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