Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-09 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Anna Howe, Russ Chapman, Alex Amarotico, Chris Hearn, Mike Gardiner, Mike Morris, Marilyn Briggs, and John Fields. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS January 12, 1999 Regular Meeting Minutes were approved. January 12, 1999 Hearings Board Minutes - Hearn moved approval, Morris seconded and the motion carried. January 12, 1999 Findings (Neuman -Washington Street) - Gardiner moved to approve the Minutes and Chapman seconded the motion. Everyone approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 99-008 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO ESTABLISH A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (STATE FARM INSURANCE). OFF-STREET PARKING IS TO BE PROVIDED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, OFF THE EXISTING PUBLIC ALLEY. 600 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: LAURIE BIXBY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits by were made by all. Hearn disclosed that Bixby is his insurance agent. He believes he can be objective in the hearing. Bixby has used Hearn’s law firm from time to time and came to his office to speak with him about the application. Before she got into it at all, Hearn told her he could not speak with her about the application because he is a member of the Planning Commission. He urged her to talk with the Planning Staff. Howe noted that Bixby is her insurance agent. STAFF REPORT Harris reported that all the abutting property owners were noticed, and mailed with that notice was the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review. Several letters were received today in support of the proposal and copies have been distributed to the Commissioners. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, the primary difference being in the back of the property in the parking. Also submitted was a parking bay study. A memo was distributed by Harris outlining revised and new conditions. There are some professional offices in the area, a traveler’s accommodation on the corner of Sherman and Siskiyou and a home occupation office next to the proposed application. Seventeen of the noticed properties are residential uses and11 the others have some commercial aspect. The applicant is proposing to use the existing single family residence as an insurance office and also as a studio apartment. Primary changes to the lot would be the addition of a paved parking area in the rear off the alley. There will be only minor changes to the building with a door added to give separate access to the apartment. Landscaping will be added around the perimeter of the parking with interior walkways. The property is in the Historic District. The office will be approximately 1600 square feet and the studio apartment will measure about 240 square feet. Most of the issues raised by Staff are “big picture” issues that pertain to the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. The application seems to imply that the use as an insurance office is justified because it is on Siskiyou Boulevard, having relatively high traffic volumes on a major street and therefore, it is unfit for residential purposes and, therefore, a professional office should be allowed. Staff feels this is a zoning issue. Many people, both residents of Ashland and those visiting from out of town, notice the residential presence on the Boulevard and that there is not, unlike many communities, strip commercial development on the street, but rather a strong residential presence and a break up of the commercial strip zoning. There were two nearby professional offices mentioned in the application. In 1983, 622 Siskiyou Boulevard was approved and the complex next to Safeway was approved in 1971. Both are R-2 zoning. The applicant has used a segment of the first goal and policy from the Housing Element of the Comp Plan to support her application, citing the mixed use portion. It says that mixed uses should be considered in an urban environment and can be a good thing. Harris showed the entire goal and policy on the overhead, pointing out that throughout it, there is language that strictly qualifies. It states, “Do not allow deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses and developments”. “Mixed uses can be used to create a more interesting setting and urban environment.” The last sentence says: “....and should be considered as a development option, however, it will not disrupt an existing residential area.” That is reiterated later on in the policy. In addition, Harris said in both the Economic Element and Transportation Element, there is discussion of designing streets as public spaces and not turning our backs to the street. Harris explained Staff’s concerns are with the ordinance language concerning a professional office, the definition of the impact area and target use of the zone, and the adverse material impacts on livability of the impact area as outlined in the Staff Report. Also noted in the Staff Report as areas of concerns are the off-street parking and the size of the proposed apartment as well as long-range planning of the area. The Historic Commission was concerned about the alleyscape. They find the sheds and small outbuildings along the alley as an important feature of the historic neighborhood. They requested the applicant consider saving one or both of the structures at the rear of the property. The applicant has redesigned their parking based on the Historic Commission’s suggestions. They have shortened the parking spaces and are showing they will save the existing garage on the east property line and provide landscaping. The half shed on