Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-10 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Armitage, Cloer, Hibbert, Medinger, Powell and Thompson. Carr arrived late. Staff present were Fregonese, McLaughlin, Molnar and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes and Findings of the October 13, 1992 Regular Meeting were approved. The Minutes and Findings of the October 13, 1992 Hearings Board were approved. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 92-117 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR A 12-UNIT MOTEL (BARD'S INN) LOCATED ON THE VACANT CORNER OF HELMAN AND LITHIA WAY (CURRENTLY JONATHON'S PARKING LOT). TESTIMONY AND DISCUSSION SHALL BE LIMITED TO TRAFFIC ISSUES AT THE CORNER OF HELMAN AND N. MAIN STREETS. APPLICANT: JON WARREN Thompson and Powell abstained. Ex Parte Contacts and Site Visits Cloer is familiar with the property. ? Armitage had another site visit. ? Jarvis had another site visit and also noticed the trees were removed. ? STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported that the applicant supplied additional information in response to the concerns discussed at last month's meeting. He referred to a perspective drawing of the Helman corner with the hedgerow removed. There appears to be adequate vision clearance at the corner. McLaughlin noticed, while examining the site, that the stop line at the intersection appears to be back too far. When this issue came before the Traffic Safety Commission, they said they would forward a recommendation to the State Highway Department to move the stop line closer to the light to the the State Highway Department. They made no further recommendations regarding vision clearance or design with regard to the Planning Action. The Engineering Department has reviewed the site plan and elevations and have no recommendations, as there appears to be no problem but it is a State intersection, out of the City's direct control and they do not make formal recommendations at State intersections. When the Italian Cypresses were taken down, it drastically changed the vision clearance. Give the above information, Staff sees no further problems with this application and recommends approval. PUBLIC HEARING Jac Nickels appeared to answer any questions. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage was satisfied that enough people have looked at the application and moved to approve with the previously stated Conditions. Medinger seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE III PLANNING ACTION 92-104 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE STREET DEDICATION MAP OF THE ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MODIFYING THE EXISTING DEDICATION BETWEEN MORTON SREET AND WELLER LANE ON FOREST STREET. MODIFICATIONS AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED MAP. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT This action has occurred because of the Minor Land Partition request on Lot 2000 when it was determined there was street dedication to be done as part of the Minor Land Partition. The street dedication map shows a dedication completely across the property as an extension of lower Forest Street (Alternate A) and this alternate is Staff's recommendation. The other options (B, C, and D) are outlined in the Staff Report. Copies of letters received tonight are marked as follows: Sarah and Bill Walker - Exhibit M-3, Rod Badger (11/10/92) - M-4, Mark and Jenni Danis - M-5. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 Ex Parte Contacts and Site Review Powell had a difficult time finding the stub where Weller Lane was supposed to ? connect. Thompson noticed that from Forest Street there is a path that runs diagonally across ? to Ashland Street. He walked with Cloer and McLaughlin up Weller Lane toward Waterline Road along the ditch to see the feasibility of connecting with pathways to Waterline Road to the area below. Appears it is possible. Medinger is familiar with parts of the area, as well as Badger's property. ? Cloer visted the site and noted the very difficult area off of Cascade and trees that ? would be impacted by the zigzag route. It seems evident that the stub off 620 Weller Lane will be a problem. Armitage had a site visit throughout the area. ? Jarvis had a site visit. ? Hibbert had no site visit. ? PUBLIC HEARING TOM KEEVIL, 600 Ashland Street, showed the location of his house on the map. His property is accessed by way of an easement across the Badger's property. His property will be impacted because the recommended dedication will cross his property boundary. He would be opposed to Alternate C because of the cul-de-sac and because it would be a fire hazard. He believes the street stub was well established off Weller prior to the homes being built. Keevil recalls that the intent of the Planning Commission was to move straight across from the Weller Lane street stub to Cascade. He was concerned when Cascade was constructed because of the tremendous cut and fill that took place. Upon contacting the City, he was told by Engineering that there was an engineered plan by Lewis to finish Cascade Street. Keevil favors Alternate A as it would encourage pedestrian and bike traffic. PAT WOLFE, 650 Forest Street, favors Alternate A. She owns five acres adjacent to Keevil. She recalls the zigzag shape came into being after asking an engineer to design the street. Weller Lane residents knew how this would be developed. Wolfe asked what she would have to do to put in a street if it is dedicated according to Alternate A. McLaughlin responded that she would have to develop the street at the time she decided to develop her property by splitting off additional lots. STEVE JANNUSH, speaking on behalf of Badger, stated that Badger came into the process when Weller Lane and Morton Street were proposed. Badger felt he had convinced the Planning Commission to go with something similar to Alternate B. He ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 wanted that option to occur because of the trees on his property that Badger has spent $15,000 to $20,000 to maintain. Jannusch showed slides