Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-10 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Armitage at 7:05 p.m.. Other Commissioners present were Russ Chapman, Anna Howe, Chris Hearn, Mike Morris, Barbara Jarvis, Mike Cardiner, Marilyn Briggs, and Ron Bass. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Maria Harris and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Amend the Minutes of the February 10, 1998 (page 1, John Fields, PA98-012) to read: "All Commissioners 'except Chapman' had a site visit". Howe moved to approve the amended Minutes, Jarvis seconded the motion and everyone approved. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 98~01 ;2 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO MIXED USE (TWO, TWO- STORY) BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF: RETAIL, WAREHOUSE, OFFICE, AND APARTMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT 498 AND 508 OAK STREETS. APPLICANT: JOHN FIELDS STAFF REPORT This action was reviewed at the last meeting, testimony was taken, however, notice was never published in the newspaper last month so a decision could not be made. This month notice was published. The Commission is charged with opening the public hearing, allowing testimony, and opening and closing the hearing. The Findings have been prepared and are ready for adoption. PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth to ~peak. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe moved to approve PA98-012 and to adopt the Findings. Jarvis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously TYPE III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 98-017 REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1-5) 1644 PARKER STREET (TWO SEPARATE TAX LOTS) ONLY THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES I$ ZONED COMMERCIAL. ALSO, A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON TAX LOT 9800. APPLICANT: NANCY WESTON/JOHN TOSO Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Harris reported the proposal consists of two adjacent parcels, each having an existing single family residence. The first part of the proposal is a zone change from Commercial Retail to Single Family Residential on the rear portion of both lots. The second part of the proposal which is dependent on the zone change is a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for an accessory residential unit at the portion of 1644 Parker Street. Harris noted the applicable criteria and stated that notice was sent to owners within 200 feet of the site. Harris showed overheads and explained the history of the site as outlined in the Staff Report. The properties have been zoned in the rear as Commercial since at least 1984. Staff believes there isa need to adjust to new conditions. The strip zoning of Commercial zoning was reflective of that time. In 1984, it was thought the backs of the two lots would be developed with the lot behind the trailer park on Ashland Street. By 1990when the vacant commercial industrial lands were examined the two properties were not included (Exhibit B). The feasibility of accessing a commercial use on the two properties between two residential units in an area all residential is not likely. Another condition that has changed since the original zoning is that the City in 1990 allowed accessory residential units to be a Conditional Use in the R-1 zone. If the Commission decides to approve the zone change, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory residential unit, however, they are requesting the existing front house (865 sq. ft.) be accessory to the primary residence in the rear portion of the property (1 736 sq. ft.). Access would be by way of a shared driveway. Agarage will be removed to make room for the driveway. The proposed primary residence is two-story. The exterior of the first floor is stucco, and the second floor is redwood shakes and half timbering. The application is consistent with the site review standards. Sixty-two percent of the lot will be landscaped. At least five significant trees will be retained. Staff believes there will be no greater impact than the target use in the way of traffic, air quality, generation of noise, light and glare. Staff has concerns with architectural compatibility. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10. 1998 The proposed primary residence is more adorned than other residences in the impact area. Most of the homes are modest, reflecting the 1950's style architecture. The applicant has not demonstrated how the proposal and the different type of architecture are compatible with the area. Harris noted the letter submitted by the neighbor at 1640 Parker (Scott Beveridge - Tax Lot 9900). PUBLIC HEARING NANCY WESTON, 1660 Parker, thought Staff covered the zone change request. Because of the uniqueness of this particular lot, it is the only one in the immediate area of such a size that an additional residence can be constructed under the CUP criteria. This arrangement is being encouraged under the Comp Plan. Weston believes building this residence will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The first floor is designed for persons of limited mobility. The overall impact on the area's livability is more positive than negative because it will add to the diversity of the neighborhood. The wood/stucco residence should blend with the existing residence and other homes nearby. The color of the existing residence will be changed to coordinate with the new house. Even though the architecture of the homes in the neighborhood is predominantly ranch or minimal traditional, there are some flourishes such as arched doorways, split rooflines, and bay windows. The primary residence is not in a prominent position on the