Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council January 19 1999MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL January 19, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continuation of Public Hearing regarding Planning Action 98-091, a request for a Site Review to demolish the existing hotel and construct a 10,901 sq. ft. retail building, and convert the existing 24 hotel units to studio apartments for the property located at 1520 Siskiyou Blvd. COUNCIL DELIBERATION: Staff confirmed for Councilor Reid that the overhead was not a complete depiction of the trees on the site, and showed only the significant trees that were impacted by the design. Councilor Wheeldon asked if this is the best application of the existing standards for this site, and if these standards are current. McLaughlin stated that he could not say whether this is the best design that could occur on the site. Confirmed that the standards are high. McLaughlin continued, stating that there is an art to finding a balance to reach the best development. In this instance, the design balances the standards’ requirement to orient the project toward the street and emphasize streetscapes, and the Planning Commission felt that these were important factors. Emphasized that the Council can, at its discretion, add more weight to the trees and shift this balance by calling for different design. Stated that calling this the “best design” depends on values, but that it is a good design for the site and the standards. Councilor Reid noted that when she served on the large-scale development design committee to develop standards, trees, elevations, and excavations were not discussed. While they looked at the size of buildings, and at streetscapes, they did not speak of trees. She now feels that this was short-sighted as Ashland’s hillsides require excavation and there are many trees that need to be considered. Councilor Wheeldon would also like to see the space incorporate trees, but feels that standards were set for the Planning Commission’s decision. Noted that certain values were laid out in the form of the standards, and these carry a certain weight that must be considered. Noted the problems on Ashland Street nearby where development did not occur to standards, and the number of values including natural aspects that need to be balanced on projects. Stated that trees are dying from nearby development disrupting the property. She stated that she questions whether the trees can be given a chance while incorporating values. Emphasized that she feels the design is of a human scale in that it is a single story with streetscapes. Recognized that Council cannot prohibit development, and stated that she doesn’t know if the trees can survive even with another design. Concluded that the City has created the standards, and while it is a shame that they cannot use the topography in carrying out the standards, there is substance to the standards and she cannot see denying the application. Suggested that if there is a desire to place more value on trees, then the process should start now and work towards changing the standards. Councilor Hauck stated that given the criteria, the design complies with Site Design and Use Standards, particularly #2(c)(1)(c)(5), in dealing with natural features of the site in its totality. Stated that he sees evidence that the whole site was addressed and that the standards have been met. Feels that the applicant has made a good faith effort to save as much as can be saved given constraints. Councilor Hansen concurred with Hauck and Wheeldon, stating that he feels the standards have been met, and efforts made, and the Council should move ahead. Councilor Fine stated that he differs with the opinions expressed by his three colleagues, and feels that the design has not met the necessary requirements. He cited section 2(c)(1) of the site review standard which states, “Developments of all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following development standards...”, which he suggested required development to meet each and every standard. Fine went on to note that under 2(c)(1)(c) Landscaping, #5 says efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs as possible. Emphasized that this is mandatory. Then noted the Planning Commission’s finding on page 19 at 2.5 which says that this standard can be met by planting some significant trees near the footprint. Expressed concerns that what has been proposed are 4" diameter trees at best, with some even smaller. Fine stated that the questions facing the Council are: 1) How rigorous must we be/How high a standard has been set by 2(C)(1)(C)(5)? and 2) Have the standards been met on the record before Council? With regard to the first question, he stated that the Council must be guided by the words in the standards, and when that wording is ambiguous there is a need to look to official statements of City policy. Noted page 17 of the site design & use standards which says, “The alternative desired in Ashland is to design the site so that it makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and enhances pedestrian and bicycle traffic.” The need to shade the sidewalk requires the saving of these existing trees. Fine also cited the Comprehensive Plan, under Economic Development Policy, page 7-2, which states it is “important for the overall economic health of this city that a high standard of... architectural design, sign control and landscaping be required of new development. While this is most important in areas that are highly visible or in buffer residential areas, its also important even in industrial parks.” Pointed out that this is a very high visibility area which helps to define Ashland. Fine continued that in the Aesthetic Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan, page 8-3 notes, “Trees, especially large trees, enhance the quality of life of life in Ashland in many ways: providing shade; protection from wind; erosion control.” Stated that Ashland has a long history of honoring and protecting its trees, and has been a Tree City. Stated that trees are a fragile resource, and the proven benefits of trees can only be maintained through favorable consideration in the political process. Fine pointed out that the Goals and Policies on page 8-16 of the Comprehensive Plan, in paragraphs 11, 12, and 19, state that “especially on major arterials and on access routes into Ashland we should be requiring extraordinarily high standards of design and landscaping.” Noted that there is a stated goal of increasing the portion of the City covered by a tree canopy, and a policy of developing urban forest interface to enhance aesthetics and recreational opportunities. Fine stated