of Badger's property and the grove of trees and how several trees could be lost through the zigzag street design. Jarvis would be concerned about the engineering of the street and steepness of the slope on Alternate B. How would the other lots be accessed? Jannusch believes private driveways would be workable. By going with Alternate A, the applicant will be bearing a big expense and forcing the property owner to request maximum density. Medinger wondered why Alternate A would have to cut through so many trees. Fregonese said that by approving Alternate A, it would mean that it is the Planning Commission's policy and intent to connect Weller Lane to Forest Street and the road does not necessarily have to go in a straight line. The road design can be flexible. Jannusch said his client would like to preserve the grove of trees. ROD BADGER, 610 Ashland Street, referred to his letter. In 1983 and 1984, previous Planning Commissions had clearly established their intent to connect Weller and Morton through Cascade Street. The way he intends to develop his property depends on this connection. The zigzag appeared on the map without any public review and he does not know how it appeared on the map. This will effect the entire use of his property, increasing the cost of development tremendously. He would like the Commission to look at the record from 1983 and 84. Thompson asked if Badger would consider using access along the west property line to the remainder of the property. Badger said if they could provide alternate access to the Keevil's property, that they would ask them to vacate their easement through Badger's property. He would access lots from Cascade, his private driveway and Ashland Street. Thompson queried whether Cascade Street had been built in 1983. Badger responded that when Mr. Lewis proposed his extension of Morton, that it was a requirement by the Commission, the Commission insisted that Cascade be connected to stub off of Weller. Morton Street had not yet been built. DONNIE CASTLEMAN, 555 Weller Lane, representative for Weller Lane Homeowners Association, said that as a resident on Weller Lane, he sees the problems with increased traffic on a narrow street. There would be a problem with grade on Alternate A. Maybe there should be other alternatives that haven't been examined. PAT WERLICH, 610 Weller Lane, said she would be impacted if the road went from Weller to Forest. The trees will have to be moved, however, the pine bark beetles infect the whole grove and they won't live that long anyway. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 Thompson thought some pedestrian easement should be included. Medinger asked if anyone remembers how the Forest to Weller connection got on the map. Fregonese vaguely remembered drawing the map and adopting the street dedication. Thompson imagined that Cascade Street was probably selected to connect with Weller, but when Morton Street was actually built, it didn't work out in a feasible way. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Thompson would like to change the ordinance to read "Street, Path and Greenway Dedication". Thompson felt Alternate A considers only the car, not the pedestrian. McLaughlin felt the pedestrian paths should be considered at another time, on a larger scale and looking at different areas. Powell moved to adopt PA92-104 with the deletion of the Forest Street dedication that goes through the Badger property and would instead encourage Forest to connect with Forest as it appears on Alternate A. Armitage seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 92-122 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET OF THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AT 2359 HIGHWAY 66 (KNIGHT'S INN MOTEL). AREA TO BE ANNEXED CURRENTLY IS DEVELOPED MOTEL UNITS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND/BORDEUR & BRODEUR Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Jarvis made the only site visit. ? STAFF REPORT It was recently found that the rear 30 units of the Knight's Inn Motel is out of the City limits at this time and Staff has been working cooperatively with the owner to annex the land into the City. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as E-1. The Ordinance allows for annexation of that area and Staff recommends approval. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth to speak. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hibbert moved to approve, Powell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 92-102 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION LOCATED AT 610 ASHALND STREET TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS WITH ACCESS TO PARCEL 1 (EXISTING HOME) BY WAY OF A FLAG DRIVE (EXISTING DRIVEWAY) OFF ASHLAND STREET. APPLICANT: ROD BADGER Thompson had called this up for a public hearing because of the potential pedestrian access and Cloer disagreed. Cloer felt it would be some time before having the large parcels divided up and it seems too soon to know where the pedestrian access would be placed and thought it should be left to the developer. The action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 92-133 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 25 LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS GUIDELINES LOCATED AT 200 SKYCREST ROAD. APPLICANT: WILEY FAMILY Ex Parte Contacts and Site Visits Powell made a site visit. ? Thompson did not have a site visit. ? Medinger made a partial site visit. ? Hibbert drove by to look at the site and attended the neighborhood meeting at the ? Wiley's house last month. Cloer made a superficial site visit. He contacted a member of League of Women ? Voters, Park Acquisition Committee and Chris Woods who worked on Open Space program since he thought they would not have received a notice. Armitage made no site visit and expressed his frustration at not being able to do an ? adequate job in such a short period of time on such a large proposal. