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Armitage announced that PA98-081 (930 Tolman Creek Road) has been withdrawn.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