HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-10 Planning MIN
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:03 p.m. Other
Commissioners present were Giordano, Armitage, Bass, Hibbert, Finkle, Bingham, Carr
and Cloer. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates.
Jarvis explained that she had a conversation with David Fisse regarding adoption of
the Findings for the Church Street proposal (PA94-117). He said he did not receive a
notice of last month's meeting. She told him there was no longer an opportunity to
bring any evidence before the Commission. She told Fisse his remedy was to appeal
the decision to the Council and the hearing before the Council would be heard de novo.
She asked for the Commission's input on how to proceed to see if the order of the
agenda should be changed to have the Public Forum prior to the Adoption of the
Minutes and Findings. However, after having talked at length with Paul Nolte, as noted
in Nolte's memo (distributed to the Commissioners) even after addressing the
substantive issues, comments will be just an ex parte contact. The Commissioners
cannot consider it because the record is closed. There is no procedure at this time to
re-begin the hearing.
Giordano asked what the fee would be to appeal to the City Council. McLaughlin
stated it is $250. Jarvis said Fisse could request the City Council waive the fee.
McLaughlin said the Commission could request the Council to call it up on their own
motion.
Jarvis said Staff's records indicate that notice was sent to Fisse's address, the property
was posted, and that everyone else in the neighborhood did receive notice.
Hibbert stated that he spoke to Fisse. Hibbert told Fisse the Public Hearing was
closed. He advised Fisse the Adoption of the Findings would occur at this meeting.
Hibbert told Fisse he could speak to the Commissioners during the Public Forum. He
could speak about notification. After reading Nolte's memo, Hibbert would have to find
in favor of letting the Church Street proposal go on to the Council and having Fisse
approach the Council.
Finkle said if we hear from Fisse before the adoption of the Findings, if something
strikingly new comes up, is there any way to change a decision? Jarvis said there
would not; there is no process to do what Fisse wants to do. (Fisse was given a copy
of Nolte's memo at tonight's meeting).
Hibbert moved to move the Public Forum ahead of Approval of the Minutes and
Findings. Bingham seconded the motion.
McLaughlin said it will be difficult if Fisse speaks and brings up issues that the
applicant does not have an opportunity to rebut. That is why the City Attorney has said
it cannot become part of the record or part of the decision. If the Commissioners
choose to act by listening to Fisse's evidence without listening to rebuttal, it would be a
major procedural flaw in the process.
Even though Armitage was not present at the last hearing and he will not be voting (on
the adoption of Findings), it would be safer to adopt the Findings before the
Commissioners hear from Fisse something that might be used later.
Giordano agreed with Armitage. Why alter the agenda when there is nothing that can
be done? He would like to leave the agenda the way it is.
The vote to change the order of the agenda was: Hibbert and Finkle voted "yes".
Giordano, Armitage, Bingham, Cloer, and Bass voted "no". Jarvis abstained.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Hibbert asked for a change in the Minutes under Commissioners Discussion on Page 4,
paragraph 4, "...there is no legal means at this time to solve the growth problem",
change to "...there are no legal grounds at this time to deny the proposal."
There were no corrections to the Findings.
Hibbert moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the December 13, 1994
meeting, as amended. Cloer seconded the motion with all Commissioners favoring
except Armitage, who abstained.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS FROM THE DECEMBER 13, 1994
HEARINGS BOARD
Giordano, Armitage, and Bingham asked this item be placed toward the end of the
meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
Jarvis reiterated that the Commissioners cannot do anything about the decision that
was made last month. She said if this action goes to City Council and the Council
decided to remand back to the Commission, the Commissioners would have an ex
parte communication that will be difficult to deal with. Jarvis asked Fisse to address the
notice problems.
ASHLAND
PLANNING
COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
David K. Fisse, 125 N. Main Street, quustioned notification of adjacent property
owners. He felt certain facts were unclear and he felt his equal rights had been
violated.