the west side will come out. Signage was another issue that came up at the Historic Commission meeting. There was some discussion about what was appropriate in size to preserve the historic integrity of the neighborhood. In Harris’s memo, she added a condition limiting the size of the sign, taken from the traveler’s accommodation portion of the ordinance. Drainage is an issue that has come up since the Staff Report was written. Harris added a condition that the applicant submit a plan showing fill and retaining, and how the storm drainage is going to be handled. The Tree Commission looked at the walnut tree and there is a patio in this area. They were not too concerned about changing the walks and any construction affecting the tree. Harris said in Staff’s opinion the applicant has not met the burden of proof in terms of the CUP criteria, particularly the effect of the proposal on the livability of the impact zone. Chapman asked Harris to explain the vehicle trips per day as noted on Page 6 of the Staff Report. Harris said when a CUP is evaluated, they look at the effect compared to the target use of the zone. The target use is two multi-family residential units. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the number of trips per day for the target use is 12.2 trips, 6.1 per unit. The applicant is proposing to have the insurance office and studio apartment. That would be 6.1 trips per day for the studio apartment. For the office, it is based on square footage and that would be 15.5 trips per day for the office, adding up to 22 trips per day, compared to 12 trips for the target use. That represents a 77 percent increase in the number of trips. The applicant has been tracking how many office visits they get per day and she understands they average 10.6 trips per day by auto from customers. That is higher than the numbers coming from the ITE manual. If you add the customers plus eight for the employees (two to go to work and two to go home), the total would be 24 - 25 trips per day. Gardiner said with regard to the singularity of the professional offices, what would be an example of a professional office that did not have any support people? Harris said Staff interprets that to mean the same number of employees as a home occupation which is one professional and one support person. Hearn disagreed saying most offices he is familiar with would ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 have more than one support person. Harris said this interpretation has been controversial for several years. PUBLIC HEARING RICHARD STEVENS, 336 West Sixth Street, Medford, OR, representing the applicant, stated that DARRELL BOLDT will also speak on behalf of the applicant. They find the additional conditions acceptable on Page 12 but would like clarification of Condition 7. Stevens said a CUP shall be granted if the use can be made to conform. That means if the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the criteria and the Commission does not find a significant or material adverse effect, then the Commissioners shall grant the permit. If it is found there is a material or significant adverse effect, they must consider if there is a condition that can mitigate the impact and then grant the permit. Stevens cited LUBA comments. Conditions have already been suggested for that purpose. Stevens does not believe there are any Comp Plan policies in which they are in conflict. The mixed use can be used as a tool to be beneficial to the City. The Historic Commission recommended this property as a professional office which will insure the historic significance of this building be preserved. Stevens referred to the Definitions section of the Ordinance (18.08.010). Singular is plural in all instances in this ordinance. On Page 11 of the Staff Report, Stevens said spot zoning is discussed but is not an issue before the Commission. Spot zoning is granting a special privilege that is not extended to other persons or properties in the same zoning district. Every person who owns a R-2 property has the right to ask for a CUP to establish a professional office. Value is not a criteria and should not be considered. Stevens knows of no limitations to the availability of public facilities. Stevens addressed Criteria C (adverse material effect). He believes Staff has misconstrued his findings. He identified Siskiyou Boulevard as a negative factor with regard to livability for residential purposes, specifically for single family residential purposes. Siskiyou Boulevard has over 20,000 vehicle trips per day, vehicle noise, Safeway, other professional offices and mixed uses, and in his opinion creates a livability problem. The proposal will be similar in scale, bulk and coverage except for the parking spaces. With regard to generation of traffic and effect on surrounding streets, there will be minimum impact. Streets have the capacity to serve the use proposed including the alley. There is more noise and light from the Safeway store than this use. Chapman considered that Stevens seemed to be arguing that this area is failing or has failed already as a residential area and asked Stevens if he thought we should go ahead and accept this as inevitable and give up on Siskiyou Boulevard as a residential boulevard that says something unique in the state; that a major state highway goes past these residence? Is Stevens saying we should abandon that? Stevens answered that he is not saying that but he is looking at the intent of the ordinance which says to preserve the residential character of Siskiyou Boulevard (or R-2 zones). In addition this is a historic structure to be preserved. He does not believe the environment on Siskiyou Boulevard is conducive for