Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-14 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, . please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2008 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. November Planning Commission Meeting – Wednesday, November 12, 2008 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. August 27, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes 2. September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 3. September 9, 2008 Hearings Board Minutes 4. September 23, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes 5. September 30, 2008 Joint Study Session Minutes V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance. (PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 28, 2008) VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01526 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 281 Fourth Street APPLICANT: Noble Coffee DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to locate a coffee shop/restaurant into the existing building at 281 Fourth Street and for a Variance to the required number of parking spaces to reduce the number of parking spaces from 12 to 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOT #: 101. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, . please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01318 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2200 Ashland Street APPLICANT: Coming Attractions Theatres DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to redevelop the existing 5,418 square foot, single-story office building located at 2200 Ashland Street into an 18,791 square foot, three- story office and retail building. The property is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and the development is subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Ashland Boulevard Corridor Design Standards. Also included are requests for: Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards and Exception to Street Standards relating to the reconfiguration of off-street parking between the building and Ashland Street and to Ashland Street improvements, and Tree Removal Permit to remove six trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 14 BB; TAX LOT #: 300. C. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2300 Siskiyou Blvd. APPLICANT: Steve Asher DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct thirteen condominium units for the property located at 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Also included are requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to allow tree removal and parking space installation on Flood Plain Corridor/Riparian Preservation Lands adjacent to a culverted section of Clay Creek; Tree Removal Permits to remove 36 of the site’s 78 trees; and an Exception to Street Standards to not install sidewalks and curbs along Siskiyou Boulevard frontage. (The approval of this application would replace the previous Performance Standards Options subdivision approval from PA #96-131). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 14 CA; TAX LOTS: 7700, 7800, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, 7805, 7806, 7807 and 7808. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Sustainability Study - Status IX. OTHER thrd A. November 25 and December 23 – Study Session Dates X. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). JOINT STUDY SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2008 ATTENDANCE The meeting came to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Bellview Grange, 1050 Tolman Creek Road. Planning Commissioners Present: City Council Present: John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell Michael Dawkins Eric Navickas Debbie Miller Alice Hardesty Michael Church Kate Jackson Pam Marsh David Chapman Melanie Mindlin Dave Dotterrer Staff Present: Absent Members: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Mike Morris, Planning Commissioner Martha Bennett, City Administrator Tom Dimitre, Planning Commissioner Maria Harris, Planning Manager John Morrison, Mayor April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Russ Silbiger, Councilor CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided a recap of the meetings held to date on this issue. He noted Option D had received the most votes; however Option C also received support. He explained following the last meeting, the Consultants continued to receive feedback and have incorporated the best of the two proposals. Mr. Molnar commented on the next steps in this process, which include creating a final plan that meets the requirements of the grant and bringing it before the City Council for adoption. He noted staff had received a preliminary application request from the property owner for a light industrial use and is hopeful the property owner will be patient and continue to work with the City as they move through these final steps. CONSULTANT PRESENTATION Consultants George Crandall, Don Arambula and Jason Graf with Crandall Arambula PC introduced themselves to the group. Mr. Crandall reviewed the study area, project scope, and timeline for this project. He noted that housing was not selected for this site and spoke on the issue of sustainability, which included an outline of the following elements: 1) strict conservation standards, 2) high density housing, 3) improved transit service, 4) protected bike paths, 5) employment next to high density housing, 6) neighborhood grocery stores, 7) compact development, 8) energy efficient industries, and 9) reuse waste heat. Mr. Crandall elaborated on the benefits of protected bike lanes and presented several photos to the group. He commented on the elements of a great bicycle system and stated Ashland is nicely positioned for this type of system. Mr. Arambula provided a presentation on the following elements of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan: Permitted Uses Location for Primary Road Alignment Local Street Grid Location of Light Industrial and Office Uses Open Space Possibilities Joint Study Session August 27, 2008 Page 1 of 5 Parking Pedestrian and Bike Circulation Transit Development Requirements Permitted Uses Mr. Arambula reviewed the zones and proposed uses for this site, including potential code language modifications. M1 Industrial – Remove the following uses: 1) Railroad yards and freight stations, trucking and motor freight stations and facilities. 2) Junkyard and auto wrecking yards. 3) Concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants. E1 Employment – Remove the following uses: 1) Building material sales yards. 2) Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. 3) Recycling depots. 4) Residential uses. 5) Cold storage plants. 6) Automobile and truck repair facilities. 7) Mini-warehouses and similar storage areas. 8) Contractor equipment storage yards. 9) Automobile fuel sales. 10) New and used car sales, boat, trailer and recreational vehicles sales and storage areas. 11) Any use which involves outside storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the primary use on the site. 12) Automotive body repair and painting. Additionally, Mr. Arambula recommended the code identify maximum allowable sizes for: 1) Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services. 2) Bakeries. C1 Retail Commercial – Remove the following uses: 1) Commercial laundry, cleaning and dyeing establishments. 2) Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. 3) Automobile fuel stations and automobile and truck repair facilities. 4) Drive-up uses. 5) Kennel and veterinary clinics 6) New and used car sales, boat, trailer, and recreational vehicles sales and storage areas. 7) Outdoor storage of commodities. 8) Building material sales yards. 9) Churches or similar religious institutions. 