property, however, if any ornamentation is of concern, it is not necessary to the overall plan and can be eliminated. After driving through the neighborhood, Jarvis felt the exterior design of the proposed primary residence appears significantly different in size and feeling. Weston said the finials, wood portions and flourishes can be eliminated making it look simpler. The house will probably be cream colored. The chimney will be brown faced brick. Many of the homes in the area have two chimneys. Weston said the proposed residence is on an uphill grade toward Ashland Street and will be next to Beveridge's home. The only windows on the upper portion are near the front and she felt it afforded Beveridge enough privacy along with the trees. She has tried to keep the windows to a minimum. Jarvis asked about noise, light and glare. Weston thought the traffic would be equally divided between the front and back house. There is a fence between her property and Beveridge's. She did not think there would be any glare from headlights coming from her property. Briggs would hate to see the finials and other whimsical details eliminated because it is a very good interpretation of a particular style (English craftsman style, borrowing from the tudor style). She does not believe it will be that visible from the street. She is not concerned with the architectural compatibility of the neighborhood; neighborhoods evolve. Staff Response Harris said there is a lot of detail on the house and perhaps the applicant should look at something more consistent with the neighborhood. Molnar said there was a lack of information on the other houses in the neighborhood. Gardiner commented that since the structure is going to be in the back, it has less impact on the neighborhood and the extra detail won't matter. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 Rebuttal Weston reiterated her first comments that some of the detail could be removed but the house is toward the back of the lot and in general should enhance the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Zone Change - Howe thought correcting a zoning mistake to draw a line to correct the commercial lot lines is acceptable. The Commissioners agreed. CUP and Site Review - Bass wondered if the ordinance intended to have a primary residence built with the existing smaller structure becoming the accessory structure. He has some concerns about putting this large a house in the rear yard and how it will look from the other yards in the area. Gardiner wondered if there were similar situations in town. Harris said there was an approval on Carol Street and one on Frances Lane which had been denied. It was denied because of neighborhood compatibility. Hearn said the ordinance does not say which structure has to come first (primary or accessory). McLaughlin said it cannot be held that an existing unit on a lot is considered "primary." Howe said there are lots in town that have very small houses on the lot and the Commission will be probably encounter this type of request again. Where there is a large lot, there is a need for a larger structure. She would rather have them connected through ownership and color compatibility. With regard to architecture, Howe feels an effort has been made to make the two-story structure to look more like a one-story because of the large roof which brings it down. It is not designed look large. She would like the design elements taken off the second story so the roof-likeness is emphasized. Hearn thought the rear structure is not that large (1736 sq. ft.). Howe suggested wording a Condition: That decorative trim, including the wainscoting area above the roof eave line including the dormer be removed. To be reviewed by the Staff Advisor at the time of application for a building permit. Hearn moved to approve PA98-017 with the above Condition. Howe seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 98-021 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 860 SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING PARISH HALL WHICH IS PHASE I OF THE MASTER PLAN AT 44 NORTH SECOND STREET. APPLICANT: TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH Site Visit and Ex Parte Contact Site visits were made by all. Howe's office is located across the street from Trinity and their parking lot is used on Sunday morning. The parking is not rented. She has no financial or business relationship and no conflict of interest. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 STAFF REPORT Molnar noted applicable criteria. There are two parts to the application. There is a request fora Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for phase 1 of an overall future expansion of the church campus. Phase 1 includes an 860 square foot addition to the end of the building along Second Street to be used as administrative office space. There is also a request for approval of an overall church master plan. There are currently the existing sanctuary, the parish hall, the Morgan building (barber shop) and the Morgan house. The master plan would involve the removal of the Morgan building and Morgan house to be replaced with a new parish hall building and youth center. The church is asking for some degree of certainty the City's approval of the expansion and is in line what the Historic Commission, Planning Commission and Staff are considering. The proposal is conceptual. Staff supports phase 1 and strongly supports the location of the Trinity site and expansion of facilities. The use is beneficial to the downtown. Future buildings will come before the Commission as the church is ready to expand. Molnar reported there are a number of issues outlined in the Staff Report regarding design of future phases. Staff is concerned with the style of buildings. The