single family residential uses. Therefore, this type of application is one of the better methods the City has to accomplish these objectives. The residential character is still maintained and the historic structure will not be altered. Chapman responded that if we accept that this area has a problem as a residential area and we are going to allow this development to have more traffic than what the targeted use allows, are we making things worse? Stevens agreed there will be a few more trips than the target zone but the will be spread across eight to ten hours per day which would extra trips make one trip per hour average. Howe is concerned about the domino effect. She is more concerned about the trip generation from the alley, not Siskiyou Boulevard. That has been talked about as having a seven percent increase in use. Every property along the alley has a ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 right to ask for a CUP and with this application, it will be a significant rise in traffic on the alley. Another business on that block will make an even stronger reason why the rest of the block should forget its residential character and become a business character (historic, but not residential). This is the effect she is concerned about. If this is the only application the Commission were to allow, it can be accommodated, but the cumulative effect makes the alley almost unusable by the residents on the other side of the alley and it takes away the residential character of the neighborhood piece by piece by piece. Stevens agreed this area may reach a point where the alley reaches capacity, however, we are not there yet. He does not see a significant change in the area with this use. It has been 15 years since there has been application in this location. Armitage asked Stevens to address the apartment use currently and in the future. There has been a concern in the neighborhood that there be a residence in place in these types of CUP’s. He is concerned that down the road this could be converted and there will be no residential component. McLaughlin explained that many times the Commission’s approval of a CUP for an office will be specific to an applicant’s proposal. That is saying the Commission has made an agreement with the applicant and if the applicant is no longer on the property and the use changes, the CUP will not run with the property. Stevens’ concern with Condition 7 is that if this particular person is no longer there, the CUP is null and void. He would like to have that changed so if there is a change in use, the Commission reviews it to see if there is any change in operational use (similar to traveler’s accommodation) rather than having to go through a CUP process again. McLaughlin said it would be appropriate for the Commission to review the application if they wish to make a change to the apartment. Fields wondered if an adverse material effect would occur if the residential aspect disappears. Is it a creeping commercial effect that is slowly eroding the residential character? Stevens said the apartment will add to the residential dimension. BOLDT said they have no problem with the site plan Dale Shostrom proposed. RUSS DALE, 585 Allison said he also owns 125 Sherman which is somewhat impacted by this application. He has lived on Allison for 25 years and maintained an office in his residence for as many years. He enjoys the mixed use in the area. The alley receives quite a bit of pedestrian traffic. He knows the applicant and finds her a person of extremely high integrity and is confident she will follow through as she has stated with this application. He does not have a problem with any of the changes proposed by Bixby. He wants the architectural integrity of the structure retained. Because of the yellow striping at the corner of Sherman and Siskiyou, it could cause cars to park further up Sherman. LINDA (AND LARRY) HILLIGOSS, 869 Harmony Lane, own 590 Siskiyou, stated she is fully supportive of Bixby’s project. They have no concerns about traffic generation or with the outside changes she is proposing. She is thrilled about having Bixby as a neighbor. Hilligoss’ husband has run a business out of 590 Siskiyou for the past fifteen years. PAT COLWELL, 129 Bush Street, favored the proposal. HELEN ALTHAUS, 136 Sherman Street, owns the property on the corner of the alley and Sherman. She was pleased to find her house in a mixed use neighborhood. She believes this is a good use to preserve the historical appearance of the property along with the apartment use. The traffic on the alley is two-way and you just drive a little slower. LAURIE BIXBY, 571 Oak Hills Circle, believes this proposed use represents everything a small town should have on the boulevard. She contacted several of the neighbors and all but one were supportive. She came up with a different system of analyzing the traffic that visits her office. She came up with an average of 8.21 visitors per day. She determined 72 percent of those come by auto. Bixby said it ranged from a low of 5.42 and a high of 9.6 clients per day. JOANNE JOHNS, 650 Spring Creek Drive, said she is representing Bixby as her broker on this property. She assured the Commission that Bixby would follow through with what she said she would do. Johns noted that she has always parked in the parking bay when visiting that house. When people visit Bixby’s office, they only stay about ten minutes. Staff Response ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Harris said the City Attorney noted that the word “significant” is not included in the language in the criteria and it is the Commission’s discretion to determine what is the material effect on the livability of the area. Harris