Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-12 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Giordano, Cloer, Bass, Finkle, Howe, Armitage, and Bingham. Carr was absent. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Howe moved to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 1995 meeting. Finkle seconded the motion and all approved. Condition 5 of the October 10, 1995 Findings for Planning Action 95-099 (Catalina Physical Therapy - 493 North Main Street) was amended as recommended by Finkle. Remove the first sentence and add the wording "....along the western property line." at the end of the next sentence. Finkle moved to approve as amended with Cloer seconding the motion. Everyone approved with Jarvis abstaining. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 95-131 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A HEALTH SPA 665 AND 685 "A" STREET APPLICANT: PATRICIA MURPHY Giordano declared a conflict of interest as his office prepared the design for this project. All other Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Molnar gave a description of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Staff's major concern is with the site plan, specifically the relationship and orientation of the parking area to "A" Street. The architecture reflects elements of the area, taking into account the craftsman's style of the neighborhood. Staff is recommending to the Commission that they will have another opportunity to work with the applicant so the project will take advantage of the front of the building while using the rear for parking. Bass wondered what the applicant's response was to Staff's recommendation. Staff reported that the applicant preferred to move ahead to the Planning Commission to see if the Commission went with Staff's recommendation. Howe was not clear who else has reviewed this application. Molnar said a pre-application conference was held. As part of that process, all city departments get copies of the proposal as well as the Historic Commission review board. At the pre-application stage there was a single story building proposed with parking off the alley and the adjoining area was to be planted in wildflowers. At that time, the Historic Commission review board reviewed the project, paying particular attention to the architecture which was a different design. After the application was made, the Historic Commission saw a different design. Much of their discussion centered around screening the parking. Staff's concerns go beyond that--what do you do with the 50 to 60 feet of parking that will be viewed along "A" Street? Finkle wondered if the conceptual proposals drawn by Staff were to scale. Molnar said they were configurations almost identical to those in the Site Review Standards. PUBLIC HEARING Jarvis entered three letters into the record from: Philip Lang, Chrissy Barnett, and Mitchell Powell Furnishings. DEB CLELLAND, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent for the applicant discussed the application. A written narrative has been entered into the record. PATRICIA MURPHY, explained that the courtyard is the focal point and by changing the parking, it would destroy the design of the building and courtyard. She made the architectural changes to meet the requests of Staff and the Historic Commission. She needs to have a parking lot entrance from "A" Street because without it, it would be confusing to customers. She also feels the parking lot will be safer at night where it is located presently. Murphy further explained that other businesses have their parking on the ends of the block and her parking will be located in the middle of the block. Howe pointed out that Murphy located the parking there by choice. Murphy agreed but did so because she wanted the residents on the other side of "A" to have a view of the mountains and also her spa customers would have an unobstructed view of the mountains out the back of the building. There would be no cars to look over. Cloer wondered if Murphy had any information to support her need to enter the parking lot from "A" Street. Murphy responded that she had made enough modifications to make the building look more residential than commercial and the entrance to the parking makes it look more like a business than a residence. Murphy thought she would have some on-street parking credits but McLaughlin said it was made clear during the pre-application to the applicant that there would be no on-street parking credits available. Armitage wondered if consideration had been given to moving the whole footprint down with the parking on the alley. Murphy said she had the option to buy two lots and she paid more for the lot on the corner because it has a view of the park. She is not sure parking would work there. Howe suggested Murphy explore placing the building and parking a different way but Murphy said for a number of reasons, that would not work. Murphy said she would be putting a business sign above the courtyard entrance. Howe thought there should be a way to identify the business without the need for visible parking. Jarvis discussed the importance of creating a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Pedestrians feel uncomfortable near parking lots or crossing the access to a parking lot. It is much more comfortable for a pedestrian to walk near buildings that are placed close to the street and sidewalk. She also reminded the Commission how in the past, the Commission has taken a firm stand on using this formula for building in Ashland; that is, constructing buildings close to the street with parking placed in the rear. She wondered ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1995 MINUTES why Murphy thought her design was so much better. Murphy said her project has been designed from the inside out. If she had known parking was going to be an issue, she is not sure she would have gone this far in the process. Jarvis interjected that the first application conformed. Murphy replied that with the increase in square footage to the building, they had to increase the parking. She does not know how else to make it all work. The multi-purpose room has windows all the way along and the appeal is to look at the park and mountains. She does not even think it is possible to move the building over. Armitage asked why there is parking along "A" that is similar to the parking Murphy is requesting. McLaughlin said the hardware store and the grange were built before the Site Design and Use Standards were adopted and John Fields' building did not have an opportunity for parking on an alley. Bass wondered if it is permissible for an applicant to design parking not in the rear under the Site Design and Use Standards. Molnar said it has always been interpreted that an applicant should first look to see if the parking can go behind a structure. ALAN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect, owns the lot right next to the proposed parking lot. He is totally in favor of this proposal. He remembers that in initial discussions about the development along "A" Street there was a fear that the street would be built as a wall with all businesses up on the