10) Wireless communication facilities not permitted outright and authorized. Mr. Arambula recommended the code identify maximum allowable sizes for: 1) Department stores, antique shops, artists supply stores, and regional shopping centers. Location for Primary Road Alignment Illustrations were provided of the proposed primary road alignment and 3-lane street design, which would accommodate sidewalks, travel lanes, parallel parking on both sides, and a protected bike path on one side. Mr. Arambula noted there are some existing businesses that would need to be relocated in order to accomplish this and reviewed the suggested street phasing plan. Joint Study Session August 27, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Local Street Grid Mr. Arambula provided an explanation of the proposed street grid and noted the grid itself would be built by the developer. He clarified these streets would not include the protected bike paths and the streets should be constructed in a way that makes the bicyclist feel comfortable traveling with the auto traffic (slow traveling speeds, etc.) Location of Light Industrial and Office Uses An illustration of the proposed employment, commercial and industrial areas was presented to the group. Mr. Arambula clarified this layout was developed in response to the issues raised at the previous meeting. Open Space Possibilities Mr. Arambula commented on parks and squares and the difference between the two. He displayed examples of each type and recommended a central square or park be located next to the proposed Plexis site. Parking Mr. Arambula presented the proposed locations for the parking structure and potential park and ride. He reviewed the costs associated with parking structures and noted below grade structures can cost almost double that of above grade structures. Pedestrian and Bike Circulation Mr. Arambula noted the locations of the proposed protected bike paths and the existing and planned bike lanes. He also commented on how the bicycle and pedestrian traffic would circulate the site. Transit Mr. Arambula commented on possible transit options for this site, which include a fixed rail system. He noted the difference between street cars and light rails and recommended the City begin planning for this type of system, even if it cannot be built right away. Development Requirements Mr. Arambula stated the last element is the development requirements, and stated the following three elements were essential: 1) build to lines, 2) required active edges, and 3) required on street parking. He suggested a maximum building height of 11 floors in the middle of the site, and 5 floors at the north end. He clarified the intent is to go bigger in this area in order to obtain more density and noted they would not be considering these heights if they didn’t have the commuter rail system. COMMENTS Mr. Crandall requested the Planning Commission, City Council and public members in attendance share their concerns and comments. The following are some of the statements that were made: Are you aware of the Airport Overlay? This may restrict the building heights in this area. The Plexis site has a substantial amount of field area that is unbuildable, have they considered this? How many people are needed to support a commuter rail system? Some residents move to Ashland for the views of the mountains, how will tall buildings impact this? Too much emphasis has been placed on transportation. Regarding scale, bulk and density, they need to make sure this area retains Ashland’s small town character and looks like it belongs. They need something that will look pleasant from the interstate. What other incentives can they provide to developers for creating the street grid aside from higher building heights? We do not want to create “signature towers.” Why isn’t the industrial area closer to the railroad? FINAL OVERVIEW City Administrator Martha Bennett recommended the Consultants revisit each of the plan’s elements and solicit final feedback from the Planning Commission and Council. Joint Study Session August 27, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Permitted Uses Mr. Crandall reviewed the proposed amendments to the current zoning code for this site and gave examples of what this would allow and disallow. M1 Industrial. Suggestion was made to include a docking station or staging area as an incentive. E1 Employment. Suggestion was made to remove mortuaries and crematoriums from permitted uses in this area. Comment was made questioning the removal of large bakeries. Mr. Crandall clarified this would be allowed in one of the other zones and stated bakeries typically do not have high density. Comment was made questioning the retention of hotels and motels. Mr. Crandall stated extended stay hotels are often attractive amenities for contract employees and suggested they could consider restricting certain types of lodging accommodations. C1 Retail/Commercial . Mr. Crandall commented on their reasoning for removing some of the uses and described this zone as neighborhood commercial. He noted the recommendation to set a maximum permitted size for department stores and supply stores and suggested they set a minimum residential density in the code, rather than a maximum. Comment was made regarding the removal of churches. Mr. Arambula clarified the intent is to have high uses in this area. It was noted that the Consultant’s would provide a hard copy of the proposed land use code changes to the group. They were asked to mark up their edits and suggestions and submit them to staff. Location of Primary Road Alignment The group voiced general consensus for this concept as presented. Local Street Grid Comment was made questioning the inclusion of a local street grid since it is unable to extend to the surrounding area. Comment was made that the grid may limit the flexibility of a developer and perhaps they should include the option for an alternative. Comment was made that they may be working backwards by outlining the transportation plan first and then forcing buildings to fit within that concept. Location of Light Industrial General support was voiced for this element as presented. Open Space Possibilities Comment was made questioning if 2 acres is too much space. Opposing comment was made that they should be preserving more open space, not less. Mr. Arambula clarified the appropriate size depends on whether they want a park or a square. He stated a 1-acre square is ample, however if they want a park it should be at least 1-acre. He added he has a sense this should be an informal park with lots of green plantings and grass and it would be a place for employees and the surrounding residents to enjoy. Parking Mr. Arambula noted that Plexis would likely provide parking on site in the beginning, but as they expand the parking structure would provide a good option for them. Suggestion was made to switch the locations of the parking structure and the park. Mr. Crandall recommended the park be placed front and center for security reasons. He added parking structures tend to be unsightly unless you spend a lot of money on them, and stated if the structure was kept behind the park, they could choose to enhance just the one side facing the park. General support was voiced for this concept as presented. Pedestrian and Bike Circulation Comment was made questioning why they did not propose protected bike lanes on both sides of the road. Comment was made that they should extend this to the rest of the City. General support was voiced for this concept as presented. Joint Study Session August 27, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Transit General support was voiced for this concept as presented. Development Requirements General support was voiced for build to lines, required active edges and required on street parking; however, the group had concerns with the proposed 11 story building height. Mr. Arambula acknowledged the groups concerns and stated they would check into how the Airport Overlay will affect this and they will revisit this issue. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Joint Study Session August 27, 2008 Page 5 of 5 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: John Stromberg, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Mike Morris April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Debbie Miller Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: Council Liaison: Michael Church, excused Cate Hartzell CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners Morris/Dawkins m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ANNOUNCEMENTS None PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance Stromberg commented briefly on the site visits held on September 3 and September 6. He noted the scientist (Jeannine Rossa) who joined them on the visits and suggested she be invited to the next Planning Commission meeting to present a report. Stromberg suggested they proceed with the discussion tonight by making a list of the items they wish to discuss further, begin those discussions, and then plan on making a final decision at the next meeting. Marsh indicated she is ready to take action on this ordinance tonight and suggested they have the staff report and public hearing before making a decision on the process. Morris stated he is also ready to move forward and noted they have been working on this off and on for 5 years. Mindlin commented that if they do wait until the next meeting to make a decision, perhaps the Parks Department could be invited so their comments are made part of the record. Miller suggested they hear the staff report and take public input before deciding how to proceed. Council Liaison Hartzell voiced support for the Commission waiting and obtaining a report from Ms. Rossa before making a final decision. Planning Manager Maria Harris and Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed the group. Ms. Harris provided a presentation and explained the ordinance package before them includes the following components: 1) adoption of the Local Wetlands Inventory as a technical study that supports the Comprehensive Plan, 2) adoption of the Water Resources Map, Ashland Planning Commission September 9, 2008 Page 1 of 3 3) revision of the Floodplain Corridor Lands Map, 4) revision of Chapter 18.62, and 5) addition of Chapter 18.63, Water Resource Protection Zones. Ms. Harris reviewed the most recent changes made to the ordinance and listed the July 22 edits as the following: 1) nd broadened the definition of hand-held equipment, 2) removed the non-native planting section, 3) added language regarding pervious paving for outdoor use area, 4) added an exemption for nonconforming structures, and 5) added an exemption for previously approved building envelopes and driveways and included a timeline of 36 months. Ms. Harris commented on the top of bank definition and stated almost every other jurisdiction in the State uses this definition. She noted the physical characteristics you look for in identifying top of bank and suggested a diagram be included in the ordinance. She stated the ordinance has been updated to indicate the top of bank definition will be used for riparian corridors, and the remaining streams would use the center line definition. She stated the protection zone for local streams would be 40 ft. from the center line, and the protection zone for intermittent and ephemeral streams would be 30 ft. from the center line. Ms. Harris stated additional edits include an exemption for the installation of unpaved trails, exempting paving and reconstructing streets and driveways, and reorganization of the land use approval section. Ms. Harris noted the ordinance addresses the concerns expressed by the Parks & Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. She stated the Parks Department requested the exemption for unpaved trails and the Public Works Department had concerns about being able to remove growth that affects the flow of drainage facilities. Ms. Harris stated this ordinance package would provide for the systematic protection of wetlands, it would increase the size of the stream buffer (except for the 6 streams with delineated floodplains), and it would manage the activities in the protection zone to protect the wetland and riparian functions. She stated staff’s recommendation is for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council. Royce Duncan/1065 Paradise Lane/Voiced his concerns with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Duncan commented on the definition of “significant” and does feel they should be using the 1987 determination of assets. He referred to the “Oregon Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5” and the “Report by the Riparian Management Work Group.” He stated the State is clear that fish bearing streams should be protected, and the City should follow their standards for this. However, the State does not address intermittent and local streams and this is something the City has added on. He stated the current draft is too restrictive and the issues being raised are not regarding the State’s requirements, but rather are being caused by the City’s additions. Dawkins suggested they approve the maps, since they are pretty straightforward, and then begin deliberations on the ordinance language. Stromberg suggested they begin discussions by having each member list which areas they would like to discuss further. Mindlin stated she would like to discuss storm water, exemptions, structures and pervious surfaces, and whether to include an ongoing review process in the ordinance. Dotterrer stated he would like to discuss outdoor use areas, establishing a water quality baseline, whether the buffer areas are too wide, different levels of protection for different sections of the streams, exempting Lithia Park and the downtown area, and the use of the term “stringent” in 18.62. Miller stated she would like to discuss the reduction of the protection zone up to 50%, outdoor use, nonconforming structures, permeable pavers, and applying this language to the parcels they visited on their site tours. Dimitre stated he would like to discuss outdoor uses, the legal nonconforming uses, canopy covers and how that plays into this, Section 18.63.080, hardship variances, enforcement, incentives for homeowners, and what role Ms. Rossa might play in this. Stromberg stated he would like to discuss the relationship of the ordinance to the flood control regulations, preparing a user’s guide, having some kind of evolving process for this ordinance, how the sewer system along Ashland Creek will be affected, the relationship between this ordinance and the TID, what to do about the Calle and Water Street properties, positive plants lists, how to deal with chemicals, demonstrations sites, and responding to the proposals from the Ashland Watershed Council. The Commission took a brief recess to organize the discussion points listed. It was agreed the Commission would hold discussion until 9:30 p.m. and then continue this item to their next meeting. Stromberg explained the issues have been separated into three main categories: setbacks, activities, and enforcement. He added the few remaining issues that did not fit within one of the categories would be dealt with at the end. Ashland Planning Commission September 9, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Hardship Variance Dimitre questioned the language in 18.63.090.C, which reads “The proposed activity or use of land would have been permitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance.” He stated it sounds as if this language exempts the ordinance. Ms. Harris explained this language is trying to establish that what someone wants to do could have been done prior to this ordinance taking affect. She added all 8 criteria listed need to be satisfied in order to qualify for the variance. Dimitre suggested the ordinance include the word “all” so that this is clear. Protection Zone Reductions Miller questioned 18.63.080 and stated 50% seems like a lot for a residential lot, especially the smaller ones. Mr. Molnar clarified the language reads “up to a 50% reduction” and this is the maximum, not an automatic amount. He added an applicant would need to have a very robust mitigation