Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-12 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Russ Chapman Allen Douma Dave Dotterrer Olena Black John Stromberg Mike Morris Kerry KenCairn Michael Dawkins Absent Members: : None Council Liaison: Jack Hardesty, absent Staff Present: John McLaughlin, Planning Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS – There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Black/Dotterrer m/s to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2005 Regular Meeting. Voice Vote: All approved.. PUBLIC FORUM – No one came forth to speak TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: #2005-00873 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 905 N. Mountain Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Medinger Construction Company DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Review approval for eight mixed-use buildings comprised of commercial and residential condominiums for the property located at 905 N. Mountain Ave. A parking structure will be located below the buildings. This is the third phase of the Quinn Subdivision, and is .80 acres located between N. Mountain Ave., Plum Ridge Dr., and the future street named Fair Oaks Court. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by Chapman, Douma, Dotterrer, Black, Stromberg, Morris, KenCairn and Dawkins. Fields is familiar with the site. KenCairn is working with one of Medinger’s contractors on another project and she could have a potential conflict of interest. She feels she can make an impartial decision. What was seen on site visit that would influence them in any way? Dawkins visited the site. Stromberg saw the large blackberry berm. Black listened to the ambient noise coming from the freeway. How noisy should a “village green” be? Douma found that his site visit helped put all the diagrams in the packet into perspective and allowed him to have a better sense of what was going on. Douma and Dotter found that the site visit helped put all the diagrams in the packet into perspective and allowed them to have a better sense of what was going on. Non of the Commissioners felt anything about their site visit would influence them one way or the other. STAFF REPORT Molnar gave some historical background on this application as outlined in the Staff Report. Staff approved the application administratively and it was called up for a public hearing. The proposal involves the last .8 of an acre that is within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area and Central Overlay District (neighborhood commercial district) allowing for mixed use (ground floor commercial/residential above). Molnar showed photos of the site and site plans. Access to the project is off the south alley. An item of concern raised by a neighbor requesting the public hearing is the status of the alley and the large area of blackberry bushes within the public right -of-way. The applicant’s landscaping plan shows removal of the blackberries and replanting it with a more formal landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to construct eight buildings, consisting of 20 condominium spaces, 16 of which are residential and four commercial. The four commercial condominiums are on the ground floor. There is no off-street parking requirement in the Neighborhood Central District. Residential units are required one space per residential unit. The applicant is proposing a 31 space underground parking structure below the building, accessed off the alley. The plan identifies a larger yard area proposed for the southeast corner of the property. Three trees are proposed for removal. The alley was platted as public right-of-way during the approval of the Quinn and Plum Ridge Subdivisions. It is a public alley. The right-of-way does not extend all the way to the North Mountain right-of-way. The neighbor requesting the hearing lives immediately south of the southeast corner of the project.. He is concerned with the removal of the blackberry bushes in the right-of-way and that the planting plan shows more lower growing vegetation that would not afford as much privacy. The Tree Commission has reviewed the landscape plan and has suggested the landscaping plan be modified to include more of an evergreen hedge or a continuous site-obscuring evergreen trees. Staff endorses the Tree Commission recommendation and suggested adding a few evergreen trees but not the point it would create too much shade covering the south yard. The applicant is proposing some of the plantings within the existing alley right-of-way. That would take an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department, usually agreeing the plantings could be removed if the City needed to utilize the right-of-way. They don’t anticipate the alley to ever be needed for a vehicular connection to North Mountain. A Condition 12 has been included. Staff believes the design meets the design standards of the North Mountain Plan by having the commercial look on the ground floor with pedestrian