Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-11 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Steve Armitage called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Anna Howe, John Fields, Marilyn Briggs, Chris Hearn, Ron Bass, and Russ Chapman. Mike Gardiner and Mike Morris were absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Howe moved to approve the Minutes of the July 14, 1998 regular meeting. The motion was seconded and carried with Bass abstaining as he was absent from that meeting. Briggs moved to approve the Findings of the July 14, 1998 regular meeting. The motion was seconded and carried. Bass abstained as he was absent from that meeting. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 97-072 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR THE ALTERNATIONIEXPANSlON OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE - AUTOMOBILE FUEL SALES. 440 EAST MAIN STREET APPLICANT: STEVE MORASCH Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. Bass made a gas purchase. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin said about a year ago the applicants filed the request to modify the gas station as part of their upgrading of the site connected with replacement of the tanks. Just prior to the hearing, the applicant requested a continuance in order to address issues raised by Staff. Staff now believes many of the issues have been addressed satisfactorily. One of the main issues has been re-activation or enlargement of the non-conforming use. The applicants have modified the proposal to where they are maintaining the same number of pumps or reducing the number. There is no increase in the intensity of use on the site beyond what is actively being used today in the one island. Several issues were raised about design features with the canopies. The applicants have proposed a canopy design with a pitched roof with hip ends,, trying to reduce the mass of the structure, replicating some of the features seen nearby on the edge of the downtown in some of the residential areas. Staff feels this design is much more compatible and in scale with the small site and appropriate for the downtown area. The Tree Commission has reviewed and approved the improved landscaping plan. Other items discussed in the Staff Report are the improvement of the sidewalk around the perimeter of the project., modification of the employee parking space to increase some landscaping, and perhaps the consolidation of the drive approaches on the East Main side. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 Staffs main concern is with traffic impact. McLaughlin showed an overhead of the existing traffic patterns and proposed patterns. The access would be either from Lithia Way or East Main and exit out onto the opposite street. This is a significant change from the pattern that is occurring today. As noted in the traffic study, most gas station trips are associated with another trip on the way to one's destination. For example, one would enter from Lithia Way and exit onto East Main Street and loop around. This would cause the circulation pattern to use existing intersections which are somewhat confusing and stacking can be a problem with new turning movements, and new exiting and entrance movements. Staff believes there is not adequate information in the record to make a finding of adequate transportation. McLaughlin said the gas sign prices will be a replacement of the existing sign. Consolidation of the driveway will not affect the traffic impacts but will move the driveway away from the crosswalk area and should be safer for pedestrians. Armitage said the traffic study done by a professional firm states there is "no problem" with traffic impacts. VVhat does Staff want to see? McLaughlin said there is no discussion as to the number of trips or turning movements that may be entering or exiting the site. There are no assumptions made as to the split of traffic that may happen. From that point, there should be discussion about the movements coming in and what is the capability of the intersection to handle that number of new movements. Will conflicts occur by increasing the number of cars entering on the East Main side between existing traffic movements? There has to be a level of comfort that what is being proposed is going to work and at this point, Staff is not convinced that what is being proposed will work. PUBLIC HEARING JAC NICKELS, Architect, Architectural Design Works, 1105 Siskiyou Blvd. DAVID C. CRAM, Senior Engineering Technician, Lancaster Engineering, 800 N. W. Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97209 said the purpose of doing the GAP study is to find out if there are adequate holes in the traffic for people to make traffic maneuvers During Cram's observations, he witnessed large gaps in traffic, allowing cars to make turns in any direction they wish. He found that half the traffic enters from East Main and half from Lithia Way. People tend to exit in the direction in which they are traveling and his guess would be 50/50. There is adequate room for a car to make a U-turn on the site. Presently, cars are lining up onto Lithia Way to get gas. There will be more room under the proposal for cars to line up at the pumps. Hearn mentioned that if someone is exiting the station and they wish to travel south on Siskiyou Boulevard, it will require crossing two lanes and this would be an illegal movement. Cram said this is occurring already from Third and Gresham. McLaughlin said the Police Department has said crossing from Gresham and Third across two lanes are illegal moves, however, they do not ticket there because of the configuration. Nickels showed slides of the landscaping and design. The existing flower shop building