Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-13 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Mike Gardiner. Other Commissioners present were Russ Chapman, Chris Hearn, Alex Amarotico, Ray Kistler, John Fields, Marilyn Briggs, Mike Morris, and Kerry KenCairn. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hearn moved approval of the Minutes of the May 9, 2000 Regular Meeting. Briggs seconded the motion and the Minutes were approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 2000-040 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW PERMIT AND THREE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES TO THE CITY’S SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 9,200 SQUARE FOOT POSTAL ANNEX BUILDING. 120 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE APPLICANT: U. S. POSTAL SERVICE Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. KenCairn had conversations during the design phase of the project about landscaping and she had a site visit. Fields said he has been involved but not actively involved with the property for awhile. He has had written correspondence with the applicant. STAFF REPORT Harris said the proposal is to build a 9,200 square foot building to house a carrier annex for the United States Postal Service. All property owners within 200 feet have been properly noticed with the criteria for Chapter 18.72. Harris explained the Post Office is proposing to building their new carrier annex on Parcel 4 of the Clear Creek partition. The street going through the development is Clear Creek Drive. There is a wetland and intermittent stream to the northeast of the parcel. As part of the Clear Creek partition, a mitigation plan was prepared. The wetland will be filled in to build the road but will be expanded and re-vegetated. There are no trees on the property. The proposed building will have 62 parking spaces. Seven extra spaces are proposed in grass crete to be used for future employee parking demand . Bike parking will be provided. The applicant is proposing a 900 square foot public plaza which is required as part of the Detailed Site Review Standards (DSR). The plaza will be have benches and shade trees and be located adjacent to the sidewalk so the public can sit in the area. The building is fashioned after a turn-of-the century railroad depot. The front elevation will face Clear Creek Drive with the building set back about 15 feet. There are storefront windows along the front of the building will be opaque for security purposes. The front door will not be open to the public but will be an employee entrance. The building is about 150 feet in length with a recessed area. The public facilities are going to be supplied on Clear Creek Drive. Harris said there is not an off-street parking standard in our ordinance for this type of facility. A shipping or trucking facility came closest to the same use. This building will be a mail distribution center. Harris noted that of the 36 company vehicle spaces, six are labeled for rural route carriers. It is not clear if those company vehicles are going to stay there all the time. This is considered a secure federal facility. The federal government has requirements in terms of how the building is built and how the entire area is secured. The only people allowed on this site are USPS employees. There is an eight-foot high chain link fence proposed to go around the entire site. The fence is shown to have three strands of security wire around the top of the fence. It is not the applicant’s intention to put the security wire on the fence. A Condition has been added that the security wire will not be installed. . The Tree Commission comments are included in the packet. They had several concerns. Staff is concerned that the laurel shown on the landscaping plan could potentially grow up and screen the building and interfere with the orientation of the building to the street. A Condition has been added that landscaping be redesigned so the landscaping doesn’t grow up and block the front of the building and the landscaping is designed in a way that accents the architecture and ties it to the street. Harris said a Condition has been added that a hedge be planted on the outside of the fence on the east side to screen it from the public right-of-way, due to the bend in the road. The proposed driveway apron is 40 feet wide. The largest the City allows under current standards is 33 feet, along with a specific apron wing design. Therefore, a Condition has been added that a new driveway plan be submitted and approved by the Engineering Dept. The applicant is proposing a water quality manhole for some of the storm drainage with some storm water going into the City storm drain. The Engineering Dept. is requesting the applicant provide an engineered plan that shows that the ten-inch line in Oak Street can handle the flow from the property. Two of the administrative variances relate to the secure federal facility and the requirements that USPS have to abide by. One variance is to allow the front door to be open only for employees instead of for the general public. The other variance relates to the front windows. The Site Design Standards require storefront, clear windows. These windows will not be clear but opaque which is a federal standard. It is Staff’s opinion that the applicants have demonstrated they have difficulty in meeting these two Site Design and Use Standard requirements. Usually in the carrier annexes have no windows at all, but blank walls. The designers have tried to incorporate, as much as possible, the City’s design standards into the building. The windows were added along with the front entry and the entry vestibule in an effort to meet the City’s standards. The third administrative variance is to the floor area ratio requirement. In the Detailed Site Review Zone, the applicant is required to have 35 percent of the site covered in buildings, plaza or pedestrian areas. In looking at the developed