Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-08 Planning MIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Mike Gardiner. Other Commissioners present were Alex Amarotico, Chris Hearn, Marilyn Briggs, Mike Morris, John Fields, Russ Chapman and Kerry KenCairn. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris, and Derek Severson. Commissioner Kistler arrived late. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Chapman/Morris m/s to approve the Hearings Board minutes for the April 10, 2001 meeting as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Chapman questioned the regular minutes of the April 10, 2001 meeting relating to the Les Schwab vote. It was clarified that the minutes were correct as presented. Commissioners Amarotico/Hearn m/s to approve the regular minutes of the April 10, 2001 meeting as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Hearn/Morris m/s to approve the findings for Planning Action #2000-045 (Les Schwab). Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Michael McRae/151 Coolidge St. McRae noted that he was unable to stay for the public hearing for 472 Scenic Drive, and submitted a letter on this matter. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING Gardiner read a statement on public hearings rules and procedures, and noted that tonight’s meeting would be following the order listed on the agenda, rather than the order of presentation in the packet materials. PLANNING ACTION 2000-120 Steve Hoxmeier 485 A Street SITE VISITS & EX PARTE CONTACT All commissioners noted having made site visits. STAFF REPORT Knox gave the staff report, noted the applicable criteria, and presented the applicant’s elevations to the commissioners. He then explained the history of this application, emphasizing that the applicant had been attempting to meet city standards and submittal standards for some time. He pointed out that the public hearing had been noticed, and reviewed by the Historic Commission, during four of the last five months. Knox explained that the existing building was to have a 1,000 square foot addition, with a second story for studio and residential space under the applicant’s proposal. Knox noted the driveway and parking situation, as well as the sidewalks, landscaping, and the location of bike parking. Knox explained that the elevations labeled “Option 1” were the applicant’s proposal, and noted that they present the west side from the gable west on the south elevation. He noted the architectural details that were to be removed at the recommendation of the Historic Commission, and stated that all siding and trim were to match the existing building. Knox stated that the Historic Commission had approved this application, but he emphasized that they had concerns with the window alignment and that they questioned the accuracy of the plans presented relative to the existing structure. Knox clarified, and explained that the Historic Commission would like consistent alignment of the windows through all of the elevations, but they had noted that the plans seemed to be 6” - 12” off. Knox noted that the only way to align the windows as the Historic Commission had recommended would be to raise the roof line, and he emphasized that doing so would change the structural loads and the design. He stated that the unbalanced volume would need to continue across the entire roofline to better balance the proposal. Knox also noted that there is a variance requested for the driveway location. Knox noted previous discussions of variances, explained the requirements, and pointed out the fact that the Grange Co-Op driveway is only 25-30 feet from this parcel. He stated that this could be made to work, but emphasized that it would affect the intended third phase of Hoxmeier’s project which is to be developed out toward A Street. Knox explained that attempts that have been made to meet standards and policies, and noted that staff recommends providing an easement to the neighboring property to work out this issue through shared access to the parking lot. He further explained that staff has consulted with the City Attorney on this matter, and after these consultations a condition #14 has been drafted and added to the staff report for the purpose of reducing curb cuts on A Street and providing a more continuous storefront streetscape for the area. Knox noted that there is another issue having to due with the curb cut on Fourth Street, near the railroad tracks. He stated that this cut had never been approved, despite its ongoing use as a driveway and parking area. Knox emphasized that if Fourth Street is extended across the tracks, as planned, this space would be illegal and dangerous for turning movements. As such, staff recommends the closure and re-curbing of this space. KenCairn stated that the applicant’s previous driveway proposal was more appropriate. Knox stated that the last time this application was presented to the Hearings Board, in January, it was the same as presented here. Briggs questioned the proposed driveway location and the potential use of the same access by all Grange customers. Knox noted that future planning for the Grange is an unknown, but stated that this body can adopt the easement and deem the access to be appropriate. Gardiner questioned whether this would cut off access to the Grange’s fuel islands. McLaughlin stated that this would depend on their future plans. He emphasized that this recommendation was simply meant to provide an alternative for the future when the specific future details are uncertain. Briggs stated that this would mean that the Commission would not know what they were approving. Molnar stated that there was a similar situation with Ashland Hardware and its neighbor, Oak Street Tank and Steel. McLaughlin clarified that the