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