will remain with no changes. The employee parking space will be removed. The sidewalks will be replaced around the perimeter. He is concerned about consolidation of the driveways because the tankers need a way to get into the lot. The trash bin will be relocated to an alcove in the building. There will be lighting under the canopy pointing downward. There will be metal posts, not wood. The height of the canopy will be 14', 6". This is an opportunity to improve the site. Briggs would find one driveway on each side would be suitable. Nickels said they will consider that to make sure it will work Armitage asked the applicants if they feel they have adequately addressed the concerns expressed about traffic or is there more they can do to alleviate the concern and still have the design they want. Cram tried to find a specific scope of work to come up with a black and white answer. Cram met McLaughlin on the site and they discussed the circulation. He observed and measured and thought he had addressed the issues. This is such an unusual site with ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 an already established traffic pattern and they cannot base future traffic patterns on the existing patterns. Staff Response McLaughlin said it is a matter of changing 20 percent of the traffic exiting onto East Main Street and increasing it to 50 percent. Is that increase going to work? Cram is saying there is an opportunity for cars to slip into traffic. Staffs concern is that it is still an unknown and they are cautious about experimenting with a re-design. If anything lessens Staffs concerns, it is not increasing the number of fueling stations. It is an awkward situation with so many turning movements already and will this just add to the problem? Will the intersection still work? Cram indicates there is adequate capacity to allow for this new pattern. Howe is interested in the idea that the number of pumps has been reduced. Two pumps look like the existing four pumps and an additional pump that has two more spaces (one on each side). It has gone from four spaces to six spaces even though the number of pumps have been reduced. Howe noted this is a non-conforming use and the Downtown Plan discourages automobile use. McLaughlin said the reason non-conforming uses are in the code is to try and get rid of them. The Conditional Use Permit process gives the City discretion to allow for the change to occur or not. If the Commission does not believe it is appropriate to the non-conforming use to continue, then the change can be denied. Astro is committed to remain on the site; the use will not likely disappear. Hearn said this site has been tainted by underground tanks and who is going to touch it but another gas station. And, if allowed to stay the way it is, it is just going to lapse slowly into a state of disrepair and become an eyesore. Rebuttal John Phimister, ASTRO, 2929 N. W. 29th, Portland, OR 97210, said the station will be staying whether or not the re- design is approved. The station was designed around the tanker truck and they would prefer the two driveways off East Main. They are willing to re-evaluate one driveway. A maximum of four cars can be waited on at any one time with four dispensing points. There will be a diesel island too. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn moved to approve with the Conditions attached and suggested by Staff. Chapman seconded the motion. Howe believes this is an intensification to the property with six dispensers rather than four. There will be an increase in traffic onto an intersection with already existing problems. There will more cars on Third Street and more at the turn by the Fire Dept. The library is concerned about more traffic. This is the wrong place for a gas station and the ordinance is correct in stating this is the kind of car related use that should be discouraged. She believes with a different design the whole area could work with keeping the cars on Lithia Way with a potential to have access vis East Main. Briggs initially agreed with Howe's assessment, but the gas station is so unattractive and since they plan to stay for 30 years, she is willing to take the leap of faith about the traffic and have the upgrade, making a better visual impact. Chapman believes if there was going to be significant traffic impacts, the Commission would have heard from the Fire Chief. There is a new bus route starting along East Main and he is optimistic that some traffic may be reduced with the bus route. This is a marvelous opportunity to get this corner cleaned up. Hearn believes the plan is good and there are traffic concerns but he does not believe there will be an overwhelming number of cars going in and out of the station. Bass thinks the traffic situation is bad but the City and ODOT are not doing all they can do to improve the situation. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 There are so many things that could be done to improve it that have nothing to do with the application. The minor changes in traffic projections will make the transportation inadequate. Fields is willing to accept the gas station use. Establishments are being chased out of the downtown that are being used all the time. It will be better with the traffic entering at 90 degrees. We are asking the applicant to establish adequate transportation but we have no criteria for that. He suggested a right turn only from Gresham and a left turn only out of the 9as station. He would like to see the width of the single opening no greater than the two openings together (less than would be better). McLaughlin said the site plan does not indicate trash facilities so a Condition refers to the trash facilities which will include recyclin9 facilities