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 Carr had a site visit. She spoke to Chuck Wiley last summer while he was doing a ? traffic count. She lives on the corner of Grandview and Grandview and does not feel she will be biased. Jarvis had a site visit last month, walked around extensivelyand did not see anything ? worth reporting. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported this is a proposal for a 25-lot subdivision in three phases. The Criteria for approval are found in 18.88 of the Performance Standards Option which McLaughlin read. Staff's concerns about the project are outlined in the Staff Report dated November 10, 1992. The applicant has chosen to provide design guidelines that would provide a more flexible location of buildings on parcels. The ordinance specifically requires building envelopes as well as some form of elevation shown for a typical home built in the subdivision. The applicant has not held to that requirement. Criteria C requires that key City faciliites be available to the site. This area is presently under the water moratorium ordinance adopted by the City in 1983. There is a letter of objection to this Planning Action from Allen Drescher. He does not believe one can apply for an application while the moratorium is in place. Staff differs with Drescher's intrepretation because the moratorium ordinance specifically states that planning actions may be processed while the ordinance is in effect. Approval may be given, however, no building permits for construction may be issued except as permitted under Section 8 of the ordinance. Section 8 allows exemptions by the Council. Granting this approval for the subdivision is not in violation of the moratorium ordinance. Steve Hall has a letter included in the packet stating that adequate water pressure will exist for the first phase of this development. With regard to services, paved access is required to and through the development and also that the development will not cause that access to operate beyond capacity. McLaughlin referred to the resolution (91-39) adopted by the Council, specifically, street width. The applicants have provided a traffic study showing that approximately 65 percent of the traffic generated by the subdivision would use Grandview Drive from Skycrest to Scenic as access to the City. That street is less than 20 feet in width and has no further capacity. Without further improvements, the application would not meet the criteria. McLaughlin noted the additional addendum from Kittelson and Associates. Lastly, density bonuses allowed as part of the subdivision are a problem for Staff. The ordinance allows density bonuses for the dedication of open space, however, that open space must be a significant amenity to the property. Much of the area that is proposed for the dedication of open space is over 40 percent slope and may not be used on a ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 daily basis or interacted with by the residents on a daily basis. The applicants have provided "Site Plan Option A", showing how the hillside area could be developed. The other density bonus that the applicants is requesting would be for major recreational facilities. They propose to donate a specific amount of money for development of their open space plan or the Parks Department for a use as they see appropriate. The ordinance states that points may be awarded for the provision of major recreational facilities that are listed. Even though Staff does not necessarily disagree with this proposal, the ordinance is not flexible enough to allow for this. Fregonese addressed Drescher's comments about when compliance is required for the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance. Drescher contends that the applicant has not done a number of things to implement the requirments of these standards. The P&E ordinance states in 18.62.040, that a Type I permit is required for any development. Outline Plan Approval does not allow any development. The letter from Parks and Recreation Commission (11/10/92) will be marked as a miscellaneous exhibit, the revised letter from Kittelson will be entered a proponent exhibit, and the letter from Douglas Huecker (11/9/92) will be entered as an opponent exhibit. Cloer wondered if there was any merit in considering a density bonus with the open space creating a buffer to the residents. McLaughlin said the way the ordinance is written that would have to be the finding the Commission would have to make. Open space to the community is extraneous with regard to the density bonus. Powell asked about the street capacity issue. McLaughlin answered that Wimer Street is not at capacity under the Resolution because Wimer Street is a collector street. The capacity issues of grade (18%) only apply to residential streets and subcollector streets. PUBLIC HEARING CHUCK WILEY, 2790 Donnalee Drive, Medford, OR 97504, stated that this property has been owned by his family for the better part of a century. Up until five years ago, City water was being used for irrigation. The water moratorium came into effect when his mom was ready to retire. They'd been using more water than most people for years and years and were placed under a moratorium, yet across the street building continued. They have never restricted anyone from walking through their property. They want to keep control of the property to make sure it is done properly so they don't have a poorly done development. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 TOM GIORDANO, 349 E. Main Street, #4, agent for the Wiley family, addressed Staff's concerns. He feels the requirement for exterior elevations and building envelopes are a poor idea. When an architect is building a house for someone, the designer looks at the needs and desires of the client, the land and the design constraints and opportunities, and ordinances to come up with a suitable design. By asking for that at the front end of the process, is just backwards. That is the reason for design guidelines, archtectural review, and the CC&R's. There are a few places that Grandview Drive is less than 20 feet wide. Jim Olson, Engineering told Giordano about once a year the road is bladed to a width of 20 feet. There should be no problem keeping the slope of Skycrest under 15 percent. Giordano said he thought the residents of the subdivision will see value everyday that a certain area will be left in open space. The open space could be developed, but the applicant's proposal is more sensitive, leaving the area as open space and also providing a benefit to the community at large. A recreation area could be developed, but the applicant would rather work with the City and use the money to the cost effective means. Passive recreation has a value. BILL WILEY, believes that the water moratorium has been over-reaching in length and inappropriately applied. Bill's mother has paid over $100,000 in taxes, the property has been down-zoned, the 40 percent rule has been imposed, the street capacity ruling is in effect. Notwithstanding, Wiley believes they have complied with the ordinances as they exist. McLaughlin noted that with regard to development of adjacent lands, it is Staff's opinion that the proposal should allow for the extension of Skycrest Drive to the Hald property. Giordano feels the road should not be extended. Many of the neighbors now living in the area do not wish to have the road extended. The Hald property will have access when Westwood or Sunnyview is extended to Strawberry Lane. Jarvis stated that the procedure for approval of Outline Plan is very clear and indicates it should contain elevations of typical proposed structures and building envelopes. It is the Planning Commission's job to intrepret the ordinance, they cannot change it. Giordano feels strongly that the design guidelines meet and address the criteria. Giordano asked Fregonese if the design could be used in lieu of elevations. Fregonese said that the Commission would have to find that they met those requirements--the design guidelines had building envelopes and those standards. Because the ordinance is very specific, it could open up the applicant for appeal. Fregonese suggested that they could convince the Commission that the combination of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 a rather loose building envelope and the design guidelines would be sufficient, but some form of building envelope would have to show the maximum location and height of structures. Fregonese liked the guidelines and a case could be made that it would allow more discretion in building envelope selection, but to be safe, it would be good to include a minimal envelope and some elevations that could be included as part of the record. Jarvis added that for the Commission to approve something that could be so easily challenged, would be frivolous. Powell and Medinger were in agreement with Jarvis. Giordano said envelopes and elevations will be provided. BARBARA ALLEN favored the proposal. BOB FISHER, 510 Gutherie, favored the proposal. KIRA & MIKE MIRSKY, 290 Skycrest, ideally would like to see no development but favored this proposal. They would rather have the Wileys contribute to this development and exercise their taste and judgment to develop the land. TOM HOWSER, 363 Grandview, said that his access is Skycrest. There are not many subdivisions that every neighbor favors. They are in favor for a variety of reasons. The illegal moratorium has lasted for 10 years. Mrs. Wiley has to jump through more hoops. Again, everyone surrounding the Wileys are building like crazy, while they are being told they cannot build. Wildfire danger in this development in this proposal is a phoney issue. Howser would love to have the area developed, the dead grass cut, green grass planted. That would be protection for him against fire. It would be extremely expensive and difficult to extend Skycrest. He has a plat showing the extension of Westwood to the Strawberry Lane area. If the road were extended, it would turn into a race track and a hazard. If there is value in the development of Logan Drive and the Kneebone property, why when the criteria are adequately addressed, is the applicant being held hostage for such a long time. DR HALD, 600 Roca Street, favored the development. He disagrees that people will be zipping here and there if Skycrest is extended. He believes there is not enough known about the area to know where the road should go. The purpose of the Planning Commission is to take a long view of things. GREGG LININGER, 250 Skycrest Drive, favors the proposal. HENRY KNEEBONE, 449 Orchard Street, owns the property across the street on Sunnyview. Kneebone expressed concern about the street width of only 22 feet and parking spaces on Sunnyview. He objects to the proposal until after a study is done and streets are made wider. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 ALAN ERWIN, 300 Grandview Drive, explained that the reason he lives where he does is because he likes living at one end of the Ditch Road. He is glad the developers have a good feel for what should be done. The Planning Commission needs to face the difficulty this area has such as the roads. Also, he is concerned that decisions made now concerning the open space area that could be premature. ALLEN DRESCHER, 275 Grandview Drive, read from the water moratorium. "Planning actions may be processed.....". The effective date of approval of such planning actions will be upon appeal of this ordinance. The Commission cannot give final approval of this application as long as that ordinance is on the books. There is good reason to say we may process the application, but not give it final approval--then it makes no sense to process it. He has urged the applicants to withdraw their application until some of the problems are worked out. The development standards have to be met at the time Outline Plan is filed. The Outline Plan has failed to meet the specifications in at least eight areas. Jarvis asked Drescher about the moratorium ordinance, section 7, of Planning Action, subsection B. It appears to Jarvis that the action could be approved tonight but it would not become effective until this ordinance is found to be illegal. Did Drescher agree? Drescher responded that yes, the approval would not be effective until the moratorium is repealed. Jarvis said we could approve it, it just wouldn't be an effective approval. Drescher agreed. They