street. If the parking is in back, it will string the building out. The parking as it is designed now gives an opening. Sandler agreed with Murphy to do a planting strip of about 20 feet. ELLEN DOWNES, 266 5th Street, said she supported the use along with the residential companion. Is the courtyard for public use? Her personal preference is for more open space. From her house she has a perfect view of the mountains with the alleys as the viewsheds. She supported the Planning Staff requesting more time to work together on the project. KURT BUSER, 509 Grandview Drive, an economic consultant to the project, is in favor of the project as presented with direct parking from "A" Street. Although he supports the pedestrian orientation of Ashland, he is asking the Commission to consider flexibility in this situation. Economically it is vital for the project to have the parking accessible to the entry, and safety for customers is important too as many people will use the facility at night. PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, does not support the development. He is concerned with additional traffic. The congestion will increase. The commercial area should serve the residents of the neighborhood, but this development will bring in loads of cars and loads of people. This project is creating a mini-mall effect and will be adding additional day use on "A" Street. This project violates the historic ordinances. Looking at the mountains across a sea of cars is not that great. The sites have been prepared to have alley access for parking. As it has been designed, the proposal is inappropriate for the district and it violates the quality and character of the neighborhood. This application should be required to conform to the standards set by the city. Staff Response The alleys are used to provide corridors at reasonable intervals instead of parking lots. Staff still believes the desire of the applicant for an ample, well-lit parking lot on the side goes against the Site ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1995 MINUTES Design and Use Standards. Cloer is ambivalent about making this site as pedestrian friendly as Staff would like. When there is the grange and John Fields business, how realistic is it to put this much emphasis on making the proposed site pedestrian friendly? McLaughlin said unless there is a compelling reason to do so, he did not see a reason to deviate from the Site Design Standards. Cloer is somewhat persuaded that businesses have a problem with having access to the front. Very few businesses access from the alley. McLaughlin countered that this is a use that is not a convenience use, instead customers would clearly be making an effort to go to the facility and will make the effort to park the way the lot is set up. This is not a 7-11 store. The nature of most uses along "A" Street are destination uses. The use could convert to another use and the environment that is trying to be created will be more conducive if pedestrian oriented. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe said she would be willing to accept the side parking lot without the access on "A". She moved to approve with added conditions with further consideration that the applicant share the western border and it be landscaped keeping the area next to the sidewalk visible and safe-looking and possibly provide a public bench. Bingham seconded the motion. Cloer favored not having a curb cut and wondered if it is possible to make a wall area pedestrian friendly. Bass thought the neighbors should see the customers not the cars. Armitage believes the project is worthwhile and would like to see the applicant break up the parking lot. Bingham said there is parking all up and down "A". He would like to see the parking on the side disappear by using a wall or planting. Jarvis used Tolman Creek Plaza as an example of how the Commission insisted the buildings be moved to the sidewalk to make the project more pedestrian friendly. And, what a difference it made to the pedestrian environment to put the building on the street in front of the parking expanse. The Commission needs to make a commitment to pedestrians, making it more comfortable, safe and pleasant to walk. It is not pleasant to walk next to parking lots. Howe thought a pedestrian friendly feature would be to place a bench for sitting. She amended her motion to require planting in front of the wall concealing the parking lot. Bingham seconded the amendment. Bass wanted to see one attempt made to put the parking behind the building since that is the effort that has been made in the past. If that cannot be done, then attempt to make it more pedestrian friendly and screened. McLaughlin said the problem with closing off an entrance to the parking lot from "A" Street is that there will need to have some back-up space, therefore the parking lot will have to be modified. Howe and Bingham withdrew their motion and second. Finkle moved to a approve PA95-131 with the 11 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1995 MINUTES attached Conditions. Delete Condition 2 and replace with: "That access to the parking area be allowed as an "Entrance Only" from "A" Street with the maximum entry width between fences of 12 feet. Howe seconded the motion. It carried with Bingham, Howe, Cloer and Finkle voting "yes" and Jarvis, Armitage and Bass voting "no". PLANNING ACTION 95-136 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN 18-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION 925 BELLVIEW STREET APPLICANT: HARLAN DEGROODT Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Molnar gave some history of the site and a description of the current proposal. Overall, Staff views this development favorably. Staff realized the original floodplain line provided to the applicant was inaccurate. Since the common open space between buildings was about 70 feet wide, there was an opportunity to shift the units into the open space 20 feet. The oak tree will be right along the slope and should be retained. Staff recommends approval with the attached ten Conditions. Howe asked if the embankment will be taken down. Molnar said based on grading information, they will need to cut it down, but the grades look like there will be some tapering at the rear of about three to four feet. The largest amount of excavation would occur at the front unit (nearest Siskiyou). PUBLIC HEARING HARLAN DEGROODT, 706 Oak Knoll Drive is prepared to meet Staff's recommendations. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bingham moved to approve PA95-136 with the attached Conditions as suggested by Staff. Cloer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Armitage moved to approve PA95-075 (Barchet). Howe seconded the motion and it was approved. OTHER Election of officers will be held at the next meeting. Commissioners should be thinking about a date for a Saturday Study Session. December 30th is the date of the joint Study Session with the Council. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1995 MINUTES A reminder was made that Cloer, Bingham and Armitage's terms are up in April. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1995 MINUTES