ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

MINUTES

MARCH 8, 2005

I.              CALL TO ORDER

Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on March 8, 2005 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.

Commissioners Present:                      Russ Chapman, Chair

                                                                                Mike Morris

                                                                                John Fields

                                                                                Marilyn Briggs

                                                                                Allen Douma

                                                                                Olena Black

                                                                                Michael Dawkins

                                                                                Dave Dotterrer

                Absent Members:                                  Kerry KenCairn

Council Liaison:                                   Jack Hardesty – present

Staff Present:                                        John McLaughlin, Planning Director

                                                                Bill Molnar, Senior Planner

                                                                Maria Harris, Senior Planner

                                                                                Sue Yates, Executive Secretary

II.            ANNOUNCEMENTS

A.             The special presentation originally scheduled for this evening (PA2005-00084, 165 Lithia Way & 123 N. First Street, Archerd & Dresner, LLC and Redco, LLC) has been cancelled.  The presentation will be heard during the normal process on April 12, 2005. 

B.            The Planning Commissioners’ Chat will be held on March 22, 2005 at the Community Development and Engineering Services building located at 51 Winburn Way.  Dotterrer will be attending.

C.            There will be no study session in March.

III.           APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS

A.             Dotterrer/Douma m/s to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2005 Regular Planning Commission meeting.  Voice Vote:  Unanimous.

B.            There were no Findings to be approved.

IV.           PUBLIC FORUM – No one came forth to speak.

V.             SPECIAL PRESENTATION – Cancelled as stated above.

VI.           TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.             PLANNING ACTION 2005-14, 380 CLAY STREET, APPLICANT:  D AND A ENTERPRISES

                This action has been postponed.

B.            PLANNING ACTION 2005-008

REQUEST ANNEXATION, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP CHANGE FROM JACKSON COUNTY ZONING RR-5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING E-1 (EMPLOYMENT) FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 1.6-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 593 CROWSON ROAD.  THE PORTION OF THE PARCEL ADJACENT TO CROWSON ROAD IS PROPOSED IN THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (R-OVERLAY ) WHICH ALLOWS A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AND IN THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE  WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL BUILDING DESIGN FEATURES.  THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A BUSINESS COMPLEX INCLUDING OFFICES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SPACE AND THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.  A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE SIX TREES ON THE SITE.

APPLICANT:  CROWSON BUSINESS CENTER, LLC

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – Site visits were made by all.

STAFF REPORT

Harris explained the applicant’s proposal as outlined in the Staff Report.  There was a noticing error last month and the action was not heard.  The action was noticed properly for this month’s meeting.  The application is to develop a light industrial office complex consisting of five buildings in addition to retaining the existing house.  The complex would be served by a circular drive and there will be 48 parking spaces on-site.  The property is currently under county jurisdiction and zoned RR-5.  Staff is suggesting the section along Crowson Road come into the Detailed Site Review Zone as well as in the R-overlay.  The property across the street is also in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and slated to come in as single family residential. 

The application has a utility plan showing how they will connect to the existing City facilities.  The sewer line needs to be extended from Benson Way to the property.  An initial question about the electric facility has been resolved. 

Building A will face Crowson Road and is subject to the Detailed Site Review Zone. The remaining buildings are typical of the other buildings seen on Benson Way.  An entry alcove and covering has been added to the only building facing Benson Way.  The rest of the buildings are to the interior of the lot.

The applicants are proposing to retain two conifer trees.  The other seven trees are proposed to be removed.  Last month the Tree Commission raised concerns about the Siberian Elm and the plum tree.  Since that time, the applicant has submitted additional information and the Tree Commission reviewed the information and concurred with the applicant.

In the first Staff Report, nine issues were raised.  The applicant has submitted information addressing all the issues and Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for annexation and site review along with the tree removal permit.

Initially there were comments received from the neighbors to the north regarding the impact of the adjacent buildings on their property.  They suggested reducing the height of the buildings, screening the buildings with landscaping, using muted color schemes, and mitigating possible noise. 

