAD. APPLICANT: DOUG NEUMAN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar gave some background on this action as outlined in the Staff Report. The original approval involved 25 lots and three property owners (Brown - 8, Hwoshinksy - 5). This modification does not affect either of those two properties. It involves the 11 acres south of Strawberry and west of Hitt Road (Neuman’s property). It was comprised of two existing parcels (five acres and six acres) that split the north/south property line. The eastern half has been sold and is no longer included in the subdivision. This application involves the western portion, just over six acres. The original proposal was to loop the road and connect to Hitt Road. Since it is under separate ownership, the applicant has suggested a looped road design as a modification that would enter and exit to Strawberry Lane. The center will be a landscaped area. The number of lots in the subdivision will drop from 25 to 21. In addition, in lieu of having a street connection to the south, the applicant has suggested a pathway design that would come between Lots 3 and 4 then head south and ultimately switch back and connect to upper Hitt Road at the very southern part of the project. Molnar stated one concern is with the nine oak trees on the property. There are some trees that are very close to the curbline as well as building envelopes. Staff is concerned that as construction improvements occur, could be damaged and reduce the opportunity for the trees to survive the construction. Therefore, the applicant has made some modifications to the street design and building envelopes. On Lot 2, rather than having a 20 foot dimension from the center of the trunk to the edge of where a home could be built, they are now showing 20 feet from roughly the edge of the canopy to the building envelope. Staff now feels the concerns regarding the trees have been met. Overall, the density is still well within the allowable for 25 acres. The base density would be 24 lots. They are proposing 21. The development potential in this area is rather limited. Staff has recommended approval of this application. There is a private driveway that serves about five homes in the county. There is a concern about how public street improvements of Strawberry will affect that access and how that transition would occur. Staff is suggesting a Condition 21. When the application goes to Final Plan, that the engineered design for Strawberry Lane and Westwood Street improvements accommodate a driveway approach for the existing private driveway at its intersection with Strawberry Lane or Westwood Street. Hearn wondered about the interplay between the City and the county. Molnar said they are ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 looking at the private drive purely from a design aspect. Molnar suggested a possible Condition 22 as noted in the Conclusions. With regard to the path, there is an opportunity if the property subdivides there could be a path across the contours to make a more direct connection. Condition 22 suggests that when the path is going along the north/south access along the property line, it should touch the property line so at a later date, if there is an interest or possibility of extending the public easement that there is a sliver of no- man’s land in between. There is a five foot sliver that is owned by the homeowner’s association before you get to the actual public easement. The public easement should abut the property line. PUBLIC HEARING TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, said he was available to answer questions. DOUG NEUMAN said of the 25 lots, he has 11. He had the opportunity to sell one of the lots and build one home on 4.5 acres. It seemed like a good thing to reduce the density. Briggs’ main concern is Hitt Road. Will it be as originally proposed? Giordano said it would. Originally, they showed pullouts for parking but Public Works said the parking bays have not worked well. The street will be 22 feet and will accommodate parking on one side. Brigss wondered if the path would be open to the general public. Giordano said he and his client would like to see it kept private, but they understand that most want a public path. If it is required, they will make it a public path. Briggs asked about the ponds. Giordano said they will be in the same general location. He said it has not yet been determined if the ponds will work. Gardiner asked if the applicants were agreeable to Condition 22. Neuman and Giordano were both agreeable. TIM BRANDY, 240 Strawberry Lane, said he favors the change in the subdivision because of the lower density. He lives on Strawberry and sees the one drawback is that it is narrow. Alnutt is only wide enough for one vehicle. He hopes the City will look at better traffic patterns. He knows the paving of Strawberry is inevitable. When ice forms on the pavement, he will not be able to travel Strawberry because it will not be safe. Hitt Road is a popular area. On weekends there are four to five cars parked there now. He favors the parking bays. He hoped there will be some area made for parking. He believes folks will use the path that will be provided and thinks it is important that it is public. Brandy reiterated that the oak trees are important to preserve. He would hope the applicant would take into account other native plants on the property. On the plateau on Strawberry is one of the few remaining northern most patches of milkweed. Milkweed is a plant that Monarch butterflies absolutely have to have to survive. The caterpillars eat milkwood. The migration of Monarch butterflies to Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara has all but vanished. He would hope they look at the milkweed and plant more of it. PAUL KAY, 1234 Strawberry Lane, explained that he lives in unincorporated area in Jackson County. He believes good planning takes in an awareness of neighboring uses. It is important and he feels this has been dismissed as a detail to be taken care of later along with the road. The area along the easement needs to be documented on paper before another utility line goes through or paving equipment causes the trees to fall before anyone knows what to do. Kay has had conversations with Neuman and Neuman has agreed verbally to pay for abandoning a section of the easement and pay for continuing the road. He would like to document the agreement tonight and make it clear and enforceable that this will happen. If a change of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 ownership occurs this detail might not be taken care of. NEUMAN explained the reason nothing has been formalized is that the engineering and