redevelopment of the Grange would trigger the use of this easement, but the specific details would depend on the specifics of the Grange’s redevelopment plan. KenCairn noted previous discussions wherein the commissioners asked to see an overall plan of the total build-out of Hoxmeier’s site. She questioned if it would be to ask for that again, along with a more complete presentation. McLaughlin stated that the commission can make such a request, and stated that if the commissioners do not fee that this complies then that can be a factor in their decision making. Hearn noted that the staff recommendation would be an unusual easement. Knox explained that it would be a “floating easement” with a 28’open area behind the building that would provide the location for the easement at some point in the future. Knox noted that the bikeway is the first 8’ of the 28’ in question, and clarified for Hearn on the site plan just where the easement area would be, veering west through the trash receptacle area and over to the Grange. Knox stated that the applicant will relocate the trash and recycling areas now to lessen future costs. Knox noted staff’s condition #15 for redesign of the site plan with these details worked out. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. STEVE HOXMEIER/435 B STREET thanked the commission for hearing this proposal. He questioned whether the commission had his previous submittal, and explained that he has been dealing with the Planning Department on this matter since 1991, with a site plan for an L-shaped building with parking near the Grange. He stated that there was no mention at that time of the need for a variance. He noted that when he brought in his first project, there was still no mention of a variance being required. He went on to stated that he employed an architect who submitted a proposal on his behalf, with ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 2 of 14 parking off of A Street, and was never told of any variance requirement in the pre-application, nor was it noted that the driveway could not go in as drawn. He noted that he had another architect bring in a similar plan, and there was no mention of any variance or parking issue until a month ago. He stated that he is confused by being required to involve the Grange. He pointed out that the Grange’s plans are not immediate and that they are not ready to make decisions, so he has had to locate things as proposed. He noted that he had an old site plan from 1991 showing an entry off of A Street. Hoxmeier went on to note that his third phase will come out to A Street, between this addition and the parking lot. He confirmed that the main entry will be off of A Street, with an auxiliary entrance off of the courtyard at the corner. Briggs asked if the applicant was willing to go along with the Historic Commission’s suggestions on the roofline and the transom over the south doors. Hoxmeier stated that he would be happy to address these suggestions, but asked if the variance issue should be addressed first. Hoxmeier noted that he has had several meetings with the Historic Commission. He stated that at the last meeting, he brought a final plan, and the Historic Commission had approved it if he adopted item #17 from the staff report, to add a hip roof with added windows being made to match the height of the existing windows. Hoxmeier noted that the existing windows are 8’ windows for big rooms, and explained that the proposal is for two stories with smaller rooms. He emphasized that while the first story is 8’, the second story is only 7’ high, and he cited the difficulty he would face in accommodating 8’ windows with this design. He stated that he has drawn elevations with a raised roof and the floor changes needed. He showed the East and South elevations to the commission. He stated that he does not like the hip treatment of roof, and noted that he has tried to express this to the Historic Commission. He stated that hip roofs are rarely seen in new construction, and he provided photos to support this statement. He also stated that while he understands the Historic Commission’s preferences for the windows, they are smaller in his proposal to fit the smaller rooms being built. He cited the furniture store across the street as a nearby building with differing window heights, along with the Aurora on Fourth Street. He emphasized that while both have similar windows, they are of differing heights. He stated that he has agreed to the transom above the french doors to ease the header lines at the Historic Commission’s recommendation. He provided another set of drawings showing the design incorporating many of the Historic Commission’s nine suggestions, other than the two big recommendations having to do with the roof and windows. Hoxmeier noted that from the East, the building will not even show its roof, but stated that it would show with the hip roof proposed by the Historic Commission. He noted that he has spoken with Knox about having a lower roof, but stated that he has tried to go with the Historic Commission’s suggestions. Hoxmeier questioned giving the Grange an easement when they have more property and multiple entries to their property. He also noted that the parking space questioned by Knox off of Fourth Street is currently only used by yoga instructors and is not intended for use as a parking space. Hoxmeier stated his hope that the commission could approve Option #1, and expressed further hope for the approval of parking off of A Street without involving an easement with the Grange. He stated that mutual involvement with the Grange could be worked out in the future, but stated that he does not feel that the arrangement as recommended by staff would work for truck traffic. Gardiner questioned requiring a variance and an