Carr arrived at the meeting.
RON THURNER, 1170 Bellview, questioned that regarding notification, if the
continuation notice went out to the property owners. He thought the posting on the
property should reflect the new date of the hearing also. He suggested the
Commission draft a letter to the Council asking the Council to call this up for a hearing.
Giordano wondered if there was a problem with noticing. He thought posting a sign on
the property was over and above the requirements for noticing. He would like a letter
to be sent to the Council requesting the fee be waived. McLaughlin said a notice for
the second meeting date was mailed, along with filing an affidavit of notice after the
mailing that becomes part of the record. He cautioned recommending to the Council to
waive the fee when a procedural problem did not happen. Staff did not receive any
return mail from Fisse. Fisse's wife is listed as the property owner.
Additional discussion ensued regarding noticing with a suggestion from Carr to obtain a
proof of mailing from the Post Office. Jarvis suggested putting some sort sticker on the
posted notice stating an action as been continued.
Bass was concerned about the Commission recommending to the Council that they
appeal the Church Street action as it could be setting a precedent.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 95-007
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING SECTION OF
THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE, SECTION 18.92, RELATING TO
BICYCLES.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
The Bike Commission initiated this action by wanting some clarifications and
amendments to the bike parking standards. The standards were adopted a few years
ago and in working with the ordinance, some items have been found that need
correcting.
Automobile parking has been specified as such.
ASHLAND
PLANNING
COMMISSION 3
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
Credit for on-street parking - changes are on Page 5, Section D. Parking spaces may
not be counted that are within "15 feet" rather than "25 feet". People park closer to 15
feet from the intersection. People are parking closer than 10 feet to the apron wing too.
Bingham noted that he once got a ticket for parking less than 12 feet from the
intersection. McLaughlin said he would double-check the Municipal Code to make sure
it will not be in conflict with the vision clearance standards. McLaughlin explained the
changes should more accurately reflect what is already happening.
Bingham wondered if there was a requirement that handicap parking spaces be painted
often enough that they are clearly visible. He said if it is not a part of the State's
standards, it should be a part of this ordinance.
Bike Parking
Everything other than single family residences need a couple of sheltered bike parking
spaces per unit. Hibbert asked if the Affordable Housing Committee had reviewed this
section because every requirement that is added becomes an added expense.
McLaughlin said the covered spaces could be provided in different ways such as inside
the garage, extension of awnings, eaves, etc.
Finkle is a strong supporter of encouraging bicycle transportation but he wondered
about Sections A and B (page 6). It would be difficult for every downtown business to
provide sheltered bike parking. A 40-unit senior housing project would require 80
covered bike parking spaces. Finkle said equal rights should be applied to bikes as
those applied to cars. Will the new wording help or hurt the community? The
inflexibility in the wording is his concern.
Jarvis questioned if the downtown overlay should be removed from the ordinance.
Finkle thought a distinction should be made between for example the PayLess Drug
parking lot and businesses where bikes would be parked all day and would need
covered parking. However, there are other places where covered parking shouldn't be
required, for example, in the downtown, the inverted U parking racks work very well.
Armitage considered having a combination of covered and uncovered parking.
McLaughlin said commercial uses require covered and uncovered now.
Hibbert thought this section should be re-written. Finkle thought there were
advantages of a bicyclist being able to ride right up to where they want to go. There
could be some covered parking similar to SOSC in the downtown area, but allow some
flexibility. Hagen suggested the downtown business paying into a parking fund to fund
a central parking area.
ASHLAND
PLANNING
COMMISSION 4
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
McLaughlin thought the Commissioners might like to add the downtown overlay back in
and find ways to fund parking or look at getting central covered parking.
Armitage thought it would be worthwhile for Finkle to meet with the Bike Commission
and work out some wording.