plan in order for a 50% reduction to be considered. Dimitre stated the language does not speak to what activities could be exempted and stated he would rather remove this section from the ordinance, and if that is not possible, make it a 25% maximum or a Type II approval to make it more difficult for people to do. Suggestion was made to possibly include more stringent criteria for this section. Mr. Molnar stated if the Commission wishes to change this provision, they need to provide specific direction to staff. Stromberg restated his suggestion to hear Jeannine Rossa’s input on this. Marsh voiced concern that this person has now become an authority on this process. Morris agreed and stated it seems as if they are going back to the beginning. He noted they have already determined that it is not possible to map out every lot along the streams and feels this is where some of the members are heading. Mindlin suggested those that have issues provide specific suggestions at their next meeting. Stromberg commented on the notion of having different setbacks for the various sections of a watercourse and asked for the Commission’s input on this. Dotterrer stated the functions of a stream change along the course of the stream and voiced support for looking into this. Stromberg also voiced support for flushing out this idea. Dimitre noted this ordinance is designed to protect the entire riparian habitat and not just the fish. He added that he has concerns about reducing the buffer area and how this might harm the other wildlife. Dimitre left the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Dotterrer questioned the buffer sizes and asked where the 30 ft. and 40 ft. figures came from. Mr. Molnar clarified these figures are based on existing knowledge of the community and how the current standards have been applied. He stated staff felt the current standards were inadequate and this is why it was increased. Stromberg noted they have reached the time they decided they would conclude and announced this hearing would be continued to the October 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Morris expressed his concerns with the process and does not feel they are moving towards as outcome. Stromberg clarified it is his intention to take a vote on this ordinance at their next hearing. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER A.Overview of City Employment Lands Inventory Mr. Molnar noted there have been a lot of questions regarding the City’s E1 and M1 zoning throughout the Croman Mills redevelopment process, and provided a brief presentation on the City’s employment lands inventory. He displayed maps that outlined the City’s commercial, employment and industrial zones and noted the City’s total net buildable acreage is approximately 117 acres, and the gross vacant or partially vacant acreage is 167 acres. Mr. Molnar commented on the types of buildings you normally see in these areas and displayed several pictures of various industrial buildings in Ashland. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 9, 2008 Page 3 of 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Stromberg called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: John Stromberg Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Michael Dawkins Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Michael Morris April Lucas, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners Dawkins/Stromberg m/s to approve the August 12, 2008 Hearings Board minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00801 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 960 Harmony APPLICANT: Bill Emerson for Jendrisak and Berry DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a 592 square foot Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage accessed from the alley for the property located at 960 Harmony. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 15AC; TAX LOTS: 1500 Morris noted this Planning Action is a continuation from the August 12, 2008 Hearings Board meeting. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Dawkins stated he performed a site visit, but had no ex parte contact. Morris declared no site visits or ex parte contacts. Stromberg stated he performed a site visit and shared his observations, including: 1) that he drove down the alley to the dead- end and then had to back out because there is no turnaround, and 2) that he observed the alley’s surface and saw a cut that appeared to be caused by water. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Anderson provided a brief recap of the planning action. She noted the application was preliminarily approved in June and was called up for a public hearing in July. The Hearings Board held the public hearing at their August meeting, and at that time a request came in to keep the record open for an additional 7 days. Ms. Anderson stated the record is now closed and the Hearings Board may begin deliberations. She noted a correction needs to be made to the Staff Report Addendum and stated the following sentence should be deleted from Page 4, “The applicant is proposing to reduce the width of the driveway curb-cut which would provide for an on-street parking credit on Harmony Lane, for a total of six spaces.” Deliberations and Decision Stromberg stated he is interested in the following issues: 1) the activity that will take place at the rear of the property due to the location of the proposed Accessory Residential Unit, 2) whether increased traffic will have an impact on the alley’s surface, 3) what are the implications that it is a dead-end alley without a turnaround, and 4) the storm water pipe concerns expressed by Cyndi Dion. Ashland Hearings Board Meeting September 9, 2008 Page 1 of 2 Ms. Anderson clarified the Public Works Department confirmed that maintenance was done on the pipe referred to by Ms. Dion. Dawkins commented on the neighbor’s suggestion to reduce the impact on the alley by moving the accessory unit to the front of the property. He questioned whether the driveway would then meet the setback requirements and noted there is also a large Cedar tree that would impact this option. In regards to the issue raised about the diameter of the storm drainage pipe, Dawkins noted the staff report indicated the pipe was adequate to handle this residential use. He also stated he does not feel there will be a lot of extracurricular traffic on the alley caused by the proposed accessory unit. Dawkins noted the applicant’s offer to eliminate the two extra parking spaces and stated he was willing to accept that offer. Morris also commented on some of the issues raised by the neighbors. He stated a lot of properties are “back-loaded” and noted the City has been encouraging garages to be located at the back of the lot and accessible through the alley. He commented on the requirement for paved access and stated the City has always applied this to mean there is paved access to the property’s street address. He stated this application meets the intent of the ordinance and cited a recent approval on Ross Lane where they did not require Ross Lane or the alley to be paved. Morris stated he has no problems with the application and the conditions recommended by staff and sees no reason to deny it. Stromberg questioned whether the board supported removing the two extra parking spaces as offered by the applicant. Morris stated he would prefer to include the spaces, but with pervious pavement. Dawkins stated he could go either way, but if included, he also would like them to be pervious. Stromberg stated he could also go either way, but is inclined not to have them because: 1) pervious pavers do not drain as well as not having anything there, and 2) he is concerned that the spaces might attract additional cars and parking. Ms. Anderson clarified that based on the site plan, the applicant needs to keep at least one of the parking spaces. She also clarified it is already conditioned to be pervious pavement. Commissioners Dawkins/Stromberg m/s to approve PA #2008-00801. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Morris and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Hearings Board Meeting September 9, 2008 Page 2 of 2 JOINT STUDY SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION, HISTORIC COMMISSION, & CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Historic Commission Chair Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Planning Commissioners Present: Historic Commissioners Present: John Stromberg, Chair Dale Shostrom, Chair Michael Dawkins Henry Baker Pam Marsh Tom Giordano Melanie Mindlin Allison Renwick Mike Morris Terry Skibby Samuel Whitford City Council Present:Staff Present: Cate Hartzell Bill Molnar, Community Development Director David Chapman Maria Harris, Planning Manager April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: John Morrison, Mayor Alexander Krach, Historic Commissioner Alice Hardesty, Councilor James Watkins, Historic Commissioner Eric Navickas, Councilor Debbie Miller, Planning Commissioner Kate Jackson, Councilor Michael Church, Planning Commissioner Russ Silbiger, Councilor David Dotterrer, Planning Commissioner Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner Tom Dimitre, Planning Commissioner HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the purpose of this project is to identify areas for improvement within Ashland’s existing program and develop a blueprint for Ashland’s Historic Preservation program for the next 10 years. She noted this project has been funded by a Certified Local Government grant and the grant work concludes with the consultant’s presentation of the draft plan. Ms. Harris stated the Preservation Plan falls within the scope of the Historic Commission’s duties and responsibilities; however, the City Council and Planning Commission were included in this presentation because there is some overlap with the Planning Commission and the Council will ultimately approve the plan. Historic Preservation Consultant Kimberli Fitzgerald provided a presentation that addressed the following: The methodology used to create the Plan. Elements of the City’s existing program. Needs expressed by the Historic Commission and City staff. Results of the public survey. She also provided the following outline of the projects identified in the Plan: Priority #1 (Projects targeted for completion in the first 5 years) Establish more detailed standards for Residential Districts. Pursue National Register listing for eligible areas identified in the Ashland North RLS Survey. Joint Study Session September 23, 2008 Page 1 of 3 Establish a local grant/loan program. Develop a new homeowner handbook. Establish a Mentoring Program for new Historic Commissioners. Priority #2 (Projects targeted for completion by 2016) Develop criteria for landmark listings and establish a local landmark list. Establish Ashland as a Preserve America community. Develop a Walking Tour/Brochure program. Establish an improved recruitment process for Historic Commissioners. Priority #3 (Projects targeted for completion by 2017) Appoint a Historic Commission liaison to the Planning Commission. Identify areas to expand existing National Register Districts. Offer permit fee reduction for certain historic land use applications. Offer workshops/brown bag lunches. Provide Historic Commissioner training. Priority #4 (Projects targeted for completion by 2018) Draft enabling language for the Historic Review Board. Nominate Lithia Springs to the National Register. Establish a Main Street program. Write and distribute a newsletter from the Historic Commission. Take advantage of local and national networking opportunities. Ms. Fitzgerald concluded her presentation and asked if the group had any questions. She noted there are a lot of different forms a Historic Advisory Committee could take. She stated they could provide recommendations to the Planning Commission (like it is done in Ashland), or some Historic Committee’s act as a quasi-judicial body and make final decisions on certain elements of a project. She added there is no right or wrong way, and Ashland should do whatever is best for this community. Comment was made questioning how a homeowner wanting to change exterior conditions would know what is and isn’t recommended. Ms. Fitzgerald explained the City’s Historic Commission could do an annual mailing to all historic homeowners, or they could consider attaching conditions to the property deed. Giordano voiced his support for the Historic Commission taking a more quasi-judicial role and stated this could shorten the review process for the applicant and lighten the load for the Planning Commission. Dawkins stated he does not see the need for another quasi-judicial body, and suggested a member of the Planning Commission sit on the Historic Commission, and not the other way around as proposed. Giordano suggested one member sit on each: a Historic liaison to the Planning Commission, and a Planning liaison to the Historic Commission. Mindlin noted the Planning Commission has restrictions on the number of design professionals that are allowed. Skibby noted that he has been involved with the Historic Commission since 1989 and overall, the current advisory approach has worked well; however a combination might work well for certain things. Planning Manager Maria Harris clarified the Preservation Plan identifies the Historic Commission as having a role in reviewing activities that currently do not require a permit. She stated the Historic Commission could be the final authority in this area; however, the Plan does not speak to this overall increase in authority as mentioned by the commissioners. Ms. Fitzgerald clarified one of the first priorities is to take a look at the City’s code and identify where inconsistencies and conflicts are. Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented that a specific area of inconsistency is with the City’s Downtown Standards and the Historic Standards in regards to projects with residential elements. He stated the intent is for the Downtown Standards to override, but the code does not say this. He added this has recently become an issue with some mixed use projects. Hartzell commented on how the Plan interfaces with the Conservation Commission and Forest Lands Commission and suggested staff send this plan out for review by these groups. Joint Study Session September 23, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Comment was made questioning which group should initiate the code language changes. Ms. Harris clarified that while the Planning Commission or the City Council could bring this forward, it is also within the Historic Commission’s role and they have the ability to apply for grant funding through the CLG program. She added if this plan gets approved, this is one of the first projects the Historic Commission will pursue. Dawkins voiced his support for preparing a pamphlet that provides a historic perspective of Ashland and simplifying the way people pull historic information on a particular property. He also noted the Helman Baths property and stated it is important that this as well as other historic farm homes be identified. Marsh voiced her support for a homeowner handbook that provides basic information and guidelines for how to go about a renovation. She also voiced her support for a simple walking tour brochure that identifies the properties on the federal register. Ms. Fitzgerald spoke to the inventorying of additional resources. She commented on when it is better to identify districts rather than sporadic properties and provided examples of how other Oregon jurisdictions have gone about this. Shostrom noted that you could cut up Ashland into a lot of historic districts, but this is expensive and difficult to do. He added that sometimes homeowners do not want to become part of a Historic District because they feel this would incur too many regulations. Chapman asked about conflicts between historic restorations and building codes. Ms. Fitzgerald clarified this is a common problem and would be