Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0107 Documents Added at MeetingOi, oi',oo £L~L oo;30 FAX 506 Ca~ ttartz~tl SS 1 East Main Street Ashland. Oregon 97520 January 7, 2003 I write in opposition to Planning Amion 2002-106, as a neighbor of' 12 years and ~ advocate of affordable housing. I'd like to make major three points: 1. I question whether the plan meets city standards for front yard setbacks on this arterial street. A_ The section of the Ashland Municipal Code 18.68.050 attached to thin letter indicates that the section of East Main Street on which this parcel fronts is specifically designated to have an increased amount of'fight of way. It defines a ~special base line" that: is 35, _r~her than 30 feet back from the cer~erline of Ea,st Main Street. It also Lndicatcs that front yards of development bordering arterial strc:~ will be no less than twenty fe~t from that "special base line." In effect, this ensures that the front yards along East 1M, in Street will be no less than 25 feet deep to "p~rmit b¢~'k~r light, air, and vision along a more heavily traveled street." The drawing provided to you diagrams one interpretation of this cod~.][ would ask that our City Attorney explain whether this code has beton applic'd to thi~ project, and ii' not, why it is not appropriate to do so. B. II was announccxt for the ilrst time on the night of the Planning Commission Hearing that thc request for a front yard setback variance was unnecessary. Staff st~ed that the City Attorney detesrnlned that the code allows this developer to use the average of the side yard setbacks (vs. ~ront) of thc two neighboring, non-cbnforming buildings 1o determine the front yard setback on this parcel. The house to the west was built tm~ec variances. Te,stimony regarding fi~mt yard setbacks was n~t considered. Are thc Pu'VIC 1.8.24.040 Standard Yard Requirements wi~_hin the Historic Imcrest Ar~a of.tw, r~ feet for front yards not relevant? Does this Cod~ pertain to houses, but not porches? C. Mr. Oiordano suggested the possibility of additional street trees as ~'~igation for the arterial traffic. My house has 20-25 f~ setback and heavy veget~on; on tajpi~ days, traffic noise makes it hard to hold conversations on the porch and front garden. Ti~e~s on t.h¢ strip won't reduce car noise and activity. Front yard setback on this medal is a' significant liveability and safe, fy issue. Th~ s~rc~ hosia pedestrian traffic, litter, high vehicle trips p~ day, cars with loud stixeos, and spec~in![ cars. It is a primary route between the Police Dept. on one end and th~ Fire a~d Ambulance Station on the other end. Police cars travel with lights-only at high rates of sp©od after 11 PM. The ~mditional Use Permit for the coffee shop was granted in the 1970s; since that time, its use patterns hav~ changed dramatically, creatkng congestion'and traffic problems_ 01/07,'03 TUE 08:30 FAX 503 492 7750 ~C~ENMgINS EDGFIELD ~]003 Thc need For a variance is self imposed. The attempt to include the cottage units AND two bedroom units A_NI) an sffordable unit AND stows design concepts result in self-imported constraints. I sincerely appreciate the architect and owner working to include an affordable unit. I suspect we all hope that tl~e affordable unit isn't what thc dcvcloper chooses to jet;~.on ~rom the list above; each of these is a choice. The developer can accomplish four units on this lot without these variances~ and while I appreciate gtaW's work on design, the conc~ requires a tradeoffin open ~ace and setbacks that I believe strains the carrying capacity of the parcel. If we're searchin~ ~.or historical context, ~¢ historical house that was tom down was one-story, set back fbom the stre,~.and had a side yard gronting East Main. This design appears to impose more nesativc impact~ *~an benefits to the neighborhood. I support infil], but ~all inOll is not crested equal." [ am comfortable with frour urtits, but eight bedrooms and seven parking spaces on this lot create a demand for additioctal parking space that doesn't exist. As you weigh whether the benefits are greater than ne~ive impacts on the development of adiaceut uses, you may ask whether thc inclusion of an ~rdable unit outweighs the potential impacts that neighbors speak about~ Our 2002 Needs Assessment recommends finding way~ to prioritiz, usin~j multi~.f ,ami~y zoning for much-needed rentals. We don't control whether this developer will re~ or sell m five years; all we know for sure is that this parcel would yield one ai~Fordable rental ~r 20 years, at which time it r~verts to market r~os on a dense lot. Since it appears that cottage are generally more valuable ,ha~ condomini-~ in this ma~kct, the ~ordable,~rdt will likel), Be the apartment h~ the larger building ~-ontiug the street. Fortunately, the AIida Street apartments next to this parcel rent for even [ess than what an affordable unit in this development would. Affordable units exist in sur~sing densities on this block; they represent an existing asset. L~'s prioritize protection o£thc in~gtity o£llvin8 conditions for those numerous c~istin§ low- and modcr,~te-ineome units. Thank you for thc opportunity to present my perspectives on this. long-distance. Respeett?ully, Ca~e Hart~ll 01/07/03 TL~ 08:31 FAX 503 492 7750 MC~ENaOilNS EDGFIELD ~004 A~hland Municipal Code 18.68.050Special Setback Requirements sta s: "To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily trave{d<l streets and on streets of subsLa, ndaxd width, to protect arterial streets, and to perm it tlxe eventual widening of hexeinai~er named streets, every yard abutting a street, or [x) .rtion thereof., shall be measured fxom the special base Line setbacks listed below indead of the lot line separating the lot ~om the street. Street Setback: East Main Street, between City Limits and LJthia Way - 35 fc~t Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no [gss than twe~ _ty (20) feet, with the exception of the C=I-D district. ~ALL East Main Apartments Ashland, OR 975~ center line EAST MAIN STREET curb PARKROW SIDEWALK ..... ,..