Thurner suggested that in the Historic District or Railroad District where property sizes
are limited, that developers should be allowed some flexibility. Bass thought if an
owner couldn't provide sheltered parking, that the City could collect a fee and a fund
could be used throughout the Historic District or the downtown to provide central
parking.
As a downtown business owner, Bingham suggested that they already pay lots (and
lots) of fees. McLaughlin considered that this could continue with the Downtown Plan.
On page 10, Section C, Finkle asked why 25 percent chosen for the maximum
reduction. McLaughlin said it has been that way for years, but it could be higher.
Finkle would encourage the Commission to move to a higher percentage. Staff said 25
percent works pretty well.
Section H - This section is now consistent with the automobile section. Finkle said he
could understand how this would work when designing new buildings, but when
retrofitting, it might be impossible to comply. McLaughlin said a place in the parking lot
would be considered. If there is an auto space closer to the entrance, the space could
be converted to bike parking.
Page 7 - #3 - Location of bike parking--the aim is to get bike parking close to
entrances.
Page 7 - #4 - Provides for lighting.
Page 7 - #5 - Aisles for parking.
Page 8 - #8 - Bike parking design - this is an attempt to make the bike parking
standards more consistent. The inverted U design is the least expensive to construct,
bicyclists know how to use it, and it is safe. Other cities are using this as a standard.
The dimensions for the bike parking space are for locker spaces.
Page 8 - Section J - Bike Parking Rack Standards
ASHLAND
PLANNING
COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
Finkle would like to see more flexibility given for a parking rack design. He suggested
that it be stated that the design shown is the safest, least expensive and its use is
encouraged. Add some kind of wording: "However, if for your application, you believe
have something that will work as well or better, get approval from Bike Commission."
McLaughlin said we could allow flexibility with no bike racks where the front wheel is
rolled in. Finkle would just like to allow people to present other solutions. Giordano
does not have a problem with using certain City standards.
Finkle and Giordano will meet with a couple of members from the Bike Commission and
working on the bike parking standards.
Page 9 - Paving and Surfacing - bike parking surfacing needs to be a hard surface as
opposed to a dirt area. Finkle asked about down-grade auto parking--water retention
and aesthetics to be a consideration. Brick pavers might be an option. Giordano said
there is a new asphalt paving that allows for percolation of water.
Page 11 - #2 & 3 - Driveway widths & turnarounds - Seven spaces have been
suggested. If there are more than seven spaces, the driveway has to be 20 feet wide.
It is usually the length of the driveway that will cause the conflict. Hibbert believes
there could be more spaces given with the possibility of a variance of up to 14 spaces
mentioned in some circumstances.
PLANNING ACTION
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
PORCHES.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
This action has been discussed at a Study Session in October as an option for
reducing the front yard setbacks. The Planning Commission has the power to define
"unenclosed porches". If there is a problem with interpretation, the City can interpret
their own ordinances. In Staff's opinion, screening and lattice would be enclosed. The
idea is to keep the area of the porch open in relationship to the street. Steps have to
be higher than 18 inches to be part of the porch. This ordinance would apply on in the
R-1 zone. The Commission was interested in adding this to the R-2 and R-3 zone.
Hibbert moved and Giordano seconded the motion to recommend approval of this
ordinance to the City Council.
ASHLAND
PLANNING
COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF THE HEARINGS BOARD -
DECEMBER 13, 1994.
Bingham moved to approve the Minutes and Findings. Armitage seconded the motion
and it was carried.
OTHER
Ashland Street Meeting
Thursday, January 19th, 1995, 7:30 a.m. - Ashland Hills Inn
Railroad District Meeting
Thursday, January 19th, 1995, 7:00 p.m. - Mark Antony Ballroom
There will be a Study Session on January 31st for discussion of the North Mountain
Avenue neighborhood. There will also be a report from Dick Wanderscheid on water
conservation efforts. There will also be election of officers at the Study Session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
ASHLAND
PLANNING
COMMISSION 7
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1995