examined in the proposed code evaluation process. She added, however, there are some ADA requirements that you cannot get around. Giordano noted Ashland has a Building Appeals Board, which provides an applicant the opportunity to appeal the decision of the City’s Building Official. Renwick noted a situation where the Building Dept. wanted a change that could have severely impacted the façade of a historic home. She noted the Historic Commission Chair met with the Building Official, and they were able to work out the issues. Giordano commented that they need to get the word out that the City’s Building Official has the ability to flex. Stromberg commented on new buildings with historic elements. Skibby noted a new structure does not have to be a Craftsman or Victorian to fit in. He stated newer styles can fit in as long as there are compatible elements (such as roof pitches) and recommended they encourage this rather than imitation. Dawkins agreed and stated some variation is fine and makes Ashland’s neighborhoods unique. Comment was made questioning if the Plan proposes adding additional historic districts. Ms. Fitzgerald clarified one of the goals is to identify areas abutting the historic districts to see if they can be incorporated into the existing districts, or if the creation of separate districts is more appropriate. Shostrom noted that it is a bigger job to create a new district rather than adding onto an existing one. The meeting concluded with thanks offered to Ms. Fitzgerald for her hard work with this project. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Joint Study Session September 23, 2008 Page 3 of 3 JOINT STUDY SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION, HOUSING COMMISSION, & CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Planning Commissioners Present: City Council Present: John Stromberg, Chair John Morrison, Mayor Michael Dawkins Alice Hardesty Pam Marsh Eric Navickas Melanie Mindlin Kate Jackson Mike Morris David Chapman David Dotterrer Russ Silbiger Tom Dimitre Housing Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Regina Ayars Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Aaron Benjamin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Graham Lewis Martha Bennett, City Administrator Carol Voisin Richard Appicello, City Attorney Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Debbie Miller, Planning Commissioner Richard Billin, Housing Commissioner Tom Dimitre, Planning Commissioner Nick Frost, Housing Commissioner Cate Hartzell, Councilor Stephen Hauck, Housing Commissioner William Smith, Housing Commissioner Alexandra Amarotico, Housing Commission Student Liaison PRESENTATIONS Mayor Morrison presented the City’s outgoing Informational Technology Director Joe Franell with a plaque in recognition of his work for the City. HOUSING INCENTIVES & REGULATORY BARRIERS Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman addressed the group. Mr. Goldman provided a brief presentation which addressed Ashland’s rental market profile, rental production, and changing market conditions. He also identified the following regulatory barriers and possible incentives: Regulatory Barriers: Density Limitations Height Limitations Parking Minimums High Development Costs Restrictive Site Design & Use Standards Limited Availability of Multi-Family Residential zoned area Single Family Development occurring in Multi-Family Residential zones Accessory Residential Units conditionally allowed Joint Study Session September 30, 2008 Page 1 of 4 Mr. Goldman also spoke to the regulatory barriers identified in the 2002 Housing Action Plan, which include: 1) identifying and zoning additional land for multi-family and affordable housing developments, 2) limiting or restricting single family housing in multi-family districts, 3) encouraging the development of accessory dwelling units, and 4) allowing for (or requiring) single family residential development on small lots. Incentives: Density Bonuses Transfer of Development Rights Re-zoning Direct Subsidy Dedication of City owned property Air-rights development Expedited Review Fee Waivers Tax Exemptions Mr. Goldman listed the incentives identified in the 2002 Housing Action Plan, which include: 1) waiving System Development Charges and other planning or permitting fees, 2) creating a Housing Trust Fund and dedicate funding sources to that fund, and 3) identifying a target site with the potential for multi-story mixed used development for use of the new State vertical housing tax exemptions. Mr. Goldman concluded his presentation and asked if there were any questions for staff before they hear from the invited speakers. Councilor Hardesty requested information on the State’s vertical housing exemption. Mr. Goldman provided a brief synopsis and noted Karen Clearwater would be able to speak to this and the other State programs in greater detail. Councilor Chapman suggested tonight’s conversation focus on how to create new housing, not how to maintain affordable rents in existing buildings. Councilor Navickas noted this discussion came about as a result of a motion made by Chapman in regards to the development of the City’s Lithia Lot and voiced support for looking at the bigger picture and exploring the various options. Presentations by Development Professionals John Fields/Golden-Fields Construction & Design/Commented on apartment housing and income, and noted there needs to be a certain level of return in order for these ventures to be worthwhile. He commented that rentals in Ashland are expensive and stated the high cost of land in addition to Ashland’s regulatory process can drive the cost to develop these units way up. He added this increased cost and the uncertainty in the process is now discouraging people from purchasing or building units in Ashland and renting them out. He noted the City’s condo conversion ordinance and suggested many of the units are likely still rentals. Mr. Fields stated the City would have a difficult time trying to get the market to build affordable housing and recommended they consider annexing land into the City limits for this use. He commented on what he felt was a general hostility towards affordable housing in Ashland, and stated if the City wants this type of housing they should build it themselves, and suggested they explore possible partnerships with the private sector. Mr. Fields commented on the issue of managing these properties and stated is it easier to rent out 3 larger units, than 10 smaller ones. He noted the reluctance of developers to build smaller units and stated people with a higher income are easier to rent to. He added in terms of management, it is preferred to rent to families or couples rather than singles. Mayor Morrison suggested they focus on issues the City has some control over. Mr. Fields noted the huge expense in creating the required number of parking spaces and stated the City has a real opportunity for leverage with this. Mindlin voiced support for looking into this option, including reduced parking requirements and no car/limited car leases. Mr. Goldman noted two different affordable housing projects came forward recently that requested parking variances. He sated both variances were approved by the Planning Commission, but noted asking for a variance adds vulnerability to an application. Joint Study Session September 30, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Mark Knox/Urban Development Services/Noted the sensitivity for apartment buildings in Ashland and agreed with Mr. Fields that the community has some issues with this. Mr. Knox spoke to the City’s difficult planning process and stated the subjectivity and uncertainty drives developers away. He commented on the City’s condo conversion ordinance and explained that developers would rather build condominiums over apartments because of the regulations to convert those apartments at a later date. He added the City should not have regulatory barriers for converted apartments. Mr. Knox commented on Accessory Residential