easement if the owner would then be required to move their recycling structure. Hoxmeier stated he would do so if obligated, and noted that he would like to place it to the rear of the property, but hasn’t worked that detail out yet. Gardiner stated that this outcome is a real possibility. KenCairn stated that it seems that the easement and variance are needed, and suggested that she would want to see a plan of how that would happen. She stated that she is not that comfortable with how the third phase would be integrated into this proposal, and emphasized that it is difficult to consider this application when the future portion remains unclear. She pointed out that the bike parking, trash and recycling areas would need to be moved, and stated that the commission would need to see a plan of how this could be accomplished. She suggested that this plan should also include how issues will be ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 3 of 14 resolved in Phase 3. Hoxmeier questioned involving the Grange through an easement. KenCairn explained that the curb cuts are the issue on A Street, and stated that the Planning Department is trying to find a possible solution for the applicant to free him from the constraints of this issue. Gardiner clarified that the applicant would have to have a plan relating to the neighboring properties that keeps in mind the future development of those neighbors. He emphasized that staff is trying to identify a way to legitimize the proposed curb cut, and pointed out that the proposal as submitted violates municipal code requirements and cannot be allowed. Hoxmeier questioned how the issue of a variance had not come up until recently. After discussion, Gardiner stated that in any case, as it is, the curb cut is not acceptable under the code. He noted that staff is providing a potential option to allow the applicant to proceed and stated that the applicant needs to design accordingly. Hoxmeier questioned whether he is to design the Grange’s future plans as well. Hearn questioned how the issue of a variance was not raised previously. Staff explained that no formal application had previously been made. McLaughlin stated that staff is, as Gardiner had noted, trying to provide a way for the design to work with the proposed curb cut and thus allow the applicant to move ahead. He stated that without the variance, staff could be arguing another way if the applicant so chooses. McLaughlin concluded that the staff is simply trying to mitigate the curb cut and allow the applicant to proceed. Hearn questioned condition #15 and asked if staff is looking for a design now, or a continuance. McLaughlin stated that staff was expecting that the application could be approved with the requirement that a revised site plan be submitted addressing the issues raised. Briggs stated that she is bothered with going through the applicant’s lot to get to the Grange. She questioned if access could somehow loop into this parking lot, without going all the way through it, to get to the Grange. Knox stated, and McLaughlin concurred, that condition #14 would allow this. Knox emphasized that the easement would allow flexibility for the Grange in future planning, given the changing dynamics of A Street. He noted that the Grange could subdivide and bring in more commercial development or mixed-use buildings in the future, and emphasized that this easement provides for that and complies with the city’s Site Design and Use Standards. Knox emphasized that this flexibility is what makes the variance work, and noted that the wording to the effect that the “location of the easement shall not be described” is the key. McLaughlin reiterated that staff is trying to think ahead to potential new uses of the neighboring properties. Fields noted that he had dealt with a similar situation with the Ashland Hardware/Oak Street Tank & Steel project, and noted that there is some unfairness given that the Grange would get use of the parking lot with no cost or responsibility for maintenance. He stated that he believes there would be a benign way of doing this, rather than leaving it so open-ended and one-sided. He reiterated that he felt an agreement could be developed more fairly, and expressed his concern with allowing the Grange to do whatever they want without compensation being, in effect, a taking. Gardiner noted that as there was no other testimony for this matter, the commission would continue with this open-ended format. Fields stated that there might be a possibility for a reciprocal agreement that would be open-ended but with some provision for compensation. He stated that he felt this to be a reasonable trade-off. Fields discussed the changing character of Fourth Street, and noted that the applicant’s park plaza could become just weeds that form a barrier to redevelopment of the area. He recounted the subdivision of this parcel, and its history since then. He noted that he has previously been concerned with the incremental planning and “building by default” on this site. He stated that it could be argued that Fourth Street is as much the primary street for this project as A Street. He noted parking ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 4 of 14 calculations and stated that there is a need for reassurance that the project will get on track with plans. He reiterated that he does not see parking working with the future development that is proposed, and suggested that this project is moving further from the long term plans for this area. Fields stated that the applicant is trying to make reasonable use of the property, and that he does not feel that access is the issue as the site standards are allowing the project to wiggle through. Fields stated his belief that the building should be relocated, but stated that