Currently under the E-1 zoning, there is a ten foot setback when abutting a residential property.  The City Attorney’s office felt the Planning Commission could make an interpretation that there be a ten foot setback from properties that are in county residential zones.  The applicant responded by setting the buildings along the north property line back ten feet. 

Staff is recommending approval of the application.  The Site Review component has 27 Conditions.  It is the Planning Commission’s job to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the annexation. 

PUBLIC HEARING

ALAN HARPER, attorney, 717 Murphy Road, Medford and TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, represented the applicant and Giordano said the applicants had met all Staff’s concerns.

CODY BUSTAMANTE, 597 Benson Way, is the neighbor to the north.  He said this project brings E-1 up against RR-5.  He likes the location of the access and parking to the interior of the project.  The revised plan is showing windows on the north side.  He is concerned about privacy, noise, possibly street lighting.  He is asking the Commission to consider cinder block construction on the side of building C and he would like to see no windows on the side abutting his property.  It will be difficult to control manufacturing noises if there are windows, especially if they open during the summer.  He would like evergreen screening.  He is still concerned about morning shade from the buildings.  The early morning light is what helps their septic field work.  However, they are trying to bring a sewer line to their property in exchange for an easement.  If the sewer line goes in, he is willing to accept the building height.

They have had some bad experiences with noise in the Benson Business Park.  Resolving the noise issues involved about a year and half of calling the police, planning, code enforcement, meetings with the City Attorney.  Noise issues are not easily resolved and can impact their property value and their quality of life.  He would like to see mitigation go into the building. 

Black asked why there was no on-street parking along Crowson Road. 

Staff Response

Harris said there were two parking spaces in the initial design.  Crowson fans out near the intersection of Benson Way, creating a travel lane of about 20 feet.  The City Engineering Department did not feel this was an ideal safety situation.  They suggested keeping the curb line constant in that location.  Crowson has an 80 foot right-of-way.  An alternative would be to provide parking bays.  Molnar said it would not preclude on-street parking forever.  When the opposite side of the street develops, they could figure out the overall improvement to bring back on-street parking.  Harris said Crowson Road is an avenue, the highest order street.  They look at putting on-street parking on the lower order streets, like Benson Way because there is less chance of conflict. 

Rebuttal

Giordano said the ordinance is unclear about E-1 abutting a residential property in the county.  They have tried to be sensitive to the neighbor by increasing the setback, lowering the building height and using screening materials.  They are negotiating with the trailer park owners to put the sewer between the ten feet setback and utility easement.  They added the windows for scale.  The buildings will be well insulated, they will use concrete block on quite a portion of the buildings, and the buildings are sunk down thereby lessening the noise levels.  Jim Olson, City Engineering, recommended the street design they are proposing with no parking.

The Commissioners further discussed no parking spaces along Crowson.  There is an entry on Crowson that probably won’t be used. 

COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION

Annexation

Dotterrer/Douma m/s to recommend approval of the annexation to the City Council. 

Briggs feels annexation is a major impact on the City.  The structures proposed do not offer up any uniqueness that couldn’t be satisfied by doing the same kind of structure within the City with the proper zoning.  It goes back to her prior comments about inventory.  Chapman believes the process establishing the Urban Growth Boundary should be respected.  The properties within the UGB are slated for ultimate annexation.  Briggs argued that the boundaries are for 20 years.  We don’t have to annex it now.  We would annex when the inventory is low.  McLaughlin said the ordinance doesn’t give that discretion.  The determination of need is based on commercial development (creating jobs in the community).  It is determined the land is needed for job creation, if with the application, the applicant receives Site Review approval to do a project.  We don’t just annex vacant land to increase the inventory unless there is an inventory issue.  No all E-1 land within the City is readily available.

Douma said under 18.106.030H there are six standards, only one of which has to be met.  The application meets 2.  “The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1…,” etc.

Dawkins agreed with Briggs.  He hates to see the rural part eventually developed. 

