Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-12 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Powell, Thompson, Hibbert, Armitage, Medinger, Bingham, and Carr. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Medinger moved to approve the Minutes of the September 14, 1993 Regular Meeting, Hibbert seconded the motion and the Minutes were approved. The Findings will be adopted later in the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM MR. COWAN asked what time PA93-126 (Kieley)would be heard. McLaughlin introduced the new Associate Planner, Mark Knox. PLANNING ACTION 93-109 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 25-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST MAIN ON FORDYCE STREET. REQUEST ALSO INVOLVES FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE I (LOTS ABUTTING FORDYCE STREET). APPLICANT: KEITH AVERY/BEAR CREEK CONSTRUCTION Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts There had been no new site visits since last month. STAFF REPORT The applicant is requesting a 25-1ot subdivision and Final Plan for Phase I. The applicant has brought in a newly configured open space that has been incorporated into one central area as seen on the notice map, close to the intersection of Amy and Melanie Lane. This will allow the lots along the railroad track and Melanie to become a little deeper. In addition, the street design has incorporated a five foot wide parkrow between the curb and sidewalk for street trees. Final Plan approval for Phase I will involve the construction of Amy Street. Staff has recommended the approval of this action with the attached Conditions, including Condition 10 requiring a temporaw turnaround be incorporated as part of Phase I. Carr arrived at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING KEITH AVERY said there was not square footage change in the amount of open space. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hibbert moved to approve PA93-109 with the attached Conditions. Powell seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 93-115 REQUEST FOR A SIGN VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A FREEWAY SIGN IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND AREA, AND A GROUND SIGN IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2495 HIGHWAY 66 (TEXACO STATION). APPLICANT: ROBERT D. GEORGE Site visits and Ex Parte Contacts ->Carr visited the Texaco Station at the North Ashland interchange to ask about heights of signs at that station. The tallest was about 70 feet and 13' x 13'. The shorter sign was approximately 30 feet and 8' x 8'. Carr did not think it was quite that tall. -->Bingham, Medinger, Thompson, and Armitage had no other site visits. --Powell and Jarvis had site visits. STAFF REPORT Staff's position remains the same and is reported in the Staff Report and recommended the Commission listen to the applicant. Carr asked what the dimensions of the BP sign were. McLaughlin said he reviewed the sign permit as it was issued, and the exterior dimensions were 10' x 10'. After McLaughlin looked at the actual sign, he thought it could possible be 13' x 13'. The issued ground sign permit is for 5' in height. McLaughlin thought is could also be taller. This may require some enforcement action. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING ROBERT GEORGE, 2449 Arrowpoint Court, Medford, OR, stated he has an agreement with Mrs. Hale to lease the station. The sign company representatives are present tonight. Instead of a 75' sign, George would be willing to erect a 50' sign that would meet the criteria. The problem with a 13' x 13' sign is that Texaco has a round sign. The lit portion is 93 square feet. He is requesting the monument sign be 5' from the crown of the highway. There is an existing sign on the canopy he would like to keep and put on the building canopy. Even though he can appreciate what the City is trying to do, unfortunately, he said Texaco has minimum requirements. Through questioning of the applicant, it was determined a one foot variance would be required on the price sign. PAUL NEWCOMB, 830 Cambridge, General Manager, Blaze Signs, explained that he installs signs for Texaco. The reason he does not custom build signs for each location is cost; it would probably cost twice as much to custom build each sign, not including installation. McLaughlin did not see that there is any more of a hardship imposed on the applicant than any other business in Ashland. The ordinance is clear and objective that regulates signs within the freeway areas. Corporate policy has not taken into account the Ashland sign code, however, there have been cases where businesses have not followed usual corporate policy. McLaughlin added that variances can be granted as read in the sign code ordinance and that is, the minimum requirement to alleviate the hardship. GEORGE, rebuttal, said that as the applicant, the decision would probably fall to the owner. She cannot sell the property because of contamination on the site so the only solution is to keep the service station. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Medinger did not believe a 13' x 13' sign was that disagreeable, given the circumstances. Bingham agreed since the difference in the cost of custom building a sign is so great, the one foot variance would not bother him. Armitage agreed but would like to add a Condition that the footing for the low profile sign would have to be absolute minimum above ground footing necessary to adequately support the sign. Thompson did not believe the application meets the criteria for approval and he cannot believe Ashland is the only City that has specific requirements for signs. Hibbert agreed and was concerned if this was approved, what about requests in the future. He believes the objective is to come into compliance with the ordinance. Carr ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES agreed. Thompson moved to deny PA93-115. Hibbert seconded the motion and it was carried with Armitage, Hibbert, Carr, Thompson and Jarvis voting "yes" and Bingham, Medinger, and Powell voting "no". Those voting to deny believe the 13' x 13' sign can be 10' x 10'. PLANNING ACTION 93-127 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE LOCATION OF AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1175 EAST MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Site Visit and Ex Parte Contacts -*Carr and Armitage had a site visit. -->Bingham had conversations with many people. In each, the discussion did not pertain to a site review, but political issues. Therefore, it does not seem there would be a reason to divulge any ex parte contacts. -->Powell also had conversations with many citizens as well as meetings in discussing a possible move to the Mark Antony Hotel. She had a discussion with Larry Cooper who wondered the time of this hearing. -->Thompson has been involved in this issue extensively for a number of years. He has written an editorial and columns and believes he would be more effective by stepping down and acting as an opponent. Since he is stepping down, he hoped Councilman Laws and Councilwoman Acklin would consider stepping down if the action gets to the City Council. ~Hibbert had read the articles in the paper but feels he can be objective. --*Jarvis had a site visit, has read the paper and the packet, has avoided discussions with citizens on the criteria. Since the review is limited to the site review, none of her conversations had anything to do with the site review. -->Medinger had no ex parte contacts. He has had no conversations with citizens regarding site review. Hibbert wanted reassurance from Powell and Bingham that they could be objective since he has heard comments from them thinking City Hall should stay downtown. Bingham and Powell both strongly emphasized the need to look only at the site review criteria and ignore the political issues involved. They underscored their ability to be completely objective in hearing this action. STAFF REPORT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES McLaughlin gave a brief history of this application, as outlined in the Staff Report. This involves a continuation of what began in the 1980's. The plan showed a future building that would house the remainder of City Hall. There have been some modifications; since that time, the Downtown Plan was adopted and included a specific language retaining some City Hall functions downtown. The proposed building is for Public Works and Community Development. The proposed building is designed to compliment the existing design. The primary entrance will be right behind the Council Chambers. The building will be built to beyond energy conservation standards. This is E-1 zoned property with a Comp Plan designation of public facilities. The building is considered professional offices which is an outright permitted use. What offices are to move and whether to build the building, are not within the purview of the Planning Commission, only the Site Review criteria. McLaughlin read the criteria for approval. Staff believes the criteria have been met and recommended approval with five attached Conditions. Bingham wondered if the Lithia water fountain would be altered. McLaughlin said it would not and that the courtyard area would remain and some modifications of the berm will be made with a small rock wall that will be incorporated into the design. McLaughlin reported the following be entered into the record: Mayor Golden's letter, letter from George Kramer in opposition, a letter from Marjorie O'Harra, a FAX from Mary McCurty of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a FAX from Brian Scott who is President of Oregon Downtown Development Assn., a copy of a letter and photos from Terry Skibby, an article from this evening's Tidings, and an addendum to the letter from Brent Thompson with additional signatures. PUBLIC HEARING GARY AFSETH, 313 Ravenwood Place, architect for the project, discussed the administrative space study done last year. The information derived from this study allowed for projections and goals of each department. There is currently approximately 7,000 square feet of space downtown. It was found that at least 17,000 square feet would be needed in the next ten years to satisfy City growth. The recommendation emerged for Public Works and Community Development to move the Civic Center site with a proposed 10,000 square foot building to be constructed to meet the needs of those two departments for the next ten years. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES The proposed building will consist of a two-story building with a second floor to house mechanical equipment. The building will be handicap accessible through a series of ramps. Public Works requires a service drive which will be located off the north side of the building. The landscaping will consist of plantings that will blend with the existing landscaping. The site is bicycle accessible and bike racks are planned for the front entrance and staff entrance. Medinger asked what type of siding would be used and Afseth responded the siding would match the existing siding (cedar siding). Medinger wondered if Afseth had thought about the scarcity of old growth cedar and asked he would consider other possibilities. Medinger hoped there would be plans for daylighting the new addition. Afseth said skylights were planned as well as motion sensor lighting. Medinger wondered if the building could be produced for $67.50 per square foot. Afseth was hopeful. He said they explored metal studs over wood and chose wood because of the availability of wood. He said it was difficult to find tradesmen in southern Oregon dealing in that type of construction. Bingham commented that Ashland Community Food Store is being built with metal studs and he asked if Afseth had any cost differentials. Afseth said he could research and provide those. TERRY SKIBBY, 611 Beach Street, opposes the planning action. He submitted a letter and photos explaining his position. He cited several specific ordinances and sections from the Comp Plan where he believes this application in not in compliance and does not meet the criteria. Bingham assumed the photos Skibby included illustrated the distance between the nearest bus facility and the access and unimproved areas, narrow sidewalks and obstructions. Did Skibby know what would be involved in getting transit service to the site on East Main? Skibby did not know, but commented if a bus were to stop at the site, a person could be stuck at this site for an hour in a vacuum of development with no other supporting services around. BRENT THOMPSON, P.O. Box 201, said there was a correction on the addendum he submitted. It says signatee, and should say signatory. He noted the planning notice was in error as it stated 8,000 square feet not 10,000 square feet. He said there are reasons to deny this action. The application ignores the existence of the Downtown Plan. This is a move of 10,000 square feet of City Hall and involves a move of bulk and function. Thompson attempted to define City Hall in the letter entered into the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES record. He believes the removal of Planning, Building, Conservation, Public Works and Engineering is bulk enough to constitute City Hall. Thompson cites several places in the Downtown Plan where it refers to the essential nature of having City Hall downtown. This comes down to "applicable City ordinances" in the Site Review ordinance. "Applicable" ties into "use" or vice versa. There have to be certain applicable ordinances and in dealing with "use", it comes down to the moving of City Hall and though it may permitted, it is in conflict with the Downtown Plan. Thompson said this application needs to meet the highest standard of transportation since a city or government entity should be able to be accessed by every single person in the city. This application cannot meet that standard because of the inaccessibility of public transportation. The closest bus stop is one-half mile away and that is not considered adequate. Thompson felt the change last year in the E-1 ordinance was pushed through to eliminate public testimony and input. Thompson reiterated that the City must meet the highest standard. Denying this application is not denying someone's property rights, but trying to serve the entire city. There are many other options where these proposed offices could go; there are six locations in the downtown. The East Main location is out of the downtown arena. He said the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that there is adequate transportation and that the application is not in violation of the Downtown Plan and not a removal of City Hall in bulk, in other words, not over 50 percent of services and interaction with the public. Jarvis wondered what the standard was for public transportation as she could not find it in the ordinance. Thompson said the highest standard that must be met for a public building that will serve every single person in the City is adequate public transportation or can be within a short enough walking distance from public transportation. One-quarter mile would be acceptable. Jarvis proposed that the time most people communicate with their City is at public hearings, therefore, this would be the time public transportation would be most needed. There is no public transportation in Ashland at night. Thompson contended this building is a non- conforming use and the meeting hall should be moved downtown. Bingham wondered what constituted City Hall. Thompson answered when the Police Department moved, there was no Downtown Plan. Because of this, the Downtown Plan would almost compel the Police move back downtown. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES Jarvis thought the Downtown Plan is irrelevant. Thompson perceived this application does deal with applicable ordinances - the Downtown Plan (politically formed documents). He asked the Downtown Plan be entered into the record. He noted the interest from Oregon Downtown Development Assn., 1000 Friends of Oregon, the State of Oregon, and Jackson County Citizens League, Ashland Historic Commission who all feel the move is wrong. SUSAN HUNT, 220 Nutley, agreed with Thompson. It seems the functions of Community Development and City services constitute the greater part of the interaction the public has with the City. She shares the concerns about transportation and access as well. MARILYN BRIGGS, 590 Glenview Drive, agreed with Skibby and Thompson. Of the 47 employees, how many will occupy the new location? McLaughlin thought 23 people. Briggs rejected on the basis of extravagance. LARRY COOPER, 346 High Street, wanted to discuss the use of the existing building and the proposed building. Personally, he has made 25 individual trips in the past 14 months to the offices of Community Development as part of making two