construction drawings have not happened yet. He is part of a subdivision with other owners. He knows they are all in agreement and they want to take care of the road because it is clearly the right thing to do. Molnar said the intent of Condition 21 is to ensure that the driveway approach was accommodated. The best location is near the “T” where Westwood comes down. Neuman said the connection to the county lane will be maintained. Molnar said Condition 21 states that. The design will be put forth at Final Plan and if Kay has objections, he can speak to it then. Kay said, more importantly, is being aware of adjacent land uses--county lands in the Forest Resource zoned land. The activities that are intended to take place on these lands may be perceived with being incompatible with urban land uses. It is important to those who want to buy in this area know these are the conditions they are moving in next to rather than being surprised. His concern is to preserve the ability to use these lands for their intended purposes without unnecessary conflicts with urban neighbors. He submitted for the record the Forest Resource zoning from the Jackson County code. Forest operations could include a caretaker residence, forest worker housing, temporary labor camps, machinery, mill, chippers--dusty, noisy equipment. Kay would like the neighbors to sign something so they understand they are near forest land that is intended for specific uses. He would like to ask some type of covenant be recorded for further property transfer to occur in the entire 20 acre subdivision. McLaughlin said Jackson County has something in their ordinance that requires a restrictive covenant. Ashland does not have such a covenant. McLaughlin said we can put this information in the record and make it available. Kay objects to taking another incremental step in the approval process without officially acknowledging adjacent uses as they are existing. He would like to emphasize the responsibility that is owed to the city residents who will be purchasing one of these lots so they will not be disappointed in the future. Unnecessary conflict can be avoided by dealing with this now. Rebuttal GIORDANO said Neuman has a conservation easement that will prevent any development from occurring in this particular area. The modifications show a 100 foot buffer that separates the county property from the city property. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn thought there had always been a lot of pressure on the applicant to decrease the density on this project. This application does that and, given the traffic challenges there, he believes it is an improvement. He favors the proposal. Briggs and Hearn felt it was important to make sure Condition 20 makes it clear the path should be open to the public. Molnar added that the pathway be a minimum of six feet in width. Molnar suggested the wording for Condition 22: That the public pathway easement shall abut the east property line that adjoins the property line for a minimum width of six feet. Briggs asked Molnar to clarify the language so it doesn’t sound like it would touch the property line at only one point. Gardiner said Condition 22 would roll back into Condition 20 for a total of 21 Conditions. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Hearn moved to approve with the Conditions just read which include the public easement. Kistler seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER There will be a Study Session on November 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m., possibly at Hillah Temple for the kick-off the Railroad Property Master Plan. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF INITIATION OF A TYPE III PLANNING ACTION TO AMEND THE TRANSPORATION PLAN MAP. MELANIE MINDLIN, 1338 Seena Lane, urged the Commission to move forward with the neighbor’s proposal. Ideally there would be a bike and pedestrian path instead of a road connecting. There is no one who needs to have this road for cars. Everyone has adequate car access in this area. Things have changed since 1995 with respect to additional access for fire purposes through Ashland Village. There is a lot of talk about neo-traditional planning. Mindlin lived in the Railroad District at one time and the place neighbors got together to talk was in the alley. Everyone loved the Railroad District because there were charming alleys. There is a potential in the Romeo neighborhood to have a similar kind of thing. There are small open spaces with pathways and bikeways through them that give their neighborhood a special character. They would like to improve that further and add to it. Mindlin mentioned biking. One cannot bike safely on Fordyce Street because there are no bike paths. There is a policy within the city to reduce the size of the streets, primarily to decrease our impervious surfaces because of too much water runoff. The best alternative is to seek out side streets. The bikeway they are proposing would provide this type of connection. It would be a safer alternative. Gardiner said he believes Staff could go on at length why cul-de-sacs are not the preferred type of road system that we are looking for. We are looking at ways to continue and create connectivity in the neighborhoods that are being planned. He is sure each Commissioner could give a testimonial why there is, from a planning perspective, a reason why this road needs to continue through. With almost every subdivision development that comes before the Commission, he has noted that if people had their druthers, they would rather live on cul-de-sacs because there is no through traffic. The Commission wants to avoid doing this because it segregates neighborhoods rather than keeping them together. In looking at the neighborhood request, they have to figure out how that fits in the overall picture. The problem is, when you start to say it looks like a good idea for this project not to have a through street, it is a precedent for every other variance that someone wants. PAUL RICHARDS, 1345 Romeo Drive, said that he chatted with Carole Wheeldon. They walked around the cul-de-sac. She had been involved with it when it came before the Council. He discussed the precedent issue with her. Wheeldon was not aware of another cul-de-sac in the city that had the parking and fire plug in the center as well as the amount of connectivity surrounding it that theirs did. She expressed that it was a one of a kind situation and would not come up again and it would not really establish a precedent. He has tried to look at it more broadly but this is a unique case. Fields said he does not see it as being unique because Fordyce is narrow. More and more traffic