and enclosed as proposed by the applicant with the design to be approved by the Staff Advisor and the Fire Department. In addition, the perimeter sidewalk will be eight feet in width. The height of the canopy (14' 6") is acceptable. The motion carried with Howe voting "no". PLANNING ACTION 98-001 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE/FINAL PLAN APPROVAL MODIFICATION OF PHASE II OF ROCA CANYON SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON ROCA STREET, LEAVING 1.25 ACRES IN OPEN SPACE AND PROVIDE TWO BUILDING LOTS. PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND GRADE VARIANCE AND A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OVER ROCA CREEK. APPLICANT: CHARLIE HAMILTON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site Visits were made by all. Howe noted Hamilton has been her real estate agent for six years. STAFF REPORT Knox showed an overhead of the original Roca Creek proposal and the new configuration decreasing the lots in Phase II from nine lots to three lots. Only two of the three lots will be buildable. Lot 1 will be accessed off Prospect Street and Lot 2 will be accessed off the west side of Prospect Street. Lot 3 is proposed as open space. The majority of the property owners in Phase I have agreed to purchase the open space. Lot 2 is fairly small but meets the zoning requirements. With regard to the driveway to Lot 1, the requirement is for a 15 percent grade and the general slope is about 24 percent. The applicant is proposing a meandering driveway which will allow it to get to 18 percent. There will be a loss of about 2-3 scrub oak trees. There have been letters from surrounding property owners asking that certain conditions be applied to the lots such as deed restrictions and maintenance of the open area. The applicant has no problem with the changes presented by Knox Staff supports the proposal with the attached 17 Conditions. The proposed path is to be located in the right-of-way. PUBLIC HEARING CHARLIE HAMILTON, 2277 Suncrest Road, said some homeowners from Phase I approached him and they came up with the proposal for the modification. The homeowners want to preserve their privacy and they are willing to pay for that. Lot 2 will be accessed off the intersection at Roca/Prospect. There are no substantial trees on the property. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 The existing homeowners had a problem with installation of a pedestrian pathway. That has been removed from the application, however, they are providing the easement to make the overall connection. It was too much of a financial burden for the homeowners to do the installation. At some time in the future when the City installs a pathway, there will be an easement provided. There will be deed restrictions on all three parcels not allowing further division of property. There is a public pedestrian easement installed with Phase I but there will be no installed pathway through the dedicated easement. Fields wondered if a conservation easement was included. Hamilton said the homeowners wish to irrigate, plant trees and create a buffer zone. Further restrictions could be difficult but they are paying for it. No buildings and no dwellings are clearly their intention but beyond that he is not certain. Howe is concerned that it will be uncomfortable for the City to exercise their easement rights as the home owners get used to the area being "their" open space. Is there a way to make it clearer? McLaughlin said this can be done through a deed restriction. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass moved to approve PA98-001 with the revised Conditions. Howe seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved PLANNING ACTION 98-075 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND LANDSCAPING COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY OFFICE/COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. ALSO INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO THE OFF- STREET PARKING SECTIN OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE ALLOWING FOR A REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES (SIX RATHER THAN EIGHT) AND A STACKED PARKING CONFIGURATION 541 A STREET APPLICANT: MARK AND REBECCA REITINGER Site Vists and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all Commissioners. STAFF REPORT The lot is 25 feet in width and 120 feet in depth, typical of the lots platted around the turn of the century. The existing building was constructed in 1905. It is significant as it is considered the sole pre-1910 framed commercial building left in the area. In the recent Railroad District nomination conducted by George Kramer, the evaluation upgraded the building from secondary to primary, noting the significance as a framed structure. The applicants wish to demolish the existing building and construct a new two-story structure with a partial third floor. The first floor is designated as office space, the second floor primarily office space with a living room kitchen, and the third floor the bedroom, library, bath. At the beginning of the review of this project, the City was in the process of developing the Downtown Design Standards. There was consideration that the standards applied to the downtown might be considered to be applied to the Fourth Street commercial area. The applicants have been willing to incorporate many of the elements found in the Downtown Design Standards. The design was reviewed by the Historic Commission and overall they favored the building design. VVith regard to the Variance, the applicants are asking for six spaces (instead of the required eight), three of which are in a stacked configuration. The request is based on the historic development pattern in the