Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-12 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 12, 1998 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Mike Gardiner, Mike Morris, Chris Hearn, Anna Howe, Marilyn Briggs, Russ Chapman and John Fields. Ron Bass was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Howe moved to approve the minutes of the April 14, 1998 Regular Meeting. Gardiner seconded the motion and everyone approved. Armitage announced that PA98-081 (930 Tolman Creek Road) has been withdrawn. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Cathy Shaw gave her thanks to Barbara Jarvis for her nine years of service on the Planning Commission. She noted how Jarvis has brought the Planning Commission to an incredible level of professionalism. Jarvis thanked the Planning Commissioners, Staff and the Mayor. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Gardiner moved to approve Findings for PA97-054 (Neuman, Hwoschinsky, Brown). Briggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 98-039 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A NINE-LOT, NINE UNIT MULTI-FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION. HOLLY STREET BETWEEN GRESHAM AND IDAHO STREETS APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD/HAL DRESNER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Chapman talked with Bill Emerson about placement of garbage facilities. STAFF REPORT The subject parcel is a vacant parcel (.65 ac.) in an established neighborhood. Zoning is R-2 allowing for base densities of 13.5 units per acre. The property has an east trending slope of about 15 percent sloping toward Idaho Street. Holly Street is the boundary between single family and multi-family. There is a paved alley going from Idaho to Gresham Street. The property has many mature trees with most around the perimeter of the site. Two-story units with individual ownership are proposed. Molnar showed an overhead with site improvements. Three tri-plex structures are proposed, each with three units. Access to the property is at two locations: a shared driveway off Holly Street entering the center of the property to individual garages for six units with the remaining units being served by the alley. Covered garages will be provided as well as an additional seven surface parking spaces set up diagonally due to the width of the alley. The applicant has proposed a public sidewalk along the frontage of the property as well as an eight to nine foot planting strip between the sidewalk and curb allowing ultimately for street trees. The application gives several choices to future residences for recreation space. Some units have small outdoor areas, some with decks, some patios and at the back of the property there is a walkway system going to the alley which includes a central gazebo with a landscaped area for use by all residences. There are a number of large pine trees around the perimeter of the property. The individual garages will accommodate the covered bike parking. Behind unit 3, the plan shows covered bike parking for guests. The floor elevations are not at the same elevation but step which allow for a vertical break up of the design as well as the roof design which allows for further breaking of the mass. The designer has taken into account the sloping property and while two-story units, depending on the side, they have been cut into the slope where the bottom floors are almost daylight basements but has the effect of reducing the overall scale and height of the structure through incorporating retaining walls in the actual building facade. The density is 8.8 units. Staff has many positive comments to make about the project in terms of compliance with the city's Site Design Standards. It is a good transitional design. All public facilities are available to the site. There is a memo from the Fire Department and they are requiring that each unit have an interior fire sprinkler system. Staff has raised one limited concern about storm drainage from roofs and impervious surfaces. The site plan shows catch basins in the parking areas and preliminary storm drainage layout. Storm drainage will be transported to Idaho Street, presumably via the rear alley to Idaho Street. The project will require final plan approval with final engineering required. If, in fact, storm drainage is going out to the alley, it might require a pipe system placed adjacent to the alley public right-of-way and installed to the existing city storm drain system in Idaho. Staff has added a Condition. There will be significant cuts requiring retaining walls. A Condition has been added regarding temporary fencing and taking adequate provision to minimize damage to the root zones. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 17 Conditions. This was reviewed at the Historic Commission and the minutes are included in the packet. Knox reported that from the beginning of the project, the applicant has met with the Historic Commission and has incorporated the Historic Commission's recommendations into their plans. The Historic Commission recommended approval with one recommendation asking the applicant to look at some design changes to unit 1 to incorporate a gabled roof with some columns to help define the entry area. The applicant has agreed to the Condition that still needs to be added. Molnar is hoping at final plan the applicant can look at parking adjustments to the area of the large pine tree to get a little more pervious surface around the root of the tree. Howe asked about "bonded for" in Condition 4. Molnar said that can be stricken. Howe mentioned Condition 11, second line, should read: "...all trees shown for preservation are not to be 'removed' without prior approval...". PUBLIC HEARING Bill Emerson, 90 Fifth Street and Evan Archerd, 120 N. Second Street. Emerson showed several items on the bulletin board one of which showed trees marked for removal and those that will be saved. He is concerned about the one in front next to the drive because the drive might impact it too much Emerson ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 1998 will be working with the engineer on the storm drain as well as doing calculations for the retaining wall. Archerd explained how they tried keep a single family appearance along Holly Street. Secondly they wanted to convey the idea of a village. Each unit is a little bit different but the style is