noted that Stevens saw the residential component of Siskiyou Boulevard as a negative, but that is just his perspective. The livability of the area is the Commission’s discretion. Stevens’ interpretation that it is not a livable place for residential uses is in conflict with the general philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan and many of the policies. Harris stated that just because the target use for that property is a duplex, does not necessarily mean it has to be a developed as a duplex. Harris read a suggested condition: That the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the studio apartment is reduced or eliminated. McLaughlin said if the Commissioners believes that much of this application is based on the integrity of the applicant and that is a significant part of the application, then the use can be restricted to this applicant. Or, the Commission may wish to approve the insurance use. McLaughlin referred back to Fields’ comments about housing and Stevens’ comments about livability and that they had never been identified. McLaughlin said that was identified in the pre-application conference (at that time there was no residential component in the application) and Staff said it would be raised as a loss of housing and neighborhood concerns based on Staff’s experience from previous applications regarding compatibility with surrounding residences and lack of visible residential presence. There is an art of being a planning commissioner according to McLaughlin and an art of community development that the Commissioners have an opportunity to review here. These are conditional uses. They are not outright permitted because they have to be truly appropriate for an area of the zone. That is the purpose of them being conditioned. Under certain conditions this will work. There is an art of looking at the neighborhood, the impact on the boulevard, and the long-term effects. It is the Commissioners’ job to look at the larger picture. It may be this application starts the domino effect. This may be the application that forces the legislative change that says something else should happen on Siskiyou Boulevard. Or, this may be a point at which the Commission says this is inappropriate. There is a balance. There are the adverse material impacts. Rebuttal Stevens interprets the “material effect” to means “significant”. With regard to the apartment, there is a demand for efficiency apartments and it adds residential character to the property. Stevens asked Condition 7 read: That the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be limited to the proposed insurance office and (apartment). Should the insurance relocate from 600 Siskiyou Boulevard, any other commercial use shall be required to obtain approval by the Planning Commission. In Stevens’ experience, singular has always meant plural in ordinance language. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Gardiner moved to approve PA99-008 with the changes suggested to Condition 7. Harris provided the following wording: That the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be limited to the proposed insurance office. Should the insurance office relocate from 600 Siskiyou Boulevard, any other commercial uses shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit approval as a new application. The new Condition 14 is: That the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the studio apartment is reduced or eliminated. Hearn seconded the motion. Hearn favors the application. Three neighbors said they would not mind living next to this conversion and this application will preserve the character of the building. Howe concurs with Hearn. She believes there is an adverse impact on the traffic to the alley. At this point it is not significant ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 but there will be increased pressure on the residential units nearby. Gardiner believes that this is a good planning action but with each application that comes before the Commission comes with it more pressure on the Boulevard. Where this is good, at some point in time, it will not be good. Briggs spoke about the domino effect. The application “looks like” a residence but it is not. She is very sensitive to something that looks like something but it is not. She is concerned where this application is taking us. Just because housing is on Siskiyou Boulevard, does not automatically mean it is a desirable place to live. not Armitage said at some point this will become too much, but maybe it is not there yet. He reminded the Commissioners that when ICCA (2nd Street) was approved, it was a very contentious issue with a lot of neighbors speaking in opposition. Even though that application was approved, that had reached the point of overload. The motion carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 99-011 REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2 AND R-3) TO COMMERCIAL (C-1) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 75 HELMAN AND 138 NORTH MAIN STREETS. THE REQUEST IS ALSO FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR A HOTEL USE AT THE SAME ADDRESSES. TEN MOTEL UNITS AND TWO APARTMENTS ARE REQUESTED AT 75 HELMAN STREET (TAX LOT 900). SIX HOTEL UNITS/STUDIO APARTMENTS ARE REQUESTED AT 138 NORTH MAIN (TAX LOT 1200), EACH UNIT UNDER 500 SQUARE FEET. APPLICANT: JONATHAN WARREN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar noted the applicable criteria. The proposals involve the rezoning of two parcels, one at 138 North Main (R-2 to C-1) and the other at 75 Helman (from R-3 to C-1). This application requires a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to operate hotel units as well as construct