is backing out to Fordyce. He finds it difficult to drive a car through there. If the street were to go through, Romeo would end up picking up traffic, thereby reducing traffic on Fordyce. When we look at New Urbanism, what they say is that traditional cul-de-sac, exclusive use, all the collectors get loaded up and become impossible to live on. If we spread the traffic out in a grid and have ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 many different alternative routes, there is a more even flow of traffic through all the neighborhoods. Everyone else absorbs the impact of their cul-de-sac. While they have the reserved private space--that is why everyone loves cul-de-sacs--everyone becomes very attached to their cul-de-sacs and then they do not want it to change. Briggs moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Fields seconded the motion and all approved. Mindlin noted that people that lived on Mill Pond signed the petition. Hearn has heard what Mindlin has to say with regard to bike and pedestrian versus the auto. He believes in many cases the automobile is not compatible with bikes. Then you look at Ordinance 2698--what if it encourages bike and pedestrian but not automobile? Do you assume all are compatible and equal? This seems to be a neighborhood that is interested in real modal equity. Kistler said most people would consider one of the nicest areas to bike or walk is the Railroad District. What makes that so easy is that it is the neighborhood with the most equal spread of traffic patterns and grids. Streets run short blocks, it has alleys, it has cross alleys. When you try to solve the problem of making one 200 foot radius quieter, you just put that burden on someone else. In this case, maybe the reason Fordyce is so non-bike friendly is that the development of the neighborhood to date is having to carry the big load of traffic but when Kirk Lane goes through and some of the others, Fordyce should not have to carry the whole load. However, we can’t ever get there if we allow cul-de-sacs. Kistler loves cul-de-sacs. He would love to live on one. He, however, supports connectivity in the city so everyone shares the load. Briggs agrees with what is being said. She mentioned Andres Duany who talks about the grid. Spreading the load is one. You don’t have to delivery trucks go the extra distance In spite of all that the neighbors have said, she finds herself in favor of the grid. She wondered about perhaps taking the parking out of the center and allowing cars to park around the perimeter leaving a more open visible space for cars that may have to turn. JEFF BENSON, 1313 Romeo Drive, said currently since there is only parking on one side, and it is necessary for him to completely turn around at the cul-de-sac to return facing Fordyce to park his vehicle. If they proposed to remove the center, it would have to be designed in such a way they could still make a U-turn. He is not sure there is room to do that. Benson added that what makes this street unique is he does not see how this street can be made to go through. He does not believe they would be setting a precedent. Knox said he believed the parking in the middle benefits the neighborhood because it becomes more of an obstacle for traffic. Removing it might not be an advantage. ANDY BURT, 1355 Romeo Drive, believes people do not ride their bikes on Fordyce because there is not a place to ride a bike. He believes the reason people walk around the Railroad District is not because there is numerous spiderweb of roads but because there are wide roads, sidewalks, beautiful trees--it is a beautiful area. By narrowing the streets with everything being connected that which doesn’t allow for bikes because we are slowing traffic, we are discouraging the very thing that the city stands for and that is to provide and encourage alternative transportation. If you build a road, cars are going to use it. It is going to be busy everywhere. DOUG GREEN, 1365 Romeo Drive, said he understands the philosophy of sharing the burden of traffic. He just does not believe a one size fits all will necessarily work. It is going to be a funny- looking intersection and a dangerous street. PAUL RICHARDS, wants to direct the Commissioners attention back to what makes this worth ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000 looking at. They have safety concerns worth examining. They do have water problems in that area. They do have a parking area with a fire hydrant in the middle. It is a better benefit if cars are moving through the area. He feels there is enough uniqueness to warrant looking at this. Gardiner said that even though this is not within the Commission’s purview, this group is asking the Commission to take a particular action. Since the Commission does not meet before November 20th, the option is to take a vote to see if we want to pursue it. McLaughlin said the Planning Commission’s role is to look at city-wide issues--something that applies to a broad range of properties and policies. This is getting down to whether or not this is a unique situation. Is this something perhaps the neighborhood should be advocating for? He is afraid Staff would be saying the same thing the Commissioners are saying. The neighborhood seems to be a stronger lead in this case. McLaughlin said the Commission could end up being the final decision-maker in this. Chapman understood that the City works under the policy of connectivity. Molnar said the street dedication map is specific. SCOTT KURTZ, 676 Liberty Street, said he is not suggesting they should abandon the right-of- way. The 36 feet would remain. However, rather than pave it for automobiles, improve it for bikes and pedestrians and have a larger parkrow. Kurtz asked about the prior decision. Did the Commission not just approve a cul-de-sac with a pedestrian path? McLaughlin said the connection was not explicit on the street dedication map. The connection encouraged but not required. The other part is that the Neuman application is very low density. Fields said an individual advocacy neighborhood could bring this to the Commission. It needs to be done in a public hearing. PAUL RICHARDS said they are here because this was the avenue they were told to use. Fields moved that the Commission not accept the request to initiate an action. The Commission declines to carry the initiative forward, but look forward to looking at it in a public hearing. He feels it would be reasonable to keep it at the current fee. Chapman seconded the motion and it carried with Hearn and Amarotico voting “no”. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 11 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2000