areas, awnings, larger windows, etc. Twenty-three Conditions have been added. The following questions came up that were addressed to the applicant. ?An important tree on the site had a branch removed (or it fell off) that was overhanging the property. How can the tree like that be allowed to lose a major branch? ?What is the grade leading out of the parking garage? (Condition 21) ?Are they any elevations showing the corridor area? ?Is there significant amount of water drainage at the underground garage level? If so, should it be within the Commission’s purview? PUBLIC HEARING LARRY MEDINGER, 115 Fork Street, explained on the important tree had a limb hanging down on the ground and was rotting. Removing some of the top of the tree will help keep it healthier. Medinger said the alley had always been planned to end with no connection. The idea was to not have an aley open to an arterial. Staff’s idea of stipulating a path is accepatable. According to Medinger, the Neighborhood Plan is clear that the commercial node serves the neighborhood, and there is no building square footage restriction on residential. It will take a long time to build it out. Even then, the commercial may not fly. It is required to build the commercial on the ground floor. Medinger said there is a little surface water but down deep it is dry.. He explained the corridor elevations. He said the driveway ramp is less than 15 percent slope. They are widening it from 12 feet to 20 feet. He agreed with the Tree Commission and Staff recommendations for buffering the southeastern area of the lot with taller plantings. MICHAEL GOMEZ, 895 North Mountain Avenue, thought the monstrous buildings will form a solid wall above him. The park will invite a tremendous amount of trespassing and he is afraid small children and dogs will gravitate to his property and will be a livability issue for him. He can post the property but that will only go so far. He owns eight feet of the alley. He would like privacy. Deciduous trees are not private during the winter. He would like to see some relatively quick growing trees. He’s concerned about his part of the blackberries and rose hips being destroyed when they are removing Medinger’s portion. Gomez said there is an opportunity to install a fence that could go on the property line or slightly over on Medinger’s property to help his trespassing issue. Gomez said the CC&R’s in Mountain Meadows would likely come into play. Staff Comments – Molnar said when they looked at the remaining end of the right-of-way (16 feet), it seemed to provide an opportunity to keep an informal path and it seemed that area could be designed through the landscaping plan to benefit both property owners. The Commission could clarify or elaborate Condition 3. Rebuttal – Medinger said he would be fine with a fence and he’d move it six inches onto his property. Dawkins wondered if Medinger would be amenable to working with the neighbor to develop a plan to stagger the hedging type effect, making a much better project visually in addition to the small fence. Medinger agreed to work with the neighbors. Dotterrer/KenCairn m/s to approve PA2005-873 with the following changes: Add to Condition 12 that there be a minimum five foot wide public pathway (from the end of the alley to the public right-of-way on North Mountain) to the north of the proposed fence on the south side of the property and on the applicant’s property. Add to Condition 3 that at least two or full size stature evergreens go in along the southeast property line to start to break up the view of the building. Add Condition 24 that a six and one-half foot fence maximum height, solid site obscuring fence be installed slightly on the applicant’s property on the south property boundary. Roll Call: The vote was unanimous. PLANNING ACTION: #2005-00696 SUBJECT PROPERTY: N. Mountain Avenue and E. Nevada Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Camelot Family Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: Request for Commercial Site Review approval for four mixed-use buildings comprised of commercial and residential condominiums units in the “Village Center” area of the Meadowbrook Park Subdivision located at N. Mountain Avenue and E. Nevada Street. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Dawkins had a site visit. Two weeks ago, the entire Planning Commission heard from a neighbor a condemnation of the applicant before us tonight.. He’s uncomfortable with that, however, he feels he can judge the application without prejudice. The other Commissioners each had site visits and agreed that they heard the same thing, but none felt the testimony given would prejudice them with regard to the application tonight. Black said in addition to her site visit, Mr. Marr tried to talk to her but she said she could not. She has had some experience with the builder in the building of Meadowbrook Park I and she has concerns and feels the developers are following a pattern. There was a dispute regarding the common area in her homeowner’s association