area of the property, the applicant is at 30 percent. It is clear they have a unique facility, the use and the security requirements. Because of that, they probably cannot build a bigger building and rent out a space. However, they do have two large parts of the property that are being landscaped in a natural fashion. One is adjacent to the public right-of-way. In order to meet the FAR for the entire site is disproportionate to the amount of development they are doing, to meet the variance they should at least meet FAR requirement for the site within the fence which would mean adding about another 2,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Staff suggests adding a public plaza. It would tie into the wetland area across the street. PUBLIC HEARING TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, stated is a partial agent for the applicant. He introduced Don Graham, Ashland Postmaster; Jim, real estate specialist for the Post Office; and Mick, District Manager for the Region. Staff asked the security wire for the top of the fence be left off unless there is vandalism. He would ask Condition 15 be modified to reflect this request. With regard to the driveway approach mentioned in Condition 11, Giordano stated there are fairly large vehicles entering the facility. They would like to keep it at 33 feet. The applicant’s biggest concern is Condition 14 with regard to the FAR. Giordano said the Tree Commission was not that excited about a plaza adjacent to the wetland. The Post Office would like to enlarge a different area. Giordano calculated only six bike parking spaces, not 14. The applicant is providing 12 spaces. He mentioned the current Post Office facility that is open to the public will remain in its present location. The downtown post office should be freed up for parking. DON GRAHAM, Ashland Postmaster , mentioned the six parking spaces for rural carriers. The rural carriers would like to be able to park their vehicles on postal property where they could be secure. There would be room at the new annex to do this. Chapman asked what the windows would look like. Giordano said they would look just like windows only you can’t see through them. PAUL OULLETTE, ERS Greiner, consultant to the postal service, said they had difficulty locating the trash enclosure. They wanted to have it in a place where trucks could have access to it. They felt the masonry enclosure would provide a background to the plaza with added landscaping. If they move the trash enclosure, they will lose parking. Ouellette explained from the outside of the building, the windows appear tinted—there is a pane of glass with a wall behind it, for security purposes. KenCairn wondered why the offices along the side that have regular glass could not be placed at the front of the building. Ouellette said there are only two rooms that have a window. The function of the building is such that the offices are located at one end and the major part of the building is used for a work area. Briggs said in looking at the front and rear elevations, the side closest to the existing lumber yard, has an overhang that looks to be about six feet and the other side is two feet. The roof looks lopsided. Ouellette said the reason for that is to provide shelter for the company vehicles when they load the mail. Briggs would like to see them balance the overhang, giving the facade of the building a more balanced appearance. Ouellette also mentioned that the postal inspection services do not like to have a hedge on the outside of the fence because it allows vandals an easier way to climb the fence. He would have to ask the postal service for an exemption. Harris noted Condition 5 talks about the hedge. KenCairn said having a public space next to the street makes sense. The wetland will be north of the creek. Giordano said the Tree Commission felt the location of the plaza was inappropriate because it was more like a leftover space. KenCairn thought the Tree Commission did not understand there was no wetland there. KenCairn said if the applicants did not want to install a hedge on the outside of the fence, perhaps they could use vines intertwined I the fence which would not provide a hiding place but would obscure the fence. Ouellette said the landscaping plan does not present the final landscaping design. Grass crete for future parking, noted KenCairn, takes a lot of water and it is hard to maintain. If they want parking in the future not to be used now, it might make more sense to go ahead and landscape it and make it easily paved in the future. Grass crete would be a waste of water. KenCairn said Public Works was requesting an engineering study of the ten inch line on Oak Street and whether it could handle the increased flows from the parking lot. About half the basin that goes to the sotrm line to the east is currently feeds the wetland. Once the site is graded, it will be at just about the same elevation as the beginning of the wetland across the street. In order to keep as much water as possible in the wetland across the street, KenCairn thought if there was too much water for the ten inch line, if the applicants would consider shunting half of the basin in the other direction. Ouellette said he would work on a final design. Briggs said she would like, along with a pocket park, a drive-up postal drop. This might solve the FAR problem. Giordano said they did come up with a possible solution by increasing the size of the proposed plaza. Instead of having two little plazas, there would be one good-sized plaza. Briggs would like to see them work on increasing the plaza area even if it means pulling the fence out a little further. Fields wondered if Ouellette had any problems with Condition 2 relating to light standards. Staff is reqeuesting a 14 foot standard. Ouellette said it could be a problem but he would have to study the lighting calculations. Normally, they install their parking lot lights at 20 feet. They might have to