Units. He suggested units fewer than 500 sq. ft. should be an outright permitted use and stated this is a great way to get small, affordable units in Ashland. He shared his own experience with receiving approval to build a mother-in- law unit on his property and stated the approval was appealed by a neighbor, which added thousands to the cost. Mr. Knox voiced his support for revising areas of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to rezone areas and revising the annexation criteria in the Land Use Ordinance. Mr. Knox noted the Ashlander apartment complex and stated they have the management in place and could possibly add new units. He recommended there be some entity that approaches these types of individuals with a private/public partnership. Betty McRoberts/Jackson County Housing Authority/Stated the Housing Authority has to go through the same process as a private developer, however they do not make a profit. She explained when the Housing Authority does a project, they have to find land, find money to build the project, and then take it through the City’s approval process. Ms. McRoberts stated her projects are more complex because of the need to assemble a huge funding package and noted most projects involve four or more funding sources. She noted the State of Oregon is a conduit for almost all of the funds they use, and this also brings complications to the process. Ms. McRoberts shared her issues with project timeframes and stated this is very critical in building affordable housing with public dollars. She stated if anything happens to disrupt that timeframe, they could lose everything, and whatever the City could do to help with this would be beneficial. Ms. McRoberts stated the high land costs in Ashland has made it difficult for the Housing Authority to build projects in Ashland and stated $200,000 per acre is about the most they can afford. She commented on the use of Transit Oriented Districts (TODs) and stated these have been very helpful and stated it is nice to know exactly what the requirements are. Ms. McRoberts clarified the City of Ashland has been very supportive of their efforts, and it is more of an issue with land prices that is prohibiting them from constructing more units in Ashland. She also clarified the Jackson County Housing Authority manages their own units and do not use outside management agencies. Karen Clearwater/Oregon Housing and Community Services/Commented on the Country’s current financial situation and stated Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were their largest equity investors, but they are no longer in the market. She explained the Sate uses the low income housing tax credit as their biggest source of funding and also commented on the Oregon affordable housing tax credit, which buys down a bank’s interest rate. Ms. Clearwater recommended Ashland do whatever it can to speed up the approval process for affordable housing projects and explained the longer it takes, the more money it ends up costing. She stated the State is very interested in doing new affordable housing and noted Ashland rates number one with the State in their need for workforce housing. She added this makes Ashland a top priority for funding at the State level. Ms. Clearwater stated she does not believe Ashland will have a problem attracting for-profit and non-profit developers, but urged them to go with someone who has done affordable housing projects before. Ms. Clearwater commented on the vertical housing tax credits and explained this program allows cities to delineate a specific area and apply to the State, and if approved, all housing constructed that is above the first floor becomes eligible for a 10-year property tax exemption. Ms. Clearwater was asked if she could recommend any non-profits or for-profits the City could pursue working with. Ms. Clearwater listed Jackson County Housing Authority, OnTrack, Access, Bill Lovelace (Grants Pass), and Shelter Resources (Bellevue, WA). Commission/Council Discussion Mayor Morrison listed the following options he would like the City to pursue further: 1) Transit Oriented Districts, 2) expedited planning process, 3) parking requirements, 4) density, 5) height restrictions, and 6) partnering with experienced developers and management agencies. He asked if there were any others the group would like added. Additional recommendations were Joint Study Session September 30, 2008 Page 3 of 4 made to look into making Accessory Residential Units an outright permitted use and also reviewing the current lot coverage restrictions. Navickas commented on the need to tie affordable housing development into the City’s Economic Development Strategy and voiced his support for pursuing development of affordable units on the City’s Lithia Lot, as well as the site across the street on the corner of Pioneer and Lithia. Benjamin shared his optimism about what Ashland has accomplished. He noted the success of self-help housing projects and the Clay Street opportunities that may soon materialize. Marsh commented on the need to take a “public pulse” on the issue of affordable housing and stated this goal needs to have broad based support in the community in order for it to succeed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Joint Study Session September 30, 2008 Page 4 of 4 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 14, 2008 PLANNING ACTION: PA2008-01526 APPLICANT: Noble Coffee LOCATION: 281 Fourth St. ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: October 7, 2008 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: February 4, 2009 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-1 Employment District 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.100 Variances REQUEST: Request for Site Review approval to locate a coffee shop/restaurant into the existing building at 281 Fourth Street and for a Variance to the required number of parking spaces to reduce the number of parking spaces from 12 to 5. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application In October 2007, an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a theater use and a Type II Variance to parking was approved. (PA 2007-00520). The use was never implemented. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The property is on the west side of Fourth Street, between A Street and the alley. The lot contains two existing buildings, one which houses the proposed coffee shop/coffee roasting business and the other a glass shop. The buildings share a common wall and cover the majority of the site. The property is located in the Railroad Historic District and is zoned E-1 with a Residential Overlay. Adjacent properties are also E-1 with a Residential Overlay. Surrounding buildings contain a mix of commercial and residential uses. Planning Action PA #2008-01526 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report AB Applicant: Noble Coffee Page 1 of 5 1. Site Review The applicants are proposing to add a 36-seat coffee shop to a coffee roasting business at 281 Fourth Street. The coffee roasting business is an equivalent use under the building code to the video production studio that previously occupied the location and, therefore, does not require Site Review. The coffee shop use is an intensification of use, and is required to go through a Site Review process. The proposal utilizes the existing building, without adding any square footage. Some changes in the exterior, including the addition of a storefront-type front door and some decorative detailing, are proposed. 