the commission lacks teeth to enforce an alternate vision. Fields asked the applicant where he is at with this process, and stated that he feels that the design is a hodge-podge that creates difficulty as the standards are trying for a degree of consistency within the neighborhood. Fields stated that he does not know where to start in considering this matter, as it is beyond fixing as presented. Fields noted that by ADA standards, the handicapped accessible entry has to be through the front door, and emphasized that issues with these designs go on and on. He stated that he does not see evidence of an architect’s involvement in this design. He stated that this is a primary corner, and suggested that the commission might simply allow the applicant to do what is asked and then let the real estate market take its course. Fields concluded that he feels the proposal does not adequately address A Street and is “piece meal” development. He stated that he would like to see a third phase design to see how these issues will be tied in, but he emphasized that he has a hard time imagining how they could be tied in. Hoxmeier noted that he has had architects design the entire site, including the third phase. KenCairn feels that without seeing the third phase, the commission cannot address A Street. She stated that the proposal does not fit character of the area. She stated that she would support a variance if she could see an overall plan of how the site could be made to work, and stated that she preferred the original elevations without the Historic Commission’s recommended changes. McLaughlin stated that if the commissioners do not feel that this proposal addresses A Street in terms of the land use ordinance and they find A Street to be the primary street, the applicant could be required to better address A Street or the corner. He emphasized that staff has encouraged this corner to develop as other areas of A Street. McLaughlin stated that the commissioners have the discretion to support development towards the street. Hoxmeier noted that the third phase design shown does this. KenCairn stated that it does not do it to the scale that is needed. Hoxmeier emphasized the need for a courtyard on the corner. Gardiner asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:17 P.M. Hearn noted that the variance criteria under AMC 18.100(b) gives the commission the latitude to weigh issues. He stated that the commission can do a Dolan analysis to look at the issues, and noted that he feels that a shared easement goes in this direction. McLaughlin concurred, and noted that in a prior situation with A Street Hardware there was a grant of rights to property with no idea of how it would develop. He stated his belief that a floating easement works well to this end, and that it would allow details to be worked out on the other end when development comes up. Gardiner questioned if there is a subdivision or redevelopment of the Grange property, do they then become a party losing an existing access as they develop. McLaughlin stated that this could in fact be the case, as they could either be required to go through the rear or side of the lot, as triggered by the change in usage. Fields moved to deny the application based on the site plan. Motion died for lack of a second. Briggs questioned if the commission could ask for a continuance with the relocation of the items discussed to be drawn on a Phase 3 plan. She explained that this would look to the future and address what the city is trying to do. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 5 of 14 McLaughlin clarified that a continuance would be to allow for additional information from the applicant to address the concerns expressed tonight. He emphasized that a denial would be a more clear statement that a complete redesign is needed to address A Street and parking issues, rather than deferring these issues to a future phase. McLaughlin emphasized that a denial would state that the project would not comply with standards. McLaughlin stated that a continuance would not allow for the same redesign. Briggs asked if the applicant was willing to allow a continuance addressing A Street in a redesign, knowing that the redesign still may not adequately address these issues and could still be denied. Gardiner stated that none of the commissioners seem comfortable with the design as it is, and all seem to have some concerns. Gardiner called Hoxmeier up for rebuttal. Hoxmeier stated that he would bring back a more detailed site plan for the third phase, focusing on A Street and mitigation of the variance issue. Gardiner suggested granting of the easement. McLaughlin questioned whether the commissioners wish to provide any direction for the plan relative to A Street, and he suggested that if the commissioners could address this issue it would help the applicant in his redesign. Fields stated that the proposed addition blocks the possibility for future parking, and noted his feeling that it will not work as there are no sidewalks. He stated that he would like to see a detached building built to the street, with parking behind. He stated that the applicant could make this work, but expressed doubts about salvaging the plan as it is. He noted that if the utilities were moved from the corner, it could at least be built out. Fields suggested that there would be difficulty making this footprint work. KenCairn suggested drawing some designs that would work to A Street. Commissioners agreed that they could hold their decision until they see a third phase plan, but they emphasized the need to see the intent of the comments addressed in this third phase design. It was generally agreed that the proposal as it is would likely not work. Gardiner stated that the commissioners are more negative now than