that of the City’s roughly twelve commissions, there are a Tree Commission, a Parks Commission, a Forest Lands Commission, and a Conservation Commission. Feels that all of this illustrates the high value placed on maintaining trees in Ashland, and if the standards are ambiguous then policies should be applied strictly. Stated that nothing in the record indicates that it would be impossible to maintain these uniquely significant trees. Emphasized that the trees could be saved without hurting the economic potential of the site, as stated in the testimony of Bob Taber and Ralph LePre. Expressed his concern with designing to meet the requirements of a national tenant. Stated that all property owners in Ashland have derived economic benefit from the very stringent application of land use laws, which make the City more livable and lucrative. The land is more valuable than it would be elsewhere, and it would not be an undue hardship if the applicant were required to design to retain the trees. Quoted Tom Brown 17th C English physician said “Generations pass while old trees stand, and old families last not three oaks.” Initial tenants for the cite are likely to be quickly passing. Feels that the documents are a clear expression of public policy stating that 2(C)(1)(C)(5) should be rigorously applied, and not liberally construed so as to encourage commercial development. Does not find in the record that this criteria has not been met, the appeal should be approved and the planning action denied. Councilor Hansen suggested that the ambiguity Fine mentions should be solved in favor of those trying to meet the standards in question. Councilor Reid noted that she is fond of the trees, but feels that the Council should err on the side of safety due to the concern expressed by experienced professionals. Suggested that it would be wrong to mandate keeping the trees given the possibility of their falling. Concluded that while the trees are beautiful, the standards have been met and the trees could fall, and the Council would then be in the position of having created a hazard. Councilor Hauck stated that he does not see the ambiguity that Fine spoke about, and feels that the applicant has saved as many trees as possible, looking at the site in totality with all existing natural vegetation included. They have met the criteria by saving the vast majority of the existing shrubbery and trees. Stated that the section in dispute says “to save as many as possible”, and the applicant has made efforts to this end. Councilor Laws stated that since he was not feeling “lawyerly” he would speak with his vote. Mayor Shaw stated that she agreed with Councilor Fine. Noted Comprehensive Plan policy #37 which emphasizes the preservation of forest vegetation to the extent feasible as forested areas of the City are converted to urban uses. Stated that these trees went in after development. Explained how site review came about as a result of Ashland Shopping Center’s construction, where a developer agreed to save as many as possible and then clear cut the site. Emphasized that this is a difficult case, as she knows and likes the applicant, but this is the first instance of cutting huge trees for commercial development and there is a lot more commercial property where magnificent trees are in the way. Trees will be jeopardized if not preserved in the City’s standards. Also stated that there are no clear alternatives presented in the application, and there are violations of the Comprehensive Plan. Emphasized that there is no committed tenant, and trees are the key component. Cited trees on other sites in commercial districts, and feels interpretation at this first step will set a precedent. Concluded that there is not that much ambiguity, but there is supporting documentation to ask for an alternative design that “shall conform” to the development standards and save as many trees as possible. Councilor Reid stated that the Council cannot take into account a tenant, as there are no laws pertaining to this aspect of the development. The Council must deal with the design standards, and the Council cannot discriminate by tenant. Emphasized that the tenant is irrelevant. Shaw referred to page 24 of the packet where a two-story design was not considered further as it was declined by a potential tenant. Shaw explained that the tenant cannot be a guiding force, but in this case the tenant has become a factor in the design. Councilor Hauck stated that there has been testimony that any construction would likely damage the trees, and the proposed design was chosen to save as many of the trees as possible. Councilor Fine stated that the standard calls for an effort to save as many trees as possible. It does not say to save as many as is consistent with the primary concept of the applicant. Noted that the Council could insist on other alternatives. Minor adjustments might not protect trees, but major adjustments could potentially save more trees. Councilor Wheeldon recognized the difficulty in saving specific trees. Stated that since she does not have the knowledge to know if trees will survive construction, she must rely on the testimony of professionals. Suggested that it is not the number of trees saved that is important, but the spirit of property, and that is a difficult concept to negotiate. It is difficult to find an operational definition of saving as many as possible or working with the topography, and as such she is hesitant to try to be artful. Shaw suggested that it is not the position of the Council to make those decisions; the Council can simply say that this one design does not meet the site design guidelines or the Comprehensive Plan, and ask for another design. The appeal can be upheld without prejudice, so the applicant will not need to wait another year. The Council need not decide on an alternative to meet the standards, but rather it needs only to decide if this design does not meet the standards. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve the application. Discussion: Hauck stated that there is a need to look at the totality of the site, and the Council cannot value certain trees over others. The standards only call for saving as much as can be saved, and he believes this has been done. Laws stated that either way this vote goes, it points out the importance of ongoing efforts to preserve existing trees and to continue planting and enhancing growth of new trees. Feels trees will die from number of causes, but want to continue to have an overhead that continues to grow greater. This issue stresses the importance of the City’s committees. Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Hauck, Laws, Reid, and Hanson, YES. Fine, NO. Motion passed 5-1.