2. Variance The building was constructed in 1957 and originally housed a electric contractor. There are three on-site parking places that serve the glass shop behind the subject building. There are 5 on-street parking places in front of the building, which provide two parking credits to the building. These on-street credits are the only parking available to meet the parking requirements of the building. The building has housed shop-type uses since its construction, and, due to the lack of on-site parking and the relatively large size of the building, these light manufacturing uses are the only uses that could be located at this site without requiring a Type II Variance to parking. In this case, the 36-seat restaurant needs 9 on-site spaces to meet parking requirements. II. Project Impact The project requires Site Review approval since it involves and intensification of use to change from a production studio to a restaurant. A Type II Variance to parking is needed to reduce the number of required spaces for the lot by more than 50%, from 12 to 5. A. Site Review No additional square footage is proposed to serve the change in use. The building is subject to Detailed Site Review Standards and Historic Design Standards. The use, as proposed, is a permitted use in the E-1 zone. Existing utilities are in place to service the building. Sidewalks are existing, and one large street tree is in front of the building. Another street tree was removed at some point, and an empty tree well is located near the door. Because the proposal does not include any additional square footage, the Site Review issues are limited. Some design changes are proposed on the building exterior, which is currently fairly plain and does not have a strong orientation toward the street, as required by the Site Design and Use Standards. The proposal includes a new door, which will improve the orientation of the building and better meet the design standards. Planning Action PA #2008-01526 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report AB Applicant: Noble Coffee Page 2 of 5 The Historic Commission had not reviewed the application at the time of writing. A condition has been added requiring the applicant to incorporate Historic Commission recommendations where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards. B. Variance Section 18.92.955 of the Development Code allows for up to a 50% reduction in parking requirements in a Historic District to be processed as an administrate action and establishes location of a site in the Historic District as a unique circumstance for the purpose of meeting the criteria for the Variance. However, in the case of a large, older building without on site parking such as this one, any intensification of the use exceeds the 50% limitation, making the Variance a Type II Variance with a public hearing. At this location, even an office use would require a Type II Variance, as 3,000 square feet of office would require 7 parking spaces. For this reason, the principal established by the Type I criteria, establishing existing commercial buildings in historic districts as a unique circumstance, appears applicable to this property, even thought the Variance requires a public hearing. Additionally, the situation is not self-imposed because the property is located in a largely developed historical area that has limited opportunities for additional parking. The application states that patrons are likely to walk to the site due to its location, and this seems to be a credible conclusion given the surrounding uses and the character of the neighborhood. If the coffee shop is primarily a neighborhood use and accessed by non- automotive means, the five on-street spaces in front of the building would likely be sufficient to serve the use. Staff does have a concern with locating all the bike parking in the interior of the building. It seems that bicyclers are less likely to use the provided parking since this location will be less convenient. Given that the intention is for the use to have a significant number of patrons access the site by walking and biking, the provision of bike amenities is closely tied to the requested Variance. Staff is recommending that, in addition to the proposed interior rack, a sidewalk rack should be provided. Additionally, the sidewalk amenities that are currently substandard should be improved to make the pedestrian environment more inviting, including replacement of the street tree that is missing, installation of street tree grates, and replacement of the existing curb cut with standard sidewalk and curb. Replacement of the curb cut with standard sidewalk will, in addition to improving pedestrian access, allow additional area for the outdoor bike rack without eliminating the potential for the requested outdoor dining. Staff is recommending conditions requiring these improvements. The only type of use that could locate in this building without the need for a substantial parking Variance is a light manufacturing- type use. Since the neighborhood has developed over time with many small pedestrian-oriented retail and office uses, Staff feels that a use that has more of a public presence on the street and provides for more interaction with the surrounding neighborhood would be more suitable to the site than a manufacturing use. Thus, the applicantsÓ finding that the caf will provide an improvement in the streetscape and a benefit to the neighborhood that outweighs the negative impacts of less on-site parking seems reasonable. Planning Action PA #2008-01526 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report AB Applicant: Noble Coffee Page 3 of 5 III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) The criteria for a Variance are described in 18.100.020 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, it appears the project could be found to meet the criteria for a Variance to the parking requirements and to meet the applicable Site Design Standards, particularly with the addition of the recommended improvements for cyclists and pedestrians in the right of way and the proposed improvements to the façade of the building. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions attached: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That all conditions of the Historic Commission, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. Planning Action PA #2008-01526 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report AB Applicant: Noble Coffee Page 4 of 5 4) That the windows of the building shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 5) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Exterior building colors shall be muted colors, and sample exterior building colors shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with II-C-2f)1) of the Detail Site Review Standards. b) Any exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 6) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the restaurant: a) The curb cut in front of the door shall be removed and the curb replaced with standard curb and sidewalk. All sidewalk installation, curb cut removal, and sidewalk reconstruction shall be completed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Ashland Public Works/Engineering Department. b) The street tree in the well in front of the building shall be replaced. The street tree shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street tree shall be irrigated. c) The applicant shall install metal street tree grates to match replacement grates installed on the west side of Fourth Street at the corner of Fourth and B Streets. d) Two bike racks shall be provided outside, in front of the building in addition to the indoor sheltered spaces. The bike rack details shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor. All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.I and J. 7) That the applicants shall obtain a sign permit prior to the installation of any signage on the site. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of the Sign Regulations found in Chapter 18.96 of the Ashland Municipal Code, and shall be reviewed by the Historic Commission Review Board and the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 8) That the applicant will apply for and obtain a sidewalk dining permit from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to locating any tables in the Fourth Street right-of-way. Planning Action PA #2008-01526 Ashland Planning Department Î Staff Report AB Applicant: Noble Coffee Page 5 of 5