both agreed they have the option not to process the planning action. SUSAN HUNT, 220 NUTLEY, referred to the Comp Plan goal about preserving forest land, policy 38. She is concerned that every bush and tree would be removed within 40 feet of a dwelling. McLaughlin explained all dead and dying vegetation be removed around structures for a fuel break, with other vegetation adequately thinned. Fuel breaks do not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. TOM PYLE, 571 S. Mountain, member of Ashland Parks and Recreation said he has not taken a position. He reiterated concerns about taking action prior to the end of the moratorium. He is concerned about the availability of the Hald property and the cost of the open space to the citizens. He did not know if the 40 percent grade on the open space area follows the Planning Commission guidelines. He would hope for a continuance. Pyle read the letter from the Parks and Recreation Department. CHRIS HALD, 275 Cambridge Street, with regard to Pyle's comments, felt it is out of line for the City to discuss property values. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 11 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 GIORDANO, rebuttal, said they went along with Staff's recommendation with regard to the street width. They will be developing in phases. As Steve Hall pointed out, the first phase could be done today. Each phase can stand by itself. He believes the fire danger will be lessened upon development. The applicants feel they should get a bonus density for open space. He reiterated that the Parks Department does not want Skycrest to go through. Jarvis wondered what Giordano would think about 21 homes. Giordano said a case could be made for recreation. The open space has a value to everyone in the community. Jarvis said--"Because I'm not going to do something, I want bonus points?" Chuck Wiley said they tried to alter their first plan so it would be to the City's liking. Medinger said there are Commissioners agree with Giordano. Fregonese said that the Open Space Plan called for the area to be acquired. The applicants made a good case for density bonus for open space. The problem is that giving $75,000 in exchange for density, it should be written down. The ordinance has to be read literally. Giordano wanted clear direction if this hearing is continued. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION The applicant needs to provide building envelopes and elevations. Powell had serious questions about approving the Outline Plan without having the study session that looks at all the properties that will be affected with the moratorium is lifted. She does not have a problem with Phase I. Medinger asked Staff if there is a transportation plan for that area. McLaughlin said there is a connection between Strawberry and Westwood and another where Sunnyview extends to Strawberry Lane. Medinger would like to have the transportation map next time. With regard to the width of Grandview, Hibbert thought it would be possible to make it wider than 20 feet. Hibbert wondered if it had to be paved. McLaughlin said the criteria for approval requires paved access to and through the development. There is paved access to the development from Wimer, Wrights Creek and Grandview. There are other sections of the ordinance in the subdivision code stating that major access to the subdivision shall be paved to full City standards. The street capacity resolution does not refer to surfacing. Medinger feels that argument can be made that there is paved access along Wimer. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 12 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 The traffic study says that 65 percent of the traffic will use Grandview. The Commission recommded Option 3 to the applicants. Hibbert thought the applicants should consider making it possible to extend Skycrest at some future time. Medinger thought it would behoove the applicant to review individual points made by Drescher to make sure they are literally addressing them. POWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE MEETNG UNTIL 11:30 P.M. CARR SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS APPROVED. There was disagreement among the Commissioners about how they could get bonus points. Armitage stated that "similar facilities" could be classified as trails and other amenities is considered a recreational facility by some. Cloer thought the term "major" should be considered. A tennis court might not accommodate many people. Hibbert is talking about the facilities on that open space that are passive, but major. The applicant agreed to continue for another 60 days. Carr moved to continue this action. Hibbert seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. This will probably be continued in January. The Commissioners expressed an interest in an on-site visit. A video will be done and entered into the record. McLaughlin said the earliest time that a Study Session can be held to discuss the future of this area would be in the spring. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTIOPN 92-109 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 18.96 (OFF-STREET PARKING) OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT 50 PERCENT OF ALL REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING BE COVERED AND PROTECTED FROM WEATHER. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT See attached report. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 13 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth to speak. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hibbert moved to approve, Powell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER The Commission needs a resolution to initiate a planning action to modify a policy of the transportation plan which discourages thru traffic in neighborhoods through design. Carr moved and Powell seconded and all approved. Thompson asked Staff to work on 18.22 to add the word "pathways" throughout. Hibbert moved and Medinger seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 14 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1992