compatible. Also, they wanted to save as many trees as possible. Emerson explained the Romeo Inn is post war era design as is this project. They plan to meet the Historic Commission's request for columns on the first unit and working with the roofiine. Howe asked about using pervious materials to help the trees. Archerd was agreeable. Emerson is concerned with the cuts. He is working according to Chapter 11 (accessibility). Staff Response Molnar said Howe's consideration of grass pavers off the alley is a great suggestion. Molnar suggested wording for an added Condition 18: That at the time of final plan, the front elevation of unit 1 be amended to take into the account the recommendations of the Historic Commission and that be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor at final plan. Add Condition 19: At the time of final plan, that parking off the rear adjacent to the pine, grass pavers or equivalent be incorporated into the parking area as well as those spaces be compact in order to provide additional pervious area. Fields felt the center or core of the project feels like too much paving and it would be good to soften that look. Particularly the approach to those units in the rear where it could appear as hot asphalt. There is no delineation between the pedestrian way and the driving area. Molnar said early on in the project Staff had concerns and they have tried to disguise some of the driveway with a slight bend and go with a minimum width driveway. Perhaps they could use a concrete apron. Fields is concerned once you come up the path, there is not a way to find the front door. Emerson said he could landscape in front of the units. He thought is was not a bad idea to have an apron defining an area to watch for pedestrians. Briggs suggested cobblestone and grass crete in the middle area, matching the village concept. COMMISSIONERS' MOTION AND DISCUSSION Hearn moved to approve PA98-039 with the 19 Conditions approved by staff. Howe seconded the motion with the provision in Condition 4, strike "bonded for" and Condition 11, change 'approve' to 'remove'. Also, the added Conditions making provisions for permeable parking and delineating better the pedestrian areas. Hearn agreed to the amendments. Briggs thought the project was well thought out, Hearn liked the looks of the project and Howe is pleased with the trees that are being saved The motion carried unanimously. Armitage left the meeting. Howe chaired. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 1998 PLANNING ACTION 98-040 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 18.72, SECTION Vl OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS TO ESTABLISH A SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT This action would amend Chapter 18.72, Section Vl of the Site Design and Use Standards and repeal the 10 percent landscaping requirement for areas within the proposed Downtown Design Standard's boundary. The boundary is shown on the map in red and runs from Helman to Siskiyou Boulevard and Lithia Way to Hargadine Street. The area contains approximately 120 tax lots and is 50 acres in size. This action came about mostly because of the process some recent developments have had to go through. There is no vision of what we want our town to look like and once these standards are adopted that will happen. When there are no standards or no direction, one ends up going to Staff, the Historic Commission and/or Planning Commission and it is difficult for an applicant to work on a project based on everyone's "opinion". This document tries to look to the future and what could happen with franchised design. This is not to say they won't come, but if they do, we can make sure it will fit into the context of the downtown. Staff and the Downtown Review Committee came up with nine elements or architectural issues that are incorporated into the document. Since the Planning Commission Study Session in February, there has been one major addition to the draft. That is, incorporation of an exceptions to the standards. For example, if an applicant has an unusual use such as a fire station or movie theater and cannot fit that type of use into a main street building, they could ask for the exception. They would still have to meet certain criteria but can show it is an unusual use and they have an alternative design that is equal or superior to the standards themselves and the minimum necessary is being asked to alleviate the difficulty. The goal is if an applicant cannot work with one or two, they could still work with the other eight. The landscaping change proposes to eliminate the landscaping on private properties except for parking lots and it would not eliminate the street tree requirements. There is really no landscaping on the older (pre-50's) buildings. In some cases it can be a maintenance problem for the owners. Knox named the members of the Downtown Design Review Committee. They are: Jerome White, local architect; Michael Donovan, owner of Chateaulin; Le Hook, Scene Design Manager of OSF; Jim Lewis, Historic Commissioner and historic contractor; Bob Rasmussen, Vice President, US Bank; Dale Shostrom, Historic Commissioner and local designer and contractor. The committee had at least eight to nine meetings in the last year. The standards have been sent to other local architects, State Historic Preservation Office, Livable Oregon, local historic consultants Kay Atwood and George Kramer. Briggs wondered about landscaping/trees (10%) at the service stations and old stations downtown. Knox said they will keep the standards in for that. McLaughlin said they will be kept for anyplace providing parking. The document has been reviewed at a Study Session in detail according to Hearn. There were many recommendations made and he wondered if the recommendations were put into this document. Knox believed he incorporated everyone's comments, even those persons not on the Planning Commission. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 1998 One thing that came up was the discussion of balconies. The standards have been modified to allow balconies and outdoor spaces and certain design standards that would keep the facades of the building appropriate to the downtown but to allow that without making it prohibitive as it was in the original draft. There is another drawing to support it. Hearn asked with regard to buildings like churches, which are a little different than commercial buildings (Episcopal Church), if there has been any effort for exceptions for churches? Knox said they would fit into the same categories as unusual use. Molnar said that was some of StafFs thinking behind the exceptions language (Criteria 1). Fields wondered if there was any language restricting or regulating demolition. McLaughlin said there is an ordinance on demolitions. There is an inventory of everything in the Historic District. If it is a primary or secondary structure, approval from the City Council has to be obtained in order to demolish a building. Chapman thought on Page 1, the language "multi-story development is encouraged" should be stronger. Why not require it? McLaughlin said we want to use the exceptions language to be used the least. The ordinance language should reflect the direction in which you expect things to go. We have never adopted, as a community, buildings of a certain height to be built. The market can decide. We encourage it and provide incentives but not mandate. Fields said free parking gives leverage. Chapman noted page 2, #3 - recessed or projecting balconies--does that grandfather what is already there? McLaughlin said it does. Chapman also noted on page 7, illus. 10 - add residential uses along with retail and commercial uses above the first floor. PUBLIC HEARING ALLEN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect Street, submitted written testimony. He is concerned about procedure by Staff and various commissions. Sandler is speaking mostly of redesigning existing buildings. He would like an approval before getting the building permit. Howe said by having the standards in place that will put the requirements up front. Sandler would like an additional procedure or two that would allow for some approvals ahead of time before going to engineering. McLaughlin explained what Sandler is asking is what the planning process is designed to do. At the pre- app, discussion occurs about design standards and the city's recommendations (comments taken from all city departments). The applicant puts the requests into a design and run through the Historic and Planning Commission for approval. The Planning Commission approves the design. No engineering would be required to this point. The applicant's engineer will then do the structural design of the building. Planning will compare the design with what was approved by the Planning and Historic Commission to make sure they match. If the design is changed, there is a problem and that would start a negotiation process to see if the changes are substantial and need to be brought before the Planning Commission again or if there are minor changes. The final approval is based on what is on file. Sandler said the Historic Commission has said they have a right to change the design beyond that point. McLaughlin said it can be changed up until the Planning Commission gives their approval. Howe wondered if Sandlet has had problems with changes after the Planning Commission approval in the past. Sandler responded they have had but they cannot blame Staff for what the problems have been because they have been so convoluted. McLaughlin said he would not need to hire an engineer until after the Planning Commission findings are adopted. Up to that point, the process requires that the plan can be changed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 1998 Fields said there is a risk factor when coming up with solutions to design and site considerations and tenants, and there is a risk when you come back with your final design that it will be acceptable. He explained to Sandlet this should be worked on as a procedural issue. Hopefully the standards presented tonight will be helpful. Sandler said beyond the procedural idea, he likes the document. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn asked the record to reflect the following: The Commission reviewed Hillside standards (another issue but "standards") and he recalls having study sessions and public hearings. He recalls looking out and seeing vacant rooms at those meeting. Then he recalls later reading in the paper there had been no public hearings but what he saw at the meetings were empty chairs. Tonight, Bemis and Sandlet are here but mostly he is looking at empty chairs. Hearn likes the design standards, but if this passes and a bunch of people come back in a few months asking, "where were the public hearings?" he wants the record to reflect not only did we have this hearing, but we have had these groups getting together for months and months and had study sessions too. Howe said page 1, the third sentence, should read "...having a building that 'has' a distinctive..." instead of 'have'. Page 2, #3, just leave in 'projecting'. Page 5, illus. 7, should not say 'recessed' either. Knox said he will work on wording. Howe said illus. 5 does not show a 40 foot/80 foot relationship. The illustration should reflect that. Howe said most of the illustrations are 1896 to 1927 and there is very little art deco. She would like to the middle building drawing as art deco with the 40 foot width so people who are looking at pictures for suggestions see there is a possibility for something other than turn of the century style. Howe continued stating there is a statement on page 6, #1 about placing the awnings below the transom window where feasible. The illustrations 1 and 5 referred to show the awnings over the transoms. Knox suggested dividing it up into two sentences. Howe asked about definitions. Arcade - "a rhythmic series of openings" instead of "archways". Corbel - doesn't explain what a corbel is. Marquee - Varsity marquee? McLaughlin said by definition it is a fixed awning. Pilaster - "engaged pillar". Fields said rather than standing independent of the building, it is "attached", not engaged. Sandrels - what are "extradoses"? Briggs said to eliminate "extradoses". Howe said it seems we need to address the keeping of 10 percent for commercial buildings that is auto related. Hearn moved to approve with recommendations made. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 1998 OTHER Howe commented on the nice communication from the Tree Commission regarding parkrows. McLaughlin said this will be an item for discussion at the study session at the end of the month along with a talk from Paul Nolte. May 27 Study Session topics: Legal Issues Local Street Standards ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, '1998