Roll Call:  Chapman, Morris, Dotterrer, Fields, Black, Douma, Dawkins voted in favor and Briggs voted “no.”  Briggs asked it be noted that her “no” vote reflects the need to go back and look over having the buildable lands inventory for C-1 and E-1 as well as residential.

Site Review

Harris suggested wording for Condition 28 that the north wall of Building C should be constructed of concrete block and the windows shall be removed.  Revisions shall be included in the building permit submittals.  Discussion ensued with a mixed reaction to the condition.  A concrete block will attenuate the noise, but the sheet metal roof probably won’t.  Add a condition to address noise before there is a problem.  Is it fair to force people to design a space before they know who the tenants will be?  McLaughlin said it takes a complaint before the City monitors the noise.  The Commissioners decided not to add the condition.

Fields said there are four entries along the building facing Crowson.  There is no ADA accessible parking near the front entry.  It seems like parking near the front door is missing.  Molnar said there are entrances directly across from the ADA space.  Fields wanted to reopen the discussion with Jim Olson and the whole strategy for the street frontage. 

After additional discussion, it was suggested adding wording to Condition 6, after the first sentence:  “That a parking bay shall be included for safety if approved by Ashland Engineering Division.”      

Harris explained that the travel lane goes to about 20 feet wide and won’t line up with the rest of the street once it gets built out.

Dotterrer/Black m/s to approve the Site Review portion of the application for PA2005-008 with the additional sentence added to Condition 6.  Roll Call:                Morris, Douma, Chapman, Black, Dotterrer, Dawkins voted “yes” and Fields and Briggs voted “no.” 

C.            PLANNING ACTION 2005-00046

REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN, FINAL PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A NINE-UNIT, NINE-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2001 SISKIYOU BLVD.  THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR TWO VARIANCES TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT.  ONE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR TWO LESS PARKING SPACES ON SITE THAN IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.  THE OTHER VARIANCE IS TO NOT PROVIDE A DISABLED PERSON PARKING SPACE IN THE PARKING AREA. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE FIVE TREES ON THE SITE. 

APPLICANT:  ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (RVCDC)

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Morris has a relative that owns property adjacent to the project, however, he can be unbiased.

Site visits were made by all.

STAFF REPORT

Harris said the proposal is to divide the property into nine lots and build nine single family townhome units with seven of the units being attached located at the back of the property.  There are ten trees on the site and a tree removal permit is requested to remove five of the trees.  There is a large stature tree that will be retained in the right-of-way.  A maple tree in the front will be removed.   The Tree Commission discussed the topped evergreen tree.  They made four suggestions for saving the tree.   All the buildings will be removed.

The property is zoned R-3.  The base density is ten units.  They meet the requirement of developing 80 percent of the base density of the parcel. 

Staff believes they meet the Site Design and Use Standards.  They have adequate capacity of City facilities to serve a project.  The buildings will be oriented toward Siskiyou Boulevard, and the required open space has been provided.

Since the Staff Report was written, the Building Official has reviewed the plan and determined that the disabled parking space is not required.  Staff is recommending that the Commission approve this Variance request.   There is an inconsistency between the land use ordinance and the building code. 

The applicants are required to provide 17 off-street parking spaces.  Fourteen spaces will be provided on-site, one space on-street, and the applicants are asking a Variance of two parking spaces.  They make the points that the property is an unusual shape and sloping and it is hard to provide the required parking.  The people approved for the development have fewer cars than in a typical development.  Staff said a unique or unusual circumstance would typically be a physical constraint of the site, preventing the development from meeting the code.  In this case, the unusual shape, Staff does not believe it is unique to the site.  Staff is recommending denial of their request to do 14 spaces on-site. 

The Tree Commission comments are in the packet.

Staff is recommending approval of Outline Plan, Final Plan, Site Review and the Tree Removal Permit with 20 attached Conditions.  Staff is recommending approval of the Variance to not provide the disabled parking space.  Staff is recommending denial of the Variance request to provide two less parking spaces on-site. 