a new building for hotel use. At 75 Helman, the existing residence is proposed to be removed and in its place construction of a 6,000 square foot two- story structure, housing 12 hotel units. Ten of the units will be approximately 350 square feet and two of the 12 units will be 750 square feet with kitchen facilities that could be used for long-term rentals. The applicant proposes to retain the structure at 138 North Main and do some cosmetic changes to the exterior. The larger building currently has four units that will be converted to four hotel units. The smaller building will be converted to two hotel units. Each of the units will have separate kitchen facilities and can be leased long-term. The only exterior change on this property is the small cottage structure. Twenty-one parking spaces (19 required) are required off the alley located behind 138 North Main. The alley is paved and the parking area will be required to be paved and landscaped. Access will generally be from Helman. The parking lot has been designed slightly in order to have curbing to try to introduce cars from Helman as well as exit out towards Helman, making it difficult for cars to go down the alley toward the rear of other residential properties. It is the Commission’s job to find that one of four factors exist. That there is a public need, a need to adjust to new conditions, a need to correct mistakes, or circumstances relating to general welfare. The primary arguments made by the applicant are that the Comprehensive Plan projects that ultimately from 1990 to 2005 that the city will see a 42 percent increase in tourism and there will be a need to accommodate tourists with additional hotel accommodations, and projects a need for approximately 400 units by the year 2005. The Comprehensive Plan supports accommodating tourist accommodations within the city limits since visitors are visiting areas of interest in the downtown. The accommodations are preferably within proximity of the downtown, allowing visitors to walk to their destinations instead of using valuable parking or increasing traffic in the downtown. The applicant also says there is little vacant land with the current commercial zoning in the downtown to accommodate the additional demand in tourist accommodations. Helman ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Street, over the years, as the Bard’s Inn expansions have taken place, and with the approval of the Haines development across the street, has taken on a much more commercial character and the property at 75 Helman is more a part of the commercial corridor with a change of conditions in the area which warrants inclusion of that piece of property. Due to Bard’s Inn proximity to the downtown and serving as the major tourist accommodation, has turned away approximately 5500 reservations. A zone change carries a heavy burden. In general, Staff supports the plan policies in trying to provide accommodations near the downtown where visitors are frequenting, however, with the arguments in the evidence presented, Staff tends to be hesitant to see there is a public need for additional tourist accommodations. In fact, a study done by SORSI and SOU based on city Finance Department occupancy rates, showed rates of occupancy declining over the past four to five years. While there is lack of vacant land in the downtown, there are some opportunities for development, for example, the Haines property across the street which was a three-phase approval/development which would accommodate 30 condominium units, 65 hotel suites or a combination. In addition, the Mark Antony in the next eight to 12 months is scheduled to be in full operation with 80 units. The current zoning of R-2 and R-3 does allow for tourist accommodations through a current Conditional Use Permit. Both properties combined could accommodate up to 13 units. A property owner would have to be present on-site. The primary concern with the Conditional Use Permit and Site Review (75 Helman) is the size of the structure proposed (two-story, 6,000 square feet). It is in scale with the Haines development but not with the residential area. The impacts of a 21-space parking area adjacent to residential areas are significant. That was not discussed in length in the application. The Historic Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial. They were mainly reviewing the impacts of this proposal on the residential area, specifically along Central Avenue. It has a unique streetscape that is definitely residential. They felt the property at 75 Helman is more a part of the residential corridor rather than the commercial corridor along Helman. Staff’s concerns are outlined in the Staff Report. Is there a public need to expand at this time? The Historic Commission raised some valid points as well as the neighbors in the area. There are plan policies for considering development that have a detrimental impact on existing residential areas that might ultimately degrade long-term residential use of properties. Staff is concerned with the scale of the building and the consolidation of a large parking area. Staff has offered 14 Conditions should the Planning Commission wish to approve the application. Howe wondered if the parking lot could be developed to the full 21 spaces even without the plan to put in more accommodations. Molnar said the ordinance allows only ten percent above the required amount or it can be accompanied with another proposal within 200 feet walking distance. They could not develop 21 initially but it could possibly be graded for future expansion but it would have to be landscaped. Amaratico wondered of the 96,000 rooms available from July through September, how many are within