architectural style is greatly influenced by the existing sanctuary structure. In the pre-application conference with the applicant, Staff suggested, given the zoning and given the function of two buildings (not for church functions but for public assembly and youth center function) perhaps a more traditional or commercial style should be considered along the Lithia Way and Second Street frontages to allow for greater adaptation of uses in the future consistent with the myriad of commercial uses allowed under that zoning district. The sanctuary structure is listed on the National Register. If future phases mimic the style of that building, Staff is concerned about future phases causing that structure to blend in with other structures whereas now the other structures on the site are clearly subordinate to it. It is clear which is the national Register building. A goal within historic preservation is not to create a confusing picture when the whole site is developed as to which is the historic resource and which buildings followed. A bigger concern is the ultimate site improvements or the street scape along Second and Lithia Way. Much of the site plan is based on the internal circulation of the campus plan. Though a valid point, that might have a detrimental impact along the street scape. The floor elevation of the youth center is four to six feet above sidewalk level with a wall that continues down to the sanctuary building that would be six to seven feet in height. Even though this isa schematic, Staff is concerned with the changes in elevations to the public area. If the Commission approves the concept, they might want to consider a one to two year approval time line for the development of future phases. Staff would hate to bind the hands of future Commissions to make changes to a conceptual design. The Historic Commission had similar concerns. They recommended approval of phase 1. They did not support the architectural design concept of future phases. They felt there could be some exploration of a style other than a strong church style for the buildings along Lithia Way frontage because they are auxiliary buildings. Nothing is in the record as to the State Historic Preservation position of the master plan design. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10. 1998 Staff recommended two options for approval that are detailed in the Staff Report: 1) approve the request by the applicant for phase 1, approve the concept of a "Campus Master Plan", but all issues of design to handled at a Site Review process, or 2) approve phase 1. Continue the CUP for the master plan and allow the applicant to come back with a reviewed schematic design. Jarvis said the Commission may be approving something that if it takes seven years to develop may not be appropriate at that time. What is the benefit to the City to approve the master plan? McLaughlin said the benefit is to the applicant for long-term assurances. It does limit some of the options the City might have in the future. It seemed to Howe that approval of the master plan commits the Commission to a level of detail with which she is not comfortable. Can the expansion be for an appropriate use but not commit to a particular plan? McLaughlin said in approving what the applicant has brought forth, the Commission is finding what is believed to be an appropriate architectural design in broad-based terms. Hearn wondered how the proposed downtown design standards (reviewed at a recent study session) would interface with this application. He sees a church as different than commercial or retail. Molnar said there could be wording or code language for "design exceptions: based on a unique function or existing function of a use or building. PUBLIC HEARING GARY AFSETH, 313 Ravenwood, architect, stated he met with the Historic Commission review board on December 4, 1996 for the purpose of getting the Commission's thoughts on the project. The full Historic Commission supported the project and suggested a roof pitch the same as what is on the sanctuary. There was no discussion for a flat roof design along Lithia Way at that time. Afseth's written testimony is included in the record and can be reviewed for additional details. They have tried to create a campus plan, accessible internally for the participants in the Trinity Episcopal Church. Due to ADA requirements, they have placed the future buildings on the same floor elevations as the sanctuary. Afseth noted other buildings along Lithia Way that have a stepped facade. Afseth read a letter from Kay Atwood into the record. Afseth noted the parish center and youth center are functions of the church. The wall along Lithia Way was mentioned during the pre-app conference. They will work with the Historic Commission and the Planning Department on the wall. They would be looking at stepping the wall so it is not so abrupt but they are interested in including outdoor spaces to serve the church functions; namely, two large spaces, one located between the existing parish hall and the sanctuary and the other between the sanctuary and the future parish hall. Afseth said they would like approval of phase I and approval of the concept for the master plan. They understand it is reasonable for them to come back for future site reviews for the future projects. Howe wondered why phase 1 was conceived as a separate building. Afseth said, in discussions ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 with SHPO, they make a strong recommendation to separate historic structures. Jarvis thought Afseth was probably aware of how concerned the City is of all the thoroughfares such as Lithia Way. Her concern is the view of the proposed buildings along Lithia Way which will look like a backyard, particularly with the