Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-10 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chair Anna Howe. Other Commissioners present were Russ Chapman, Mike Gardiner, John Fields, Mike Morris, Marilyn Briggs, and Chris Hearn. Steve Armitage and Alex Amarotico were absent. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Maria Harris and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS October 27, 1998 Minutes - Chapman made a change on page 2 to read: Chapman felt the cost of transit equipment, as shown in the consultant's report was too high. If the City decided to investigate its own intra-city service, Chapman would be glad to work on a feasibility committee. Hearn moved to approve the Minutes of October 13,1998 and October 27, 1998 as amended, Gatdiner seconded and the minutes were approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 98-075 REQUEST FOR 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 SECTION OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE ALLOWING FOR A REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AS WELL AS A STACKED PARKING CONFIGURATION. APPLICANT: MARK AND REBECCA REITINGER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Gardiner had a site visit but was not at the July meeting but he read the minutes. He did not listen to the tapes. Howe, Briggs, Chapman and Hearn had site visits. Fields had a site visit. He works with Jerome White and Doyle Brightenburg and he has discussed with them neighborhood parking and design standards. There have been no specific conversations about this project. Morris had a site visit but was not present at the last hearing on this issue. He did not listen to the tapes.. Molnar said there has been a revision to the application and it was re-noticed STAFF REPORT Molnar said the main issue at the July meeting was the parking variance. Eight spaces were required and three were being provided in the rear off the alley with a stacked configuration for a total of six spaces and the handicap space provided at curbside on Fourth Street. The ordinance only recognizes three spaces. In reviewing the minutes and past Commissioner discussion on this matter, the Commission had problems with the parking variance and felt the impacts on the existing area of on- street parking is too great and the Commission had moved to deny the request. The applicant was given an opportunity to revise the plan and address the concerns raised by the Commissioners. The overall building design and height has remained the same. There has been a 650 square foot reduction in internal floor area. The majority of the space was removed from the first fl(~or. The second floor has been reduced 150 square feet. Since the writing of the Staff Report, Staff has been uncertain where the reduction came from since the floor plans are identical. The applicant may have miscalculated the second floor or included the balcony areas. With the reduction the total parking requirement has been reduced from eight spaces to six spaces. The same stacked configuration has been proposed with the allotment of the handicap space on Fourth. The existing use of the property (pottery shop) is non-conforming because it is pre-existing, legal non- conforming use but with no parking on the site right now. If another retail business wanted to occupy the existing 1472 square feet, it would not trigger a planning application review. Staff feels there are unique or unusual circumstances about the site in terms of lot configuration. The Historic Commission concurred it does represent an attractive building design. It allows for mixed use with residential and office. space. On the other hand, the proposal only provides 50 percent of the parking required. The neighbors have expressed concerns about the additional demand placed on parking along A Street. Staff concluded the application comes down to Criteria B--the potential impacts of the parking variance, specifically on existing curbside parking for the immediate area, with the impacts outweighing the benefits. Should the Commission decide to approve the application, Staff has recommended eight Conditions. Two Conditions were suggested at the Historic Commission: 1) If the application is approved, the demolition permit would be approved concurrently with the building permit (that would be in case the project never went forward), 2) That the final building design details be submitted for review by the Historic Commission and approval by the Planning Director, specifically, the depth of architectural features such as cornice features or trim need to be shown. This would be reviewed by the Historic Commission and approved by Staff Advisor. PUBLIC HEARING REBECCA REITINGER and MARK REITINGER1898 Tolman Creek Road showed overheads of their project. They are showing the same front facade with 2700 square feet of office space which will require six parking spaces. This project will benefit economic development. It will be an owner occupied building. The project will provide new spaces for the community. There is no way to increase the parking. The original square footage of the building was computed in error. The first floor has been reduced with the crawl space at the rear. If the existing building is renovated or nothing is done to it except increase its use, five parking spaces would be needed and none provided or required. There is a larger difference in the parking required for the renovated building But either plan cannot meet the requirement. PETER BRUNNER, 245 Van Ness, broker with Brunner &VVhite, 77 N. Main Street stated he is opposed to the approval of the variance. He gave a handout to the Commissioners showing colored in tax lots. He will be coming before the Planning Commission within the next three months for a mixed use building. He had photos showing parking on A Street on a fairly typical day with the parking spaces mostly filled. Parking is a major concern on A Street. He feels the parking impacts of the proposed project will definitely be more negative than beneficial. Brunner believes the proposal is entirely self-imposed by the applicant. He would have liked a second apartment at 545 A Street but he could not provide parking. He would like to see the applicant held to the same standard as he is. JEROME WHITE, architect, 545 A Street, (resides at 253 3rd Street) read his statement. He opposes the project because of density and practicality of the proposed parking arrangement. He had a handout for ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MINUTES the Commissioners showing a chart of densities. Hearn asked White how he would feel about the applicant remodeling the existing building. White sees there is a way to provide four stacked parking spaces and he could live with the remodeled building. DOYLE BRIGHTENBURG, 350 Phelps Street, works at 545 A Street, works across the street from the proposed development. He read a prepared statement. He believes the variance for parking goes too far over the line of common sense. CYNTHIA WHITE, 245 Van Ness, read a statement. She opposes the project because the size of the building does not conform to the scale of the lot. Had they not paid too much for the property initially, the proposal might be more economically feasible. She believes the parking needs along A should be considered and the future requests for parking variances. She does not believe there are unique and unusual circumstances. Rebuttal Becky Reitenger agrees with many of the comments made by those in opposition. However, she believes by developing the property, it will decrease the impact on the neighborhood. It will be a greater benefit than intensifying the use of the existing building. Chapman asked if two of the proposed spaces are phantom spaces or can they really exist? Reitenger believes they can exist. Gardiner said the regulations for a parking space are 9' x 18' and will not fit even with the compact requirements. Reitinger said the request is to make them all compact spaces. Gardiner added the Planning Commission is not here to make an optional plan for the applicant. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Gardiner moved to deny the motion. He agreed with Chapman that some of parking spaces will be non- spots. Chapman seconded the motion. Gardiner believes the criteria for a variance have not been met. By building the size building they are asking, they have created the need for a variance. Briggs appreciates how the applicants have reduced the size of the building. She believes the building is handsome and does not feel uncomfortable with the variance in this case. She believes they are providing parking. Chapman wished Reitinger could purchase a variance by buying bus passes for their employees or providing on-site bicycles. This is a situation where we are letting the requirements of cars influence our decision. He believes the conditions have been willfully self-imposed due to the size of the building. Morris noticed about a quarter of the lot will be for parking. Briggs said the lot and the ordinance are not compatible but they are still trying to do something handsome. To keep it in a residential feel, she does not see how they cannot grant the variance. She does not believe they are setting some impossible precedence. Fields owns the building across the street. He has been involved in commercial development on A ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MINUTES Street for the past 15 years. He respects the Reitengers but the bottom line is the crite~:ia defining the density of what the neighbors see. The variance procedure is really close but he believes it is too dense. Too much development on too small a lot. Howe mentioned that at a previous meeting for the prior proposal, she sees value in supporting buildings in the Historic District. If we go for just the gems that will exclude the value of keeping buildings that are not architecturally significant. She was thrilled that they might keep the original building and fix it up. Hearn does not believe we can dictate or legislate what people build. Hearn, Howe, Chapman, Gardiner, Morris, Fields voted in favor of denial denial and Briggs and Morris voted "no". ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MINUTES