walking distance of downtown? Molnar did not have those figures. JONATHAN WARREN, Bard’s Inn,132 N. Main RAY KISTLER, 165 Orange, architect on the project Warren said the project conforms to the neighborhood. Best Western has had to turn down 5500 reservations last year at Bard’s Inn. These people are automatically sent (company policy) to the nearest Best Western which is on the freeway. Bard’s Inn sends some people to traveler’s accommodations. The Heritage Inn is filled up every night. This is causing more traffic and pollution because they are driving in from outside of town and those tourists are not paying transient taxes. Bard’s Inn is filled 127 days from the beginning of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival 1999 season until the end of this season. Occupants do not want to use their cars while staying at Bard’s. Warren said the parking lot will be grass crete and will look like a hidden parking lot. He will put up screening with lots of landscaping. The alley looks pretty terrible right now. There will be no doors or balconies on Central. There are large buildings across Helman. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 He had some letters from those who do not mind the development. The houses on the existing lots, according to Warren, are total wrecks, especially the Main Street house. It will cost approximately $400,000 to fix it. Briggs asked if Bard’s Inn is 100 percent full during the summer season. Warren said almost. In the winter they have a 60 percent occupancy or maybe not quite that much. RAY KISTLER said Brad Roupp is making plans to move the existing house on Central. BARBARA ROSS, 148 Central Avenue, did not testify but is against the proposal. LOIS VAN AKEN, 140 Central Avenue, has lived in the neighborhood for 13 years. The neighborhood is unique and very residential. All types of families live there. It is a fragile neighborhood on the edge of a commercial zone. This application is not asking for a Conditional Use Permit but a zone change. The properties are adequate as R-2 and R-3. Looking at the statistics, she does not see a need right now for more accommodations. She believes people will still use their cars at the proposed units to travel to scenic attractions. She believes the zoning laws were put in place to protect a neighborhood such as hers. There is the Haines project across the street and a clinic at the end of the street. There is a point at which one draws the line and she is drawing the line. She believes the residential character and livability of the neighborhood will be impacted. People will start moving out. There is a big difference between owner occupied traveler’s accommodations versus hotel units. She does not believe one individual’s need outweighs the needs of the whole community. It goes against the Comp Plan policies which is to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods. Neighbors need to walk downtown too. The R-3 zone is still is affordable to many families. Howe asked VanAken what it is about the corner property that makes it more part of Central Avenue than Helman. VanAken said the view down the street (Central) is that it is clearly part of the street; you don’t turn the corner--there is not any commercial right along Central. That would be the first piece to go commercial on Central Avenue. The scale is so much bigger than the rest of the homes on Central. Visibly, it feels like it is encroaching. Armitage wondered how Van Aken feels about the North Main property. VanAken feels there has to be a really good reason for zone change. She is less vested in that piece but still would argue it will have an impact. SIDNEY BOWLAND, 165 VanNess and JOSEPH TRAVISANO, 155 Central did not wish to testify but both are in opposition to the application. SHERI BOWLAND, 165 VanNess, initially sent a letter favoring Warren’s plans but she did not understand there was a change in zoning. She has withdrawn that support. She has lived on VanNess for less than a year. She looked for property for three years before purchasing. They were seeking a safe, quiet neighborhood in which to raise their children. They understood there was R-2 and R-3 zoning. Buying R-3 zoning was the only way they could afford to live in Ashland. They did not expect to be living in the center of a commercial district. She believes their property values will go down. She believes the zone change will have a tremendous environmental impact. She does not want to feel like they are next to a 24 hour football field. Bard’s Inn is a great place for traffic, pollution and litter. Her children know the Bard’s Inn is a great place to pick up beer cans and bottles to recycle. The historical nature of the neighborhood will be compromised. She fears changing the zoning would cause a snowball effect. Hearn moved to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Briggs seconded the motion and everyone favored. DIANE PAULSON, 156 NORTH MAIN, addressed the Conditional Use Permit criteria (C). The proposed structure is too large for the Historic District. (6100 square feet). A ten unit hotel is not similar in scale, bulk and coverage. The six unit hotel is also not similar in scale. She is concerned with a 21 car parking lot. The Ashland Hostel on the other corner already impacts her. To increase that traffic is going to be detrimental to the people, children, cats and dogs that walk the alley and that area. She does not think they will park there for three days without moving their cars. She is concerned about car ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 alarms going off at all times and that will generate noise as well as lights shining in her home. That will decrease her