or three errands within walking distance of the neighborhood. With the offices located on East Main, he would have made 25 round trip auto trips with no other reason than to visit these offices. He would submit that the transportation issue is extremely significant and asked the Commission to deny on the basis of Criteria D as the applicant has not shown there would be adequate transportation. He referred to the Comp Plan Council policy for encouraging residents of the City to bicycle or walk as an alternative to the automobile and to use public transportation. The applicant has not included how this will happen. RON ROTH, 6950 Old 99 South, stated he has worked in downtown Ashland in 16 years. He asked, "Who is the City and what is Planning?" The City was represented by the architect and no one else. He thought the political decision should come first and the Planning Commission should not be hearing this as a Site Review. He would like to have the downtown business owners to be polled or perhaps a vote of the citizens. Moving the office will create more traffic--employees walking to lunch will drive downtown to lunch. He would like to see the Commission deny because they do not know who the City is. BILL EMERSON, 90 Fifth Street, wondered if it is true that the existing building has to remain as City Hall or house City services. McLaughlin said he understood that when the property was deeded, and it was to be used for public purposes. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES CATHY GOLDEN, 806 Oak Street, cited Criteria D - inadequate transportation - she does not believe it will be an improvement to move most of the City functions to a place that never has public transportation and is unlikely to get it. Some of the largest public meetings have been held downtown at Hillah Temple. She also reported that more people use City Hall each day than attend most of the public hearings. They can travel by foot, bike or public transportation to downtown. Bingham wondered if the approval was conditioned on receiving transit services from RVTD, does Golden know what that would require to obtain services. She did not know, but pointed out that the City (Council) has said they want the public to be less dependent on the car. McLaughlin read a letter into the record by Marjorie O'Harra, Tolman Creek Road. RICK VEZIE, 446 Walker Avenue, questioned whether there was adequate paved access to the development. He lives on Walker Avenue and travels on East Main. The busiest time of day is in the morning and late afternoon. Traffic flow will move to this location. He does not believe there is paved access or adequate capacity. McLaughlin said the resolution on capacity would apply. East Main is an arterial and is functionally useable and has capacity for future development. Vezie thought the natural history museum and additional development on Fordyce would add more traffic volume. COOPER wondered if there would be a reason to look at this Site Review differently because it is a public building. McLaughlin said "no". Bingham questioned Paul Nolte, City Attorney whether or not it would be legal to move City Hall to another location. Nolte recalled that the building presently housing City Hall downtown is to be used for a town hall or jail. He does not think it would be in violation of the deed restriction if City Hall was to move, however, he cannot be definitive. Medinger wondered how often Nolte spoke face to face with someone in Public Works or Planning. Nolte said about a half dozen times per day. McLaughlin said that RVTD would not put a transit route where there is not enough population. However, as the East Main area develops, the ridership level may reach a level to add a route. McLaughlin said the Commission would be holding the City to a higher standard than any other applicant for Site Review if they base their decision on ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES requiring a public transportation stop at the East Main site. Carr wondered how "higher standard" was defined. Would that apply to construction as well? BRIAN ALMQUIST, City Administrator, rebuttal, stated public access to the facility is provided by way of fully improved sidewalks to and from the development. The site is located on two arterial streets with bikeways connecting the downtown to Oak Knoll. He would submit the geographical center of the City is at the East Main Street. In 1978 the Council made the decision to purchase the East Main site for the future civic center site. Almquist described the evolution of the East Main site and how through public hearings and meetings, the decisions were made to move some of the functions of City Hall to the East Main site. The Council would like to proceed with the project. The functions to remain at City Hall will be the Mayor, City Recorder, City Attorney, City Administrator, Finance, Personnel, and Utilities. Almquist estimated that to build a building in the downtown would cost approximately $2 million. GARY AFSETH said the largest departments are slated to move to the East Main site. There will be approximately 26 employees with a projected 34. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis vocalized the difficulty of this application because of the public argument couched in politics. The question is: Does this application on this site meet the Site Review criteria? The only issue raised has been transportation. She did not see any criteria addressing public transportation. Staff could find none and the Commission has never required it in the past. She thought the application meets the burden of proof. Powell thought "adequate" is starting to become the "liveability" standard. If this was a private office, it would not be up to the Commission to decide if they moved, however, it seems different for the City offices because they serve everyone. Hibbert walks out to the East Main site regularly. There are sidewalks and there is handicap access. Most of those using this site will be contractors and they will not walk, bike, or bus, but arrive in pick-up trucks. He would like to see City Hall downtown, but it meets the Site Review criteria. Medinger said, other than having the same emotions as Hibbert, the only problem he can see is additional traffic and awkward daily communication between the staff ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES 10 remaining downtown and the staff that is moving because of the distance between the two. He likes the urban feel of our downtown. Bingham felt the only problem Criteria is "D". It would be futile to condition approval upon a bus stop. He feels it would be proper to hold the City to a higher standard, however, he cannot find it in the ordinances. He is upset that this application is presented as a political issue. Carr viewed the project on its merits and believes it meets the criteria. Carr moved to approve PA93-127 with the five attached Conditions. Hibbert seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Thompson rejoined the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 93-126 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN 8-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 575 ELIZABETH STREET. APPLICANT: WILLIAM D. KIELEY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Armitage, Medinger, and Hibbert had site visits. STAFF REPORT This proposal involves the development of an 8-lot subdivision. It involves a 40 percent density bonus. There is an existing residence on the southern portion of Elizabeth. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing shop building into a two- unit building. If this did not meet the conservation standards for a density bonus, it would be removed. Randy and Elizabeth are paved with curbs and gutters. The City is requesting the extension of Randy be improved at this time. A letter has been submitted by Don Cowan, owner of the large parcel 200. He has discussed some problems with flooding in the area and deterioration of a drainage ditch. Molnar read Cowan's letter into the record. A ditch runs along the north boundary of lot 100. There is another ditch that crosses the property. The applicant will have to address any problems with these ditches and ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES 11 drainage with regard to subdivision improvements. Final construction information could be submitted at Final Plan. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30. HIBBERT SECONDED. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING SONNY KIELEY, said the map shows a 1 1/2" irrigation line that crosses lots 7 and 8. This is the only easement listed on the title report for the property. The north irrigation line is not on his property. Medinger asked if there were any fencing requirements. McLaughlin thought that was a good point and would be good to add. Kieley thought it would be costly to improve the Randy Street extension and did not see that it made sense. WANDA JO WOOD, 275 Randy, said the drainage ditch runs between her lot and between lots 141 and 140, across the front of her yard. Will the applicant be required to move the pipes? Can they cap before they get to her house? DON COWAN, 1330 Oregon Street, said someone needs to talk to the Water Master. Wood's water comes from established water courses. The Water Master has lots of complaints. Problems have come with development. McLaughlin thought it would be advisable for Jim Olson, City Engineer and Cowan and himself to visit the site to see the problems that have been brought up tonight. POWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:45 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND APPROVED. Condition 3 needs to be strengthened. KIELEY, rebuttal, explained that the only stipulation from Engineering was that one line be tight-lined (the diagonal line across). Everything else shown is off his property. CHRIS HALD, 275 Cambridge, said the 24" line goes right through his property. There is irrigation water continuously coming through. With rain water, the 24" pipe is at capacity. His garage floods with even a small rain. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES 12 McLaughlin said the more information that keeps coming up, he is doubtful the Commission can make adequate findings about urban storm drains. They may be at capacity without including roof drainage from the proposed development. It appears additional information may be needed. Kieley agreed to a 30 day continuance and a waiver of 30 days on his application. Carr moved to continue PA93-126 until November. Armitage seconded the motion and it was approved. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Carr moved to approve the Findings for the September 14, 1993 meeting, Hibbert seconded the motion and the Findings were approved. The Findings included PA93- 095 (Barton) and PA93-117 (Hays/Cox) OTHER Included in the packet is the Periodic Review work program listing programs for the next two years. The list will go to the Council for final adoption on November 2, 1993. Jarvis read the letter from Allan Sandler to the Commission regarding Roca Canyon. Staff has responded to that letter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11'50 pm. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1993 MINUTES 13