wall; the church will seem uninviting. That isa concern because Lithia Way is a main street. Afsethsaid the future parish hall has its orientation to Lithia Way. The two-story structure will have openings facing Lithia Way. The setback will allow for benches and street trees. They will be looking at softening the opening to the youth center. Gardinersaid the City is coming up with a draft for downtown design standards. This project will be right in the thick of it. Lithia Way will probably be changing as years go by. Armitage suggested this would be a good time for Afseth and the church members to get involved in drafting the standards. Briggs said rather than insist on a commercial look along Lithia Way she feels it is entirely appropriate to have this aesthetic refuge for a particular purpose. Jarvis asked if there was anything showing landscaping, commercial areas and percentage of commercial use. Afseth reported the thrift shop and book sale area will represent about 30 to 40 percent of the ground floor area of the two-story structure. There will be restoration of the existing landscaping mainly driven by construction of the administration building. CATHERINE CHURCH, 166 Pilot View Drive, read a history of the Trinity Episcopal Church. She said the parish hall was built in 1954 and when the sanctuary was placed on the national Register, the parish hall was placed at the same time. REVEREND CLIFF BLINMAN, 759 Leonard Street, said the facility is well-used and they are an integral part of the community. Their facility is well-used. Jarvis asked Blinman how long it took to raise money for the first phase. Blinman said about a year ago. When Jarvis asked if there were funds available for the long-range building plan, Blinman affirmed. Afseth said they would be open to a two to three year approval with the opportunity for an extension. ED BRUBAKER, 197 Nutley Street, said a commercial area does not work very well if it is just commercial. There needs to bea mix of uses for an area to work well. He provided his written comments for the record. WAYNE SCHUMACHER, 960 Mary Jane, stated in addition to phase 1 being presented to the Commission this evening, the idea of a master plan for a campus in the downtown is before them too. Let us develop it to look like a church, not a commercial downtown district. Jarvis believes the church should be in the downtown. But when she looks at the master plan, she finds the proposed buildings diminish the importance of the historic church. She believes SHPO could give them some direction. As she looks at the tall buildings, it makes the beautiful historic church look small. Also, the street scape is not the best for showing off the church or for preserving its historic position. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 Schumacher said the church is clearly the central structure. Their concern is they would be required to have commercial looking buildings which would detract even more from the campus. They are seeking a campus to tie everything together. Afseth said the programming requirements for the parish hall are defined in a document. ~f all those spaces were on one floor, they would lose all the outdoor internal space which will support outdoor functions of the church. Jarvis moved to continue the meeting until 10:30. The motion was seconded and approved, Staff Response McLaughlin said the use of the property is not a question or concern. Staff's concerns are similar to the Historic Commission and that is, architectural compatibility. The Commission does not want to give the wrong impression to the applicant. He would caution them to be clear that the design they are looking at is what the Commission does or does not want. The Historic Commission moved unanimously not to approve the conceptual design. The applicants need very clear direction as to what the Commission would approve. Jarvis did not hear any testimony stating they needed approval of the master plan presented in order to be granted funding. She would suggest approving phase 1 and stating conceptually the Commission feels strongly the property should be developed as a church. The architect has very clearly said this is not the final plan. Hearn has trouble seeing how a church fits into the downtown design standards as well as using a commercial look of a church. The Historic Commission does not want the new construction to overshadow the old building, but does one purposely downgrade the buildings around the center. Briggs is not looking for a commercial look. Howe finds the roof of the phase 1 addition to be fussy and very definitely part of the design program for the entire master plan. She does not like the way the proposed buildings address Lithia Way. She does not like the way the buildings are distributed on the site. Rebuttal Afseth said the administration building comes out of the whole concept. They are trying to develop an overall look to the campus. He did not feel the buildings facing Lithia Way were any different than a two-story commercial building. He wondered if the Planning Commission has the right to impose the future downtown design standards on this project. He believes the Planning Department has led the Historic Commission in their decision. The Historic Commission should be an unbiased body reviewing the project. He believes the future design standards have been presented to the Historic Commission and have gotten in the way of what is right for this property. Armitage said when they come back for Site Review they will be bound by whatever ordinances or standards are in place at that time. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass said there would be a certain irony to say phase I is acceptable but not the rest of the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 project. He would approve the whole thing subject to fine-tuning. Chapman cannot support denying achurch style toa church. Walls along Lithia Way might be necessary but the walls along North Main are attractive examples. He has some concern about orientation of the buildings to Lithia Way. He does not want to feel like he is looking at the back of a building. He is supportive of the conceptual design. Howe likes the larger scale up and down buildings but when the buildings get small they get fussy. She does not think the youth building coordinates with Lithia Way very well nor does she like the memorial wall coming out to Lithia Way. She would like to see a visual corridor from Lithia Way into the public space that's between the new parish hall and the church so when driving by you preserve a view of the church; it would look welcoming. She does not have a problem with the architecture. Briggs moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. The motion was seconded and carried. Hearn does not have a problem with the architecture. Morris agreed with Chapman. Jarvis believes the design, particularly on Lithia Way, is too big. There are innovative ways to deal with the size so the church can be seen from Lithia Way. She is sorry the back flat building is not being developed (because of its place on the National Register) and something lower on Lithia Way. The design crowds the church. The wall provides a barrier for people along Lithia Way and feels uninviting. The commercial buildings are designed to be open and inviting to the public. She would like the mass moved back. She would agree to the master plan in concept only. Gardiner agrees with Jarvis. He would take exception to the feeling this church property and the Commission should let them do what they want to do rather than fitting into the community plan. He believes the church is an important part of the community but it has to be developed with the community in mind and some of the items being brought up are how the community develops the property within the community. He is willing to give assurance the concept of a master plan but not to approve anything beyond phase 1. Briggs thinks the church would be sorry if we approved the master plan the way it is seen tonight. The church may change their mind in the next few years about what they really want. In waiting, she believes they will come up with something they will like better. If she is at the traffic light on the corner (Lithia Way and Second) her eyes are drawn to the church steeple. She would like to see the mass of the reception hall shoved to the back where the church is least attractive and have smaller components of the master plan more towards Second Street. She would like to approve the administration building but have them come back knowing the buildings can be church-like rather than block commercial. Bass feels the facility is consistent with the rest of the building and he would vote for option 1 (in the Staff Report). He would like it to look more inviting along Lithia Way. He would like to see an arbor on Lithia Way. He likes the general design but would like it toned down. Armitage believes it is appropriate for the buildings to look like a church. He would like to approve the master plan in concept only. The approval will not tie the Commission into any approval of any ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 schematic plan in front of them tonight. Howe agreed the L-shaped building is where the building should occur. It would be far better to have the larger things happening toward the back. Jarvis moved to approve PA98-021, request for a conditional Use Permit and Site Review for the construction of the 860 square foot administration building connected to the existing parish hall (phase 1) and approve the campus master plan in concept and that the property should be developed as a church, however, the Commission does not support the schematic design concept or site plan. Include all the Conditions listed. The motion was seconded and carried with Jarvis, Armitage, Howe, Briggs, Gardiner, and Bass voting "yes" and Chapman, Hearn, and Morris voting TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 98-015 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE INCORPORATING SERVICE STATION SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND McLaughlin said there was a letter from Attorney Dick Stark, representing Hawk Oil Company, asking to continue this action for a month. The service station owners would like more time to review. Staff would recommend accepting testimony and allowing for a continuance. One change in the proposed language (page 3, Staff Report, C), they have lumped automobile fuel sales and automobile repair facilities together. That was not the intent. Repair facilities would be under standard design guidelines. Staff will make an adjustment. Armitage announced this hearing will be continued at the next regular April meeting. DAN HAWKINS, said instead of setting another date to hear this action, he would be interested in forming a committee to address some of the issues. McLaughlin felt a Commission subcommittee would be appropriate including a staff member. Commissioners Armitage, Hearn and Gardiner volunteered. A meeting was scheduled for March 18, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. (meeting place to be determined). All interested service station members are invited to attend. The hearing will be scheduled for May. OTHER Retreat and Goal ~,ettinq Possible date: May 9th Ideas: Open discussion about how meetings are run, how time is allocated, and how much time is spent on the first action versus the rest of the actions. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1998 10