in Meadowbrook I that raised questions about the deeds and lack of detailed information however, she still believes she can be fair and unbiased because there were about three other sides to their issue. They have had some problems reconciling the CC&R’s. STAFF REPORT Molnar said this application involves the development of four separate lots. The infrastructure is not yet complete. The survey plat has not yet been signed. Each of the four lots is referred to as a “series” and each series contains multiple buildings: Series 1 – Village Green, Series 2, Plaza West, Series 3 – Plaza East, Series 4 – Plaza South. The clock tower is now a viewing tower. It will cover the public space at street grade. The public space associated with this public area be landscaped. They are beginning to construct the surface streets in the area, however, building permits cannot be issues until the infrastructure is in (a Condition has been added).. This action was approved administratively and David Young requested a public hearing. He is concerned that East Nevada will be reaised four and one-half feet above his property and it is already depressed. He believes he will be negatively impacted by the development. Dr. Young has been in discussions with the applicant. . Molnar showed photos of the site and the relationship to Young’s property. Generally, as part of a subdivision, they will look at accommodating a driveway with an adjacent property owner. The approved engineering plan shows a driveway and where there can be transitional fill allowing for a gradual descent to Young’s property (see Condition 7). Young is also requesting additional fill to bring up a building site, but Staff is reluctant to grant the request. The applicant is showing downstairs commercial spaces and upstairs residential spaces. They are anticipating 50 to 60 parking spaces that would accommodate 22,000 to 27,000 square feet CHECK THESE NUMBERS. of office space. Staff feels there will be sufficient parking to accommodate the commercial. Black had a problem with the noticing of this development. The sign posted on the property didn’t (AND MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE – SHOWED WRONG # OF give sufficient detail PARCELS??). Molnar explained the sign has to have a sufficient amount of detail and it has to show the location of the site. Black asked about a possible I-5 exit onto North Mountain in the future. Dotterrer said the State of Oregon has said there will never be an on/off ramp at North Mountain. PUBLIC HEARING ALAN HARPER – Harper asked before beginning his testimony to ask a procedural question. Fields granted him time. Harper asked what he has heard so far concerning ex parte contacts, as cause him to raisse some concerns. He has not idea what the disclosures are that were given. To what are the Commissioners referring? Reeder – if they want to ask about the substance, do so now. Harper – there would Dawkins explained that one of the neighbors (Mat Marr) spoke two weeks ago and strongly criticized the progress and handling by the property owners of the No. Mountain Land Company project. Everyone at the meeting heard it. Even though Dawkins heard it, he was not moved by Marr’s testimony. KenCairn added that Marr was trying to negotiate proper treatment of their property and Dawkins said Marr’s testimony deatlt with fiscal responsibility. Stromberg noted what was happening on this property affected the White’s ability to begin building on their property. Stromberg asked if the property owner was planning to pave or not? Harper asked if they did not respond to that because it is not an approval criteria, willthat bias the Commission. Douma reiterated that everyone had said they did not have a bias. Harper would like to just stick with the applicable criteria for the project in front of the Commission tonight. He believes Staff did a good job looking at the criteria. Young’s contention is a collateral attack from two years ago. It is the same thing with the Marrs’. Neither of these issues have anything to do with the application tonight. KenCairn – Harper – he now doesn’t feel that there is McLaughlin addressed Black asking if she was going to use that financial information and other stuff not related to the application in the review of this project? Black answered that the criteria has nothing to do with the applicant’s good will, however, it is important. McLaughlin said Molnar raised the issue of the location of Young’s driveway curb cut. Staff believes there is a relationship of how the driveway is located. But, beyond that, trying to make adjustments to other projects is not related. Stromberg – transportation aspects can justify raising this issue. ??? Mac – issue Mol raised is the location of a driveway curb cut. Staff’s belief is there is a relationship of how the dw is located. But beyond that, trying to make other adjustments to other projects is not?