Railroad District, the fact the lot is 25 feet in width with alley access. It appears only three spaces could be added on site. The concern is ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 not so much patrons parking but long-term parking using up valuable on-street parking. The applicants got a waiver from the State to allow for a disabled space to be provided on Fourth Street at curbside. Parking demand has risen due to increased development in the area. Staff's primary concern is that the application, as proposed, does not put considerable impact on the parking demand. Molnar explained there is an existing demand on the area by the pottery studio (next door) that is not being met by on-site parking. So by examining the parking, the Commission should evaluate the net impact of tonight's proposal. The issues surrounding the landscape Variance arise from some of the same constraints-narrow lot width-and there is not an expectation to have side landscaped or front landscaped yard. The applicant has proposed installing street trees in the sidewalks with root barriers, introduce grass pavers on the parking site on the back, and entertain the idea of adding rooftop gardens for the residential areas. The option they are proposing is consistent with the 15 percent requirement. Molnar noted the City Council has to give approval to demolish the existing structure. The Historic Commission evaluated and recommended approval of removal of the structure. There was discussion requesting tying the ultimate demolition or removal to a site review approval. Chapman asked for clarification of the Historic Commission minutes with regard to the parking variance. Molnar said they were not supportive of the parking variance. PUBLIC HEARING MARK and BECKY REITENGER, 1998 Tolman Creek Road. Becky explained they wish to develop a space for their office in the Railroad District. They are desiring second floor office space. She said there are only eight commercial and residential 25 foot wide lots in the area. The existing building has open spaces on each side of the building. They will phlange the building so it will look building to building. They plan to dismantle the building and use as many products from the building as possible. The site drops from six feet from the front to the back, creating an ideal condition for a split level rear apartment. The rooftop garden would be a way to add greenery. Since the handicap space was going to take the most space, they decided to move it off-site. Decreasing the building size will not increase the parking area available because the parking cannot be turned lengthwise. They thought by providing stacked parking, that would alleviate the long-term parking issue on A and Fourth. Their employees could use this parking. The high school has stacked parking that does not appear to be a problem. By using underground parking, it will not have a big parking lot look. There will lots of bike parking. Decreasing the building size would not increase the landscaping. Becky said this is a unique lot. She understood the Historic Commission did not want to recommend approval of the parking variance, however, she asked that it be looked at and they would defer to the Planning Commission. JIM LEWIS, 640 A Street, stated he is a member of the Historic Commission but he did not attend the meeting at which time this action was discussed. He has watched the Railroad Subdivision develop across the street, creating quite a parking and traffic impact. Most of the buildings were developed under the existing parking ordinances with no variances. It seems if the Variance is given this will change the ground rules for future development. As a Historic Commission member, there could be a negative impact on the existing buildings in the area. Owners will want to increase the density of the properties. He would hope the Variance would be used more as a tool to keep existing properties as opposed to giving it up and losing the building and the Variance. Armitage read comments from GARY POWELL, 562 A Street, regarding parking concerns. JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, stated he is part owner at 545 A Street located across the street. He is opposed ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 to the project because the applicant cannot provide evidence to support 18.100.020(D). He feels the circumstances have been willfully and purposely self-imposed by the type of design, square footage and parking needs chosen by the applicant. The photo shown of his building by the applicant had only one car parked in front. The first floor front space of this building is vacant. They also have tenants from the next door building that use their parking. It is not currently a problem but when their first floor space becomes occupied, it could become a problem. There is future development on A Street that will impact the parking. He does not believe stacked parking works. The applicant has constraints on the parking and why should an exception be granted and what does mean for future applications? VVhite also believes the negative impacts on the adjacent uses will be greater than the benefits. DOYLE BRIGHTENBURG, 350 Phelps Street, stated he is part owner of the building across the street. He is a building designer and has had input on several buildings on A Street and is familiar with some of the problems that have arisen on A Street. He commended the design of the building. He has a problem with the parking, especially the stacked parking and the Variance. He does not believe the stacked parking will be used. He is concerned employees will park on the street. The street in the photo looked vacant, partly because there is no occupant in part of their