positive, and emphasized that the applicant needs to come back with a plan addressing the issues raised tonight. Fields pointed out that for him, mitigation would be a nice corner plaza, but he emphasized that he would expect to see improvements to make the corner make sense. He reiterated that it doesn’t address the street now, and that it needs to have some sort of an urban plaza feature to address the street. Fields stated that a case could be made to abandon A Street and orienting the project to Fourth, but he questioned whether the third phase envelope could be made to work. Applicant agreed to a 30-day extension to the 120 day rule, and staff stated that this item would be brought back to the next scheduled meeting. After a two minute break, there was brief discussion of the upcoming Planning Commissioners’ retreat schedule, with KenCairn noting that she has a conflict. She stated that this conflict was “firm” and questioned if the retreat schedule th worked for others. It was noted that McLaughlin would not be available for the retreat if it were to be moved to the 20, and it was decided to leave the retreat as scheduled. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2001-029 City of Ashland 455 Siskiyou Boulevard SITE VISITS AND EX PARTE CONTACT All present noted having made site visits. Fields noted that he was on the Design Review Committee for the current plan. McLaughlin clarified that this was a five or six member team that guided the design. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 6 of 14 STAFF REPORT Molnar presented the staff report, and explained that the proposal is to remove the Blue Mountain Cafe and the existing Fire Station and construct a new station at the site. Molnar pointed out the relevant features on the site plan, and noted the modification to be done to the boulevard, the placement of the bays, the landscaping, entry, and traffic signal changes. He noted that design work had been done by Kittelson & Associates working with the city Public Works Department. Molnar noted the 16-space parking area, and the buffers, and stated that the existing landscaping includes five notable cedars trees, three of which are recommended for removal to accommodate the building footprint. He noted that the proposed materials are concrete with a masonry veneer, a metal roof, with wood clad windows, storefront doors, and steel canopies to shade the windows around the building. Molnar noted that the design process began 18 months ago. Molnar cited the key elements of the design, including the orientation of the building to allow for three entries and the fact that the structure is over 15,000 square feet making it subject to the Large Scale Development Standards. Molnar pointed out that there had been discussion with the Tree Commission to find a way to shade the hardscape at the entry, and the architects have added 2-3 shade trees to provide more of a canopy. He emphasized that there is a need to find a way to avoid obstructing views for vehicles on Siskiyou, but he stated that this should be possible. Molnar explained that the existing narrow drive serves a host of uses, and noted that the proposal includes a shared drive to be reconstructed to 20’ to provide access to parking for the project and parking for neighbors. He stated that the agreement for shared use of the drive needs to be finalized prior to construction. Molnar stated that the impacts of the project are minimal given the current use, and he emphasized that this location has been determined to be an optimal one for city-wide response times. He stated that the transition and buffering are well done, and commended efforts to improve access management with a shared drive. He noted that staff recommends approval with ten conditions. Molnar pointed out that there is a proposed bay on East Main Street in addition to the new bay in the fire station, and he explained that condition #9 calls for the removal of the East Main Street bay and maintenance of a parking strip in that location. Molnar went on to explain that the Fire Department feels that there is a need for this additional bay for safety needs. Molnar cited the arborist’s report which suggested that an arborist be on site during excavation to ensure adequate tree protection. He stated that he believes the applicant has no problem with the requirement for a timeline of an arborist’s inspections as a condition #11. He also recommended a condition #12 to amend condition #3 relative to landscaping to ensure that placement of trees in the entry plaza will not obstruct vehicular sight distances. Molnar concluded by noting that staff recommends approval of the application with these conditions. Molnar clarified the parking bay issue for Hearn, and Hearn questioned whether there were specifics from the election which might be in conflict with anything being considered here. Briggs raised the issue of a roundabout as addressed in the letter from Kate Jackson. She explained that Jackson had wanted to remind the commissioners of the ongoing plan for a roundabout at the nose of the triangular site. Molnar stated that staff was aware of this issue, and that some schematics have been done. He further stated that this roundabout could affect the tip of apex. McLaughlin stated that the roundabout could work with this design, and would only require that the sidewalk configuration be reworked. He reiterated that nothing in this design would preclude the possibility of the roundabout. Amarotico asked that condition #5 be removed. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:00 PM Fire Chief Keith Woodley/455 Siskiyou Bv., & Bob Graf, of Peck, Smiley, Ettlin Architects/1220 SW Morrison, Portland, OR were on hand representing the applicant. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 7 of 14 Graf noted that staff had covered most of the details of the presentation, and briefly ran through some images to give the commissioners a feel for the site. He emphasized that the architects recognize the importance of both the site and the building. He showed the site and building from various views and angles, and cited the urban scale. Graf noted design details, including the flagpole, planter, and the fact that the sun angle changes throughout the day. He noted that the rendering does not reflect all of the landscaping plants, and he showed the bays questioned earlier, as well as the back apron which has a 10-12% slope. Graf commented on the issues of placing trees in the plaza, noting that the architects have concerns for public safety relative to vision clearance. Graf also suggested that trees would block the entry and would be counter to the purpose of the entry. Fire Chief Woodley noted that city staff have worked with neighbor George Walker relative to a shared access agreement to consolidate drives, and noted that the owners of Studio 55 has also inquired about the possibility of a pass-through to allow a pedestrian easement. He stated that this is a win-win situation, and emphasized that emergency vehicles would not be responding through client parking areas. In response to Hearn’s question about the ballot measure, Woodley stated that there was nothing proprietary in the ballot which would preclude specific design elements. He stated that there was only general information presented with no conditions placed as a result of the election. Woodley noted that the aprons in front of the bays cannot be used for parking, so the four bay design allows three pass- throughs with front aprons of 23 to 24 feet, which are inadequate for backing in. He noted that there is a problem of having five vehicles in four bays, but stated that he feels this design will work. He explained, however, that a fire engine and medic unit come to the station from Station #2 daily for training and they therefore need to have sufficient parking for a medic unit (23 feet) and fire engine (36 feet). He stated that these units were previously parking on the Siskiyou Boulevard sidewalk, and they are now using the Blue Mountain Cafe lot. He emphasized that the intent is that they not block the bays or back up onto the aprons. As an example, Woodley cited five incidents within minutes of each other today which highlight the need to keep all response corridors open. He stated that the proposal would allow for a bay on the East Main Street frontage to allow for parking a medic unit and a fire engine, and explained that this arrangement would allow for response and return without delays. Woodley emphasized that the landscaping area is largest near this bay, and suggested that with the use of mature trees the tree canopy appearance could remain almost symmetrical down East Main Street. He emphasized that the bay aprons are not available for parking, and this East Main Street bay would simply provide what has always been on Siskiyou Boulevard. He concluded that this is the safest and most appropriate arrangement. Hearn stated that the proposal and accompanying schematics are the most professional seen by the commissioners to date. He questioned the placement of a parking bay on East Main Street given the lack of any other parking on the street. He stated that this bay would effectively eliminate the benefit of any landscaping. Graf noted that from a pedestrian standpoint, there will still be a canopy effect and he emphasized that there is no retaining wall. Woodley noted that the bay would not effect the sidewalk or bikelane, and stated that the elevation would provide some view of the landscaping. Hearn clarified that a truck would be blocking the confluence of two busy streets at an important part of town. Woodley responded that the truck and medic unit could be there from 3-6 hours per day, 7 days per week. Woodley emphasized that the applicants have considered how this relates to the rest of the street, but stated that they feel that the requirements for a Fire Station are unique and need to be addressed. He stated that the nature of the uses are incompatible and make efforts at mitigation difficult. Hans Ettlin of Peck, Smiley, Ettlin Architect/1220 SW Morrison/Portland, OR noted that in the initial design, it was recommended that the Studio 55 property be purchased by the city as well. The decision to not purchase this parcel puts site constraints on the project, which are to be mitigated by the placement of this bay. Ettlin emphasized that this design is a compromise to allow the Fire Department to successfully run the station, and he urged approval of the application. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 8 of 14 Hearn questioned whether the green area on Siskiyou that is now a parking buffer could be used instead of this portion of East Main Street, but Ettlin stated that the parking buffer is required. Woodley pointed out that studies have shown that a 1.75 to 2.25 acre site would be optimal, and the site here is less than 1 acre. He emphasized that the architects and the applicants have managed to find a balance by making some adjustments. KenCairn stated that the landscaping proposed would not canopy the sidewalk and would need to be redesigned. She questioned Graf as to whether the elevation would help to mitigate the parking bay. KenCairn noted that the landscaping proposed for the triangle consists of shrubs that would not adequately address the city’s street tree requirements. Woodley reiterated that modifications have been made to find a middle ground solution that works. Gardiner questioned if any of the bays were left empty. Woodley responded that there are four bays with five engines