// related. Harper began his testimony????????? BOB FOSTER, 431 Ash Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, talked about building elevations. (CHECK THIS ADDRESS) Foster described the building series. -----------------------END OF WHERE THE TAPE GOT MESSED UP.----------------------------- There was a question about parking. If the ground floor commercial ends up being used for residential, there is a private lot that has 23 parking spaces. Through an outside market study, Foster said they found there is a need for commercial. All the buildings face the square to create a downtown village square for the whole neighborhood. It is less than half an acre (just the grass) Harper said they have not objections to Condition 3. They are asking that Condition 7 be removed. They asked the wording under Condition 10 to say “approximately” one tree every thirty feet. Rather than a “four by four foot planter,” they are anticipating a “three by five foot planter” (tree grates) to allow for handicap access. The sidewalk width will vary, but going down the building by the octagon building, it narrows. There are two Condition 15’s. Renumber the conditions. Foster said the existing Siberian elms on the north side, adjacent to the north side, they were all trimmed and the crown is all distorted and they are hanging. The Tree Commission agreed the applicants could straighten the crowns of the trees. They will have an arborist look at the tree on the west that appears to be rotting. Harper disagrees with Staff regarding Young’s property. His property no way serves the applicant’s project. It does not apply to the site plan nor does it apply to the criteria. KenC – he wants it struck and he thinks it should be. Molnar said the first Condition 15 applies as Staff wants to make sure the garages are used for parking purposes. Black said the landscape plan shows the main entrance to the octagon coming in from the southeast, but on page 4, Series 1, shows the entrance is due east. Foster said that was an error and the entrance is southeast. Black thought the governance of the CC&R’s could be difficult with condominium owners and commercial renters. TOM MARR, 955 North Mountain, said the applicant has been working in some form on all four sides of his property for over a year. During that time they have suffered numerous irriations, distractions, personal and property damage caused by multiple violations of City building and planning codes and poor communication. Marr listed the numerous problem. There also seems to be a property line adjustment problem too and he believes this invalidates the original plan. He would like to see all of their differences resolved in a timely and equitable manner for all parties. Assistant City Attorney, Mike Reeder, stated that challenging Conditions of approval from previous projects are collateral to his application. McLaughlin said Outline Plan occurred about two years ago. The issues Marr is raising are being handled through enforcement action with the applicant. The City has not taken any steps to invalidate previous approvals. The applicant has an approved plan and they are moving ahead with the project. Marr’s issues are not for the review by the Planning Commission as it relates to this planning action. IRAJ OSTOVAR, 389 E. Hersey Street, gave his time to Tim Bossard. Douma/Black m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Everyone approved. DAVID YOUNG, 348 S. Modoc Avenue, Medford, OR, turned in a numbered handout. Page 1 shows the property location, Page 2 confirms he has a buildalbe lot, Page 3 and 4 showing the proposed driveway from the applicant. He was told by Jim Olson, Engineering Department, that the location of the driveway was a matter of negotiation. The applicant was to negotiate with him. No negotiations have taken place. His project has been held up eight months because he’s had no response from the applicant. Any position of the driveway will create drainage problems. Young said there is no utility access at this point. He was led to believe placement of the driveway was still an open question because the City has not signed off. TIM BOSSARD, Engineer, has offices in Grants Pass and Medford, said he put a packet together for the Commissioners. They were hoping to agree to a solution to 1) access and grading of the lot, 2) sewer connection, and 3) drainage. Bossard offered as a solution. They wanted to create a reasonable access to simulate what was there before the road went in. The photos are taken at different angles and location to show the height of the finished roadway and the grade difference, and the potential drainage coming from the freeway Bossard said the preliminary plan was two- dimensional and Dr. Young could not see the potential discrepancies in the grading. IRAJ OSTOVAR, 389 E. Hersey Street, read a note from Jim Olson. Reeder recommended striking Condition 7. MAT MARR, 955 N. Mountain asked for time not included for testimony to address procedural issues. Fields granted him that time. He strongly agrees with Planning Staff and their interpretation that there is a logical nexus between the issues raised by Dr. Young