building. Brightenburg has used parking bays and feels there are other creative mechanisms to add parking. He opposes the application. Hearn moved to continue the hearing until 10:30 p.m. Briggs seconded and everyone approved. GEORGE KRAMER, 386 North Laurel Street, stated he opposes the proposal. On June 1, 1998, the Planning Commission and Historic Commission submitted a letter to the City Council supporting the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The letter stated this would serve as an aid to preserving its unique character and encouraging appropriate restoration of the District's structures. Last week the Historic Commission voted to deny the parking Variance and he would urge the Planning Commission to do the same. The building is a 1905 structure located in the middle of the primary contributing area of significance. It retains sufficient integrity that it clearly looks like a 1905 structure. The applicant states it is a vernacular building with no outstanding architectural features; that is the definition of vernacular. Of 267 contributing properties in the document, 185 were identified as a vernacular architecture. Buildings such as this are restored all the time. This is one of the few slot commercial buildings left. Kramer said under 18.92.055 encourages preserving historic structures. If the Commission allows others to use this Variance request as part of a demolition action, they will be taking away one of the best incentives they have to preserve the historic and residential buildings of the Railroad District. By approving the Variance, the Commission would set a precedent that is a threat to the continuing development of the Railroad District. Staff Response Molnar said though Staff has concerns about precedent setting, each application is decided on its own merits. Past decisions do not bind the Commission to future decisions. VVhite mentioned the application failed to meet Criterion 3 (willfully or purposely self-imposed0. Staff has interpreted this (based on Oregon case law and LUBA decisions) as a modifier for Criterion 1 (unique or unusual circumstances). The key word is circumstances which apply to physical aspects of the site. If there is a narrow lot configuration, it was not the fault of the applicant. Generally, requesting a larger building than what is necessary to meet the parking requirements has not been considered self-imposition or applied that way. It has been used to modify Criteria 1. The Staff Report has focused primarily on Criteria 2 (benefits outweigh the negative impacts). Does the benefit of a good urban infill project outweigh the potential unforseen problems in placing more than its fair share of parking demand? McLaughlin said the Commission should ask: Is there unique or unusual circumstances to this site? The applicants say the 25 foot lot along A Street in the Railroad Street is unique and not typically found elsewhere for doing ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998 commercial development. Is this an unusual circumstance that will be restricted? If the Commission does not believe it is unique, then the application fails. The nature of the Variance can be large or small which gets weighed against Criteria 2. If the Variance request is too large, the negatives outweigh the positive and it is denied. By requesting a Variance, it is not a self-imposed condition. Fields thinks there is just too much building and he does not see how to enter the rear of the building because one has to work his way between cars. He does not see landscaping Variance as a problem. Rebuttal Becky said the unique and unusual circumstance is the 25 foot wide lot. The VFW building next door is the only other one they can find. They cannot turn the parking to provide more. They could post signs in the rear to control parking. They are very aware of the historic nature of the building and looked at renovating but she is not sure what they would be saving. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fields moved to deny Planning Action 98-075. Chapman seconded the motion. Hearn moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Howe seconded the motion and everyone approved. Fields does not believe there is anything unique or unusual. The lot is small and is being overbuilt. Howe agrees the 25 foot wide lot is questionable about its uniqueness. Her concern is the whole idea of the Historic District. This is a very attractive building that is proposed but the Commission is voting on putting a Disneyland building in the Historic District because what is there does not look as good as modern re-creations. Criteria 2 is of concern because it affects the immediate area. Bass said the size of the lot and the size of the building is a problem on every application the Commission deals with. When the applicants choose to build a building of a certain size, it seems willfully self-imposed. If approved, it will encourage applicants to come in with larger projects than what would be allowed. Bass would be interested in seeing Nolte's interpretation of the ordinance. McLaughlin reiterated that asking for a Variance does not make it self-imposed. Hearn said the unusual circumstance is the skinny lot, but if it were not two-stories high and the square footage were reduced, it would not need as much parking. The Commission was in agreement that the landscaping Variance is acceptable. The demolition is the City Council's job to review. The problem is with the parking Variance. Armitage asked if the applicant wished to have a continuance. The Reitenger's agreed to a 60 day extension to the 120 rule. Howe moved to continue PA 98-075, Briggs seconded the motion and everyone approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1998