~..,lot lin ~ ,:~:~:'.~:special base line~~.:-: :-: :~:.:=.'. .E :.:.:.:.:.:FRONT YARD I:::::::Typical Building ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !iii!i!i!i!!! Ai'it~wed' Bu°iidi~ig' enveiop& iiiiiii Cate I-I~11 851 East Main Street Ashland. Oregon 97520 lanuary 7, 2003 I write in opposition to Planning A~'tion 2002-106, ms a neighbor of 12 years and ~ advocate of affordable housing. I'd like to make major three points: 1. 1 question whether the plan meets city standards for front yard setbacks on this arterial street. The section of the Ashland Municipal Code 18.68.050 attached to thi~- h~tter indicates that the section of East Main Street on which this parcel fronts is specifically designated to have an increased amount of right of way. It defines a ~spedal base line" th& is 35, rather than 30 feet back from the ce~erline of East Main Street. It also Lndicatcs that front yards of developmem bordering arterial stree~ will be no less than twenty feet fi-om that "special base line." In effect, this ensures that the fi-eot yards along East Mnin Street will be no less tb.~_n 25 feet deep to "permit bet/er light, air, and vlsion along a more heavily traveled street." The drawing provided to you diagrams one interpretation of this code.i would ask that our City Attorney explain whether this code has been applied to thi~ project, mad if' not, why it is not appropriate to do so. B. It was announced for the first time on the night of the Planning Commission Hearing that tho request for a front yard setback variance was unnecessary. Staff stut~ that the City Attorney determined that the code allows this developer to use the awrage of the side yard setbacks (vs. front) of the two neighboring, non-ci~nforming buildings lo determine the fi-om yard setback on this parcel. The house to the west was built un4ec variances. Testimony regarding front yard setbacks was not considered. Are the AMC 18.24.040 Standard Yard Requirements within the Historic Interest Area of'.twed3r feet for front yards not relevant? Does this Code pertain to houses, but not porches? el Mr. Ctiordano suggested the possibility o£additional street trees as m'~igafion for the arterial traffic. My house has 20-25 ft setback and heavy vegetation; on ty~ic~ days, traffic noise makes it h~rd to hold conversations on the porch and front garden. Tlqees on the strip won't reduce em' noise and activity. Front yard setback on this arterial is a' significant liveability and safety issue. Tho street hosts pedestrian traffic, litter, high vehicle trips per day, cars with loud stereos, and sl:~c~!_.ing oara. It is a primary mute between the Police Dept. on one end and th~ Fire aud Ambulance ~tation on the other end. Police cars travel with lights-only at high rates of speed at, er 11 PM. The {~$mditional Use Permit for the coffee shop was granted in the 1970s; since that time, its use patterns hav~ clxanged dramatically, creating oongestion'and traffic problems_ L~J. UU.J 2. The need for a variance is self imposed. The attempt to include the cottage units AND two bedroom units AN!) an affordable unit AND staff's design concepts resuR in self-imposed constraints. I sincerely appreciate the architect and owner working to include art affordo~le unit. I suspect we all hope !hltt tile affordable unit isn't what the developer chooses to jet;son from the list above; each of th~se is ~ choice. The developer can accomplish four units on this lot without these variano~s~ and while I appreciate ~taff's work on design, the concept requires a tradeoff in open s~ace and setbacks that I believe strains the carrying capacity of the parcel. I/we're searchinB ~.or historical context, the historical house that was tom down was one-story, set back item the stre~ and had a side yard froming East Main. 3. This design appears to impose more n,gative impacts than benefits to the ne~hborhood. ! support infill, but "all infill is not created equal." I am eomfort_~Tble with (our units, but eight bedrooms and seven parking spaces on this lot create a demand for additional parking space that doesn't exist. As you weigh whether the benefits are greater than ne~.ive impacts on the development of adjacent uses, you may ask whether the inclusion of an a4~ordable unit outweighs the potential impacts that neighbors speak about Our 2002 Needs Assessment recommends finding ways to prioritize usinl~ multi-family zoning for much-needed rentals. We don't control whether this developer will r~n{ or sell in five years; all we know For sure is that this pnrcel 'would yield one affordable rental ~or 20 years, at which time it rcwerts to rnark~ rates on a dense lot. Since it appears that cottage are generally more valuable ,hun condominiums in this market, the affordable unit will likel~ be the apartment in the larger building fronting thc street. Fortunately, the Alida Street apartments next to this parcel rem for even I~s ~han what an affordable unit in this development would. Affo~le units exist in surpassing densities on this block; they represent an existing asset. Lot's prioritize prote~ion of the in~egrity of living conditions for those numerous existing low- and moderate-income units. Thank you fi~r the opportunity to present my perspectives on this, long-dislAnce. Kespectfully, Cate Hartz~ll · ~.,~, u~:o~ r~ ~03 492 7750 MCMENA~IINS EDGFIELD ~004 Ashland Municipal Code 18.68.050Special Setback Requirements st~ s: "To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit tl~ eventual widening of hereinaRer named streeq~, every yard abutting a street, or Dortion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below in~ead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. Street Setback: East Mare Street, between City Limits and Lithia Way- 35 feet Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no ~ss than tw¢~. _ty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district.