and Tom Marr relating to the Site Plan approval. Fields said this topic does not really cover procedural issues such as ex parte contacts and Marr began his five minutes of testimony. Marr referred to Criteria A, that all applicable ordinances have or will be met by the proposed development. Staff’s Condition 2 regarding the Site Review says that all applicable conditions for Outline and Final Plan approval shall remain in effect. Marr contends that Criteria A and Condition 2, the Final Plan must continue to be valid and implemented in a way the Planning Commission requested it be done. He will show how the applicants are in breech. All of the following issues have been created by the applicant: 1. The applicants have raised a fundamental question as to the surveys of the property. A few feet may not seem like much, but the project could barely meet solar. 2. The applicant’s encroachment shows the project is not buildable within the project boundaries. 3. Condition 3 of Final Plan calls for construction fencing to be put around the property through the duration of the project. They agreed in a letter to the City to reinstall the fencing, but it is still not up. They have been in violation for six months. On behalf of Young, Marr said paved access to and through the development will be provided. The enforcement actions city has tried to take have been significantly hampered on the part of the applicant. The applicants built a drain box on the Marr’s property. They have lost the use of part of their property. Their fence has been trampled. He asked the applicant designate a contact person who has final authority for making decisions on the project. He believes the issues raised in a letter written by Alan Harper should be resolved prior to final plat and all issues related to damages to Mr. Young’s property and the Marr’s property should be resolved before final plat. Dotterrer/Black m/s to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Everyone approved. Rebuttal – Harper said fixing Young’s driveway issue won’t even address the grade problem. He distinguished the Young issue from the Marr’s issue. First of all, Harper took exception to Black’s Young project is being comment about the applicant’s pattern of violating the conditions. The built out as approved . Did Harper mean the Camelot project???? That is completely different than Marr saying there is a condition of approval for construction fencing, etc. These are all issues that are being addressed. Harper is confident the issues will be resolved. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fields clarified that it is not the Planning Commission’s role at this point to enforce violations. Stromberg asked Reeder about the first two Marr’s comments about Criteria A and Condition 2. Reeder said the applicant is not asking us to change Outline Plan or Final Plan. Chapman agreed Condition 7 should be stricken. KenCairn said the Tree Commission wants the trees planted one per 30 feet, not one every 30 feet. Fields notes the tree grates are a design standard and shouldn’t be a handicap obstacle. Chapman asked if everyone is comfortable with the façade. KenCairn believes it meets what has come forward in past applications. Fields believes a lot of the elements are coming through from the North Mountain Plan. Fields said applications usually come forward with a table summarizing the spaces in a project. Does Staff believe the applicant has satisfied the requirements? Molnar believes the information is included in the packet. Dotterrer/Chapman m/s to approve Planning Action 2005-696 with the exception of dropping Condition 7 and re-numbering the Conditions from Condition 15 on. (Everyone was talking at once and I heard Mac say something about the tree grates – did that get changed? What happened with the trees every 30 feet??) Black said it puts the neighbors at an enormous disadvantage if their only recourse is to hire a lawyer if one’s property is developed right next to that neighbor(s). Fields said they would like to see the City use their full strength of enforcement and get their attention. Roll Call: Unanimous.approval. PLANNING ACTION 2005-00960 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Request for an ordinance amendment to the Sign Regulations, Chapter 18.96 of the Ashland Municipal Code, regarding number of business frontages. Douma/KenCairn m/s to make a recommendation to move the sign ordinance changes forward to the City Council. Roll Call: Unanimous. PLANNING ACTION 2005-00965 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Request for an ordinance amendment to the Tree Preservation and Protection, Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Municipal Code, regarding applicability to building permits Douma/Black m/s to make a recommendation to move the tree ordinance changes forward to the City Council. Roll Call Morris, Fields, Black, Dotterrer, Dawkins,Chapman, Douma, KenCairn voted “yes” and Stromberg voted “no.” ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.