parked, with three pass-throughs for those returning to come in and park. He emphasized that only one bay is blocked and thus not a drive-through bay. Briggs questioned how this affected response out Siskiyou Boulevard and back up East Main Street. Briggs also questioned the roof pitch used to allow for gray water collection. Graf noted that they use a .25 inch per foot flat membrane that will allow for the collection of water through the roof drains. Ettlin noted that there may be plumbing code issues with the use of gray water storage tanks, and stated that they will need final approval from the Building Division to use this design. He stated that the design will be submitted with the gray water portion included, but emphasized that they could not guarantee final implementation. Briggs questioned the lifespan of a membrane roof of this type. Ettlin stated that it is a 60 mil PVC which has a 25-year life expectancy. He further noted that similar systems have been in use on other stations of their design for 20 years, and they have seen this system used with great success. He noted that these membranes were originally used as reservoir liners. Briggs questioned the museum lobby holding a fire truck. Both Ettlin and Graf confirmed that the older vehicles are smaller and can be driven in. They pointed out that the doors are the type used for auto dealership showrooms, and stated that this should be no problem. Woodley noted that the vehicle to be showcased is a 1938 LaFrance which will be taken out of storage to be put on display. Kistler questioned Ettlin as to what percentage of completion they are at with this design. Ettlin stated that with Planning Commission approval they can start the construction drawings. He stated that the drawings presented are design details, and suggested that they are at 75% complete. He noted that they still need some sections and materials, but that these are fairly generic. Ettlin confirmed for Kistler that the architects are doing in house cost estimates as they are specialists in this area. Kistler asked if the project is on budget. Ettlin stated that they have given all cost estimates, with all materials, to the city and that they are in line with the budget to this stage. Colin Swales/461 Allison Street stated that he was gratified to see this proposal mentioned in both the City Source and the utility billing insert. He noted, however, that the plans were not available on the city’s website as promised in both of these sources. He stated that they have since been made available, but have only been on-line for about a week now. He pointed out that the site plan is still not available on the website. Swales went on to note that he had checked the plans in the city offices, and was gratified to see the improvements made over prior designs. He stated that his major concern is with the landscaping, and noted that they have saved one more tree but are removing the significant cedars near footprint. He emphasized that he feels it is incumbent upon the city to make this information public. He requested a continuance of this application to allow for the city to provide adequate information to the public. He emphasized that he was unaware of further tree removal until this evening. Swales also expressed concerned with the siting of this project next to a heavy traffic area and an accident-prone intersection. He questioned the fact that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has not commented at this stage, and given that a roundabout is a real possibility, he suggested waiting for word from ODOT before making a decision. He also pointed out that since Chief Woodley seems concerned with space constraints, this site may not be as ideal as it has been presented to be. Swales noted that while he prefers the flat roof, he feels that the use of awnings take on ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 9 of 14 a detail from some of the more shabby buildings in the downtown and he finds this disappointing. Swales went on to note that at the downtown charette, grade changes were cited as a feature of which can be taken advantage. He suggested that parking could be moved under the offices and accessed off of East Main Street. Swales agreed with Hearn about the single bay on East Main Street, and stated that the applicants need to take into account their residential neighbors. He noted that the south elevation is nearly bare as is the proposed plaza, and he stated that this will be somewhat difficult in the heat of summer. He suggested that this is not pedestrian friendly, and again urged delay until these problems can be presented to the public and commented upon. He concluded that the poor turn-out for this meeting is indicative of either apathy or the lack of information being made available. Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street stated that he is not opposed to a fire station, but that he wants to discuss compliance with the current vision expressed by the community. He noted that this parcel is 32,000 square feet, and stated that there is a need to link land use and transportation to shrink urban forms and shrink footprints. He cited as examples rural fire stations in Austria that are 3-4 stories to economize the impact they have on the land. He stated that his issue with this proposal is that they are not doing all that could be done to shrink the footprint and give options with the use of the land. He questioned how to do this in consistency with community values, and stated that he feels that the applicant must show that a one-story building is compatible, and that every effort is being made to conserve resources. He emphasized that the community needs to have a vision and to have it incorporated into the city ordinances. He emphasized that there is a