look at putting in more light posts for security reasons. Chapman wondered if a variance request ever made to have see-thru windows. Ouellette said they did not, but he knows under no circumstances would they build a work area with see-thru windows. Chapman thought perhaps an argument could me made that see-thru windows be allowed and if a problem results, then blocks could be put behind them. MICK LOUDER, represents the District Manager for the State of Oregon and SW Washington, explained that the difference between mail sanctity versus mail property. Barbed wire is a standard they use to protect their vehicles. In the event there is a conflict with local standards, they will try to work around it and go without the wire. Mail sanctity cannot be bargained with. The non-see-thru glass is an architectural feature that should satisfy the City’s requirements and at the same time not compromise mail sanctity. Chapman has had the nicest letter carriers in this town. He is a little bit defensive about a building where he can’t see his carrier friends when he walks by the building. It is a way of withdrawing a part of this small community and putting them behind non-see-thru glass and potentially barbed wire on top of the fence. It feels wrong to him. He understands it, but it does not fit into a friendly, open atmosphere. What a wonderful opportunity for the postal service to let people look in the building so people can see just how hard they work. Louder said that is just the way the world is today. They are trying to make it a warm, appealing facility but it is a warehouse. Postal workers are public servants and budget driven. Gardiner reviewed the list of items that have been discussed thus far. Condition 5 - evergreen hedge. Giordano said vines would possibly work. Perhaps it could be left up ? to the Staff Advisor to approve. Condition 9 - to include wording to engineer some of the storm water to the east of the wetlands area. ? Condition 11 – City wants a narrower driveway approach and the post office wants 36 feet. If it is ? narrowed down, truck would have to go into the opposite lane to make the turn. Condition 14 – Giordano wondered if there would be a problem having something other than scored ? concrete? Would brick be acceptable? Molnar said they are just looking for decorative hardscape. Condition 15 – Giordano would like to have some type of wording in case of vandalism or theft. They ? would like the option to add wire above the fence. Condition 16 – bike parking – the applicants are providing 12. ? Staff Response McLaughlin suggested wording to Condition 15 to read: “…no be installed unless agreed to by the Staff Advisor should vandalism become a problem.” Harris clarified the issue of the driveway approach. The City requirement is that the driveway approach be a maximum of 33 feet wide. That would include the area within the public right-of-way. The proposal indicates it is 40 feet wide. The Condition is that the driveway approach meets the City standard of a maximum of 33 feet wide. There are also specific standards about how the sidewalk crosses that approach. The City standard is not to use curbing around the flares but a wing. Harris has not heard a compelling argument for making the driveway approach wider. Harris said the bike parking was miscalculated and the spaces proposed are acceptable, however, the post office is being asked to use the inverted U bike rack. Harris noted that one of the standards in the Detailed Site Review zone is that the lighting be a maximum 14 feet in height. If the applicants are going to vary from that, the would be required to apply for another administrative variance. Harris pointed out if the applicants were to add the small landscaped area adjacent to the plaza they are proposing, the Commission should keep in mind the patio area is 320 sq. ft. and the landscape area looks to be about the same size. If the Commission has the applicants add an additional 300 to 400 sq. ft. of hardscape, does that justify the administrative variance to the FAR requirement? The basic Site Review Standards require that any creek areas be integrated into the Site Design and the natural feature be incorporated. Although the wetland is not on the property, it is clearly a major and natural element of the Clear Creek partition. Staff believes that having a separate plaza for the eastern part of the property which is vacant at this point, is not only a pedestrian amenity, but also complements the natural feature which is required by the standard. Harris explained the parking islands are part of the standards which are required. Molnar said the scaled lighting has mostly been applied along a public pathway. Staff’s intent is to continue along Clear Creek Way the same lighting standard see along A Street. Staff would probably be more flexible in the parking lot, though 20 feet may not be necessary, but there won’t need to be a historic standard in the parking lot. Suggested additional wording for Condition 9: That the engineered storm drainage plan explore using the existing line as an option for additional flows to the adjacent wetlands. Rebuttal Giordano said the trucks cannot make the turning radius unless they go over the center line. Ouellette said many of the truck drivers will driver right over a sidewalk and over landscaping if a turn is difficult. The applicants have no problem with the 14 foot high light standards. Giordano said the applicants are willing to work on a design to squeeze out some additional plaza area. In the near future, there might be a lot line adjustment and a property exchange which would allow more opportunities for a plaza. Briggs thought an employee picnic area could be located in the triangle if the boundary line adjustment occurs. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Harris said the City Attorney determined since the property is leased from a private property owner, it has to follow the City’s standards., not the federal regulations. Hearn noted that federal facilities today are just a target for certain groups. He does not know if it is the most reasonable course of action to ignore these regulations. Harris said Condition 5 could say an evergreen “plant material” instead of “hedge”. Harris’ added wording for Condition 9: The engineered storm drainage plan shall consider directing partial drainage into wetlands north of Clear Creek Drive or existing 18 inch line to the east of the site. Since the trucks are going to be coming on a daily basis, perhaps Staff needs to look at the 33 foot width specification to allow 36 feet. They would like to keep Condition 11 because they need to submit the wing design with the sidewalk going across it. Harris said the last sentence of Condition 11 to read: “…a maximum of 36 feet at the property line”. Add at the end of Condition 15: “…shall not be installed unless agreed to by the Staff Advisor should vandalism become a problem”. Condition 16 should be amended from 14 bicycle parking spaces to six. Discussion ensued regarding Condition 14. McLaughlin explained the floor area ratio. He said it is a way to get buildings in scale with the property. You don’t want buildings that are all parking lots. Buildings should function toward the street and have a size and scale appropriate to fill in that streetscape. The idea of hardscape coming in as an alternative to FAR is a way to create public spaces and meet the public good. Staff would like something that provides about 500 sq. ft. and surround it with some intense landscaping that will link the corner as a place that ties onto the remainder of the wetland. KenCairn believes the Tree Commission would be supportive of a public space that relates to the wetland. It continues the large open public space. She sees it as a valuable open space. Giordano said if they could find another location for the dumpster, they could create a larger plaza area. Again, there is the opportunity of doing a lot line adjustment in order to make the land area more useful. Fields said it is a major issue what the public space should look like. Is this going to be a functional area? What is the security separation between the employee area and the public space? It feels like a Berlin wall between where the employees are kept and where the public space is located. The employees should be able to utilize the public plaza. Harris said the suggested Condition mentions 500 sq. ft. of hardscape area and another 1700 sq. ft. surrounding it that would be landscaping which would be tied into the wetlands across the street. Fields would like to see the security fence moved in towards the parking lot so there was more of a plaza that was public with linkage around the corner. He would like to make the plaza attached to the building more functional and public. If they are going to maintain the whole parcel, Fields would like to see a little lawn and a picnic table on the corner. Giordano is hearing the Commission wants a visual link across to the wetland and so much has to be landscaping,. He believes that a detailed design can be worked out with Staff. McLaughlin felt if they were to make the existing plaza area larger and workable, the trash enclosure will have to be relocated. Gardiner understand that if there is not a lot line adjustment, there will be some landscaping tied to the parcel. Fields suggested re-wording Condition 14 to say: There will be a 600 foot plaza accesible by the public that will be integrated into the adjacent space. It will be moving ten to 12 feet into their property with security. In the event the undeveloped parcel, there will be 2000 sq. ft. of landscaping in the corner that would facilitate a picnic table with public access. McLaughlin believes he understands the different items. Staff will add all those things in the Condition and bring them back next month in the Findings. Those items include: enlarging the existing plaza area, improving the landscaping on the adjoining property, creating a more public space, and moving the fence back. KenCairn said she understands the applicant’s intent to add the grass crete parking area, but thinks irrigating seven parking spaces is a more negative impact than a trade-off which would involve paving the parking spaces, making them compact spaces, and putting in a seven foot island. This would be Condition 17. Ouellette said that would then allow space to move the dumpster. Briggs said if the applicant is agreeable, she would like a Condition 18, that the ten foot roof overhang on the south end of the main façade will be met by the same dimension overhang on the north principle façade. After considerable discussion, it was agreed a Condition 18 would be added stating that the eave on the west elevation be reduced to two feet to match the east elevation. Briggs moved to approve 2000-040 with the attached Conditions as revised including Conditions 17 and 18. KenCairn seconded the motion. Chapman does not have a problem with the Conditions. He believes the issue with the windows is a significant one. There is the “Ashland way” and the “Federal Post Office way”. Since the law says the local ordinances take priority, he believes the “Ashland way” should be tried first and if it doesn’t work, then let them block the windows out. He does not want to grant the Variance for the windows. Fields said he thinks the Post Office is trying to create a secure facility where people can’t look at other people’s business. You have to be visually blanked off from public view. OTHER There will be a Study Session on June 27, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. If you look at the FAR requirement for the entire site, they would need an additional 15,000 square feet of floor area. In Staff’s opinion, the applicant has not really demonstrated that they have difficulty in meeting this FAR requirement. Briggs thought a thorny kind of vine intertwined in the fence would be good or a thorny shrub.