property value. Eighteen additional units will negatively effect the air quality due to their laundry and cleaning affluents. She is appreciative of the hostel having a curfew on their guests. She does not think that will be true of the hotel. Spot zoning seems to be a problem in this case. ROD MONROE, 150 North Main Street, stated he owns the Ashland Hostel. Warren is a good neighbor. However, they are concerned about maintaining the integrity of the historic neighborhood, the impact of traffic and subsequent congestion in the alley. As owners of the hostel, they are acutely aware of how a lodging business effects the traffic noise, parking and litter. During the theater season, they contribute adversely to the parking in the neighborhood. They do not allow their guests in after midnight. Many of their guests cannot go to the Britt Festival because they can’t get in on time. He is not sure the proposed commercial use would be as considerate. He does not believe a Best Western is in keeping with the historic ambiance. Howe asked Monroe how he felt about the development of the Victorian house? Monroe did not think it looked run down. He would hate to see it changed. He is not as worried about an overnight accommodation but is worried about the parking. KERRY KENCAIRN, 147 Central Avenue, lives on Bush Alley and Central. She is effected by both developments. There would be six apartments behind her house. The traffic congestion now is almost unbearable. The hostel folks try to find the fastest and easiest way to get to where they are going. She believes the guests at Warren’s place will park on Helman and Central. She is concerned with the size of the building on the corner. If that corner is commercial, then that will follow down Central. Staff Response Molnar said he believes Van Aken’s remarks were well framed: On one hand there is a need to retain downtown vitality and accommodations in accord with the plan but also there is tremendous concern about the incremental erosion of neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown. Those neighborhoods are generally zoned R-2 and R-3 and reflect a broad cross-section of community members and housing types and accommodate affordable housing. Is the need compelling enough for the zone change at this time? Will 18 units solve the problem or ultimately will the city need to look at a more comprehensive review of the downtown to see where a greater number of accommodations can be met over a longer period of time? Briggs moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. The motion was seconded and everyone approved. Rebuttal Warren said he designed the building on Helman for little impact on Central. He designed the parking so cars could not drive through the alley. The existing building will be moved. He thought, instead of an apartment building on the corner it would be better to have a hidden parking lot. The lights will not be shining into homes. He has designed the parking lot with lots of screening. His guests are showing up at 11:00 in the morning, not 11:00 at night. They will walk to the hotel. There will be very few getting in and out of their cars. His guests will not be going out onto Central but onto Helman. He noted there is a 75,000 square foot building approved to be built across Helman Street. The youth hostel is causing congestion now because they do not have enough parking. Armitage read a letter written by Roann Lyal, Main Street Inn, into the record. Howe said the Planning Commission is charged with deciding if the city is in need of more accommodations. The statistics seem to indicate there are lots of vacancies. Does Warren have any additional information showing how many more units the downtown can support? Warren said there are no other hotels downtown and would rather have accommodations downtown than having folks drive in from outside of town. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman moved to deny PA99-011. Briggs seconded the motion. Chapman said the application fails to meet the criteria for bulk, scale and coverage. There is no need shown. There may be an in-house Best Western need, but the need has not been shown for the community. There is a noise, light, and glare issue. Twenty-one parking parking spaces on a ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 narrow alley will produce congestion and difficulties. This development is turning the corner to where the neighborhood will be significantly impacted. Hearn stated the applicant has to bear the burden of proof. Although there is a problem of the occupancy rates being spread over the city, not just downtown, the applicant has to show something besides the Best Western statistics and lack of available units. Briggs feels the proposed building on Helman is just too huge and overwhelms the houses on Central. Fields said the house on the corner of Helman and Central is a transition. It breaks down the massing of the commercial. By the time you get to Central you feel like you are in a residential area. He believes the R-3 zoning is still appropriate. Armitage believes the parking, noise and light can be mitigated. However, the burden of proof has not been met. The Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the application. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Howe moved into Vice Chair when Bass left. Armitage was nominated as Chair and the vote was favorable. Gardiner was nominated Second Vice Chair and the vote was favorable. OTHER Briggs moved to have Staff work on wording to be reviewed by the Planning Commission concerning the saving of trees. Armitage seconded the motion and everyone favored. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999