The applicant turned in materials near the end of day today concerning Conditions 3 and 16.  The City Attorney has reviewed the lease agreement and found it an acceptable alternative to the Conditions, Covenants and Conditions.”   Harris will review the materials for Condition 16 at this time.  Delete “approved by the local and state building divisions” and add “appropriate” under Condition 19.

Dawkins disagreed with the Tree Commission.  He believes the evergreen will continue to grow into the lines and continue to not be a very good tree.  It was not planted in the right place.  Harris said the Tree Commission recognized the tree had been topped and wrestled with a decision on it. 

Douma felt that those purchasing affordable housing would be more likely to be disabled so disabled parking would be needed.  He is not sure why they can’t find room for one disabled parking space.

Black asked about a footpath from the back of the lot up to Siskiyou.

RON DEMELE, Executive Director, RVCDC, said this is a Self-Help affordable home ownership single family project in a multi-family zoned.  A Rural Development grant is funding the project.  RVCDC’s goal is make a project that makes the cost as low as possible.  They will be able to sell a home to a family making $14,000.  RVCDC received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to purchase the site. The homeowners will enter into a 99 year renewable lease with RVCDC.  A deed restriction will take the place of the CC&R’s.  He entered two letters from their attorney into the record.

BRUCE ABELOE, architect, 827 Alder Creek Drive, Medford, OR said for the most part, he is donating his time to the project.  The units are not attached.  They are on separate foundations and separated from top to bottom.  The disabled parking does not fall within the International Building Code (IBC) because it is single family, not multi-family. He would rather use the open space for open space.

They can put 16 parking spaces on the lot.  The purchasers have fewer cars and he thought it would be an opportunity for a little less paving and a little more open space.

They will have to coordinate with the Electric Department with regard to the tree.  All the power will be underground. 

Each home will have an individual rolling cart with no trash enclosure.

They can do a sidewalk along one side of the project.  Abeloe noted there is a bus stop in front of the property.

Briggs suggested moving a walkway to get more grassy space.  The applicants agreed.

The applicants plan to use a few colors in various combinations to provide some subtle differences in units.

The applicant felt it would behoove the whole project to remove the tree.

Abeloe said they are not required by law to put in accessible parking or maintain an accessible path from the parking lot to individual entries on single family homes.  Douma asked if a disabled person bought one of the houses, would RVCDC be required to provide handicap parking?  Abeloe said one of the spaces could be converted by placing a sawhorse in the space with a sign – accessible space.  That is acceptable to the State Accessibility Board.  RVCDC owns the land and will continue to be involved in the project.  Abeloe said there is other land better suited to accessibility.

TIMOTHY HUME, 1971 Siskiyou Boulevard, stated he lives on the corner of Siskiyou Boulevard and Faith Avenue and he’s the building manager.  His apartment building is HUD subsidized and affordable.  He likes the site plan on the proposed project.  He is in agreement that the tree can be removed especially because it has been topped off.  He would appreciate subtle colors.  He noted that cars zip off Siskiyou onto Faith and he is concerned about any parked cars near the corner.  He values the individual path to his apartment because it gives one a sense of home ownership and would be in favor of keeping the individual sidewalks.

Staff Response  

Harris suggested eliminating Condition 16 since they will be providing individual trash and recycling containers.  Condition 3, add some language “That a final copy of the CC&R’s for the homeowner’s association or a similar instrument shall be provided for review and approval prior to the signature of a final survey plat.  The instrument shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common area landscaping…maintenance.” 

Black decided against adding a condition for a footpath.

Douma said this project has about 5000 square feet of open space and adding a 140 square foot accessible parking space. 

Harris suggested revising Condition 7, by adding storm drainage “handicap ramp at corner” and sidewalks…

Rebuttal

Abeloe said they discussed the corner of Faith and Siskiyou with ODOT.  He is willing to go back and give it another shot if that is the Commission’s desire.  The corner design is mandated by ODOT. 

COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION

Briggs/Black m/s to approve PA2005-00046 approving Outline Plan, Final Plan, Site Review and Tree Removal.  Give the two space parking Variance as requested.  The handicap parking space does not have to be there.  Fifteen parking spaces will be provided on the site.  Delete Condition 16 and modify Conditions 3 and 7 as stated above. 

