Loading...
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