Briggs/Black m/s to amend the motion to include a change to Condition 10.  That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission “with the exception of the conifer in the northwest corner…”  Eliminate Condition 12. 

Douma expressed his dismay with no inclusion of handicap accessibility.  Is it true Abeloe would have to redesign the whole site plan if he included one accessible parking space?  He understands this development has been designed for those who are planning to live there now.  That does not seem like a good way to plan.

Fields moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m.  The motion was seconded and carried.

Harris thought for clarification, a Condition should be added:  That 15 off-street parking spaces shall be provided on-site.

Roll Call:  Morris, Dotterrer, Chapman, Briggs, Dawkins, Black, Fields voted “yes” and Douma voted “no.”

Morris left the meeting.

D.            PLANNING ACTION 2005-00224

REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS AND LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 E. NEVADA STREET.

APPLICANT:  SUNCREST HOMES, LLC

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – Site visits were made by everyone except Dotterrer.  Black said the property did not appear to have a planning action sign. Staff said the property had been properly posted on February 21^st. 

STAFF REPORT

This property is completely surrounded by a 16 acre, 81 lot subdivision approved in May, 2003. It is completely surrounded by the infrastructure being constructed for that area.  The proposal is to divide the three-quarters of an acre into eight tax lots.  No access is proposed off E. Nevada.  There will be a combination of shared and individual driveways.  The intent is to build two buildings, each with four common wall units.  They will come back for Final Plan approval and Site Review.  The main concern that can be reviewed at Final Plan is the location of the shared driveway access for Lots 5 and 6.  The configuration will need to provide adequate sight distance around the bend. 

There are no common areas.  There is 40 feet of space between the building and they are well within the allowed lot coverage. 

Staff is recommending approval of Outline Plan approval with the attached Conditions.

PUBLIC HEARING

CHARLIE HAMILTON, P. O. Box 1313, Talent, OR  97540 said three sides of the property have roads on them. He will look at the sight distance on Lot 6. 

Chapman read comments from TOM MARR, 955 North Mountain Avenue.  He would like the access to be paved before construction begins.  The dust mitigation has been insufficient thus far for Meadowbrook.   

MAT MARR, 955 North Mountain Avenue, said they have had to adapt their schedules to what is happening in their neighborhood.  The proposed development seems great.  He has two major concerns regarding how the North Mountain plan is progressing.  To access the property is to go from Mountain to Nevada.  The road is not paved.  He would recommend a Condition that construction not begin until paving is completed on Mountain and Nevada.  The dust is atrocious.  Someone had a medical emergency and the ambulance could not get to the house. Marr had several complaints about the problems they have encountered with regard to the construction of Meadowbrook.  His father has almost had a fulltime job trying to stay on top of the problems resulting from the construction project.

Dotterrer moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m.  The motion was seconded and approved. 

Staff Response  

Molnar suggested adding a Condition 20 to surface the roads accessing these eight lots prior to issuance of building permits. 

Rebuttal

Hamilton can sympathize with Marr, but it doesn’t pertain to this development.

COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION

Douma/Dotterrer m/s to approve Planning Action 2005-00224 with the Conditions stipulated by Staff.  Strike Condition 18.   Add Molnar’s Condition 20.   

Dotterrer feels by leaving the LID requirement in, it takes away a citizen’s right to come to the Council meeting and make a case for or against a LID.  Once they signed in favor, they have no recourse as to whether or not they are part of the LID. 

Roll Call:  Douma, Dotterrer, Dawkins voted “yes” and Chapman, Black, Fields, Briggs voted “no.”  The motion failed.

Chapman/Briggs m/s to approve PA2005-00224 with the 19 proposed Conditions and the added Condition 20.  Roll Call:  Chapman, Briggs, Dawkins, Black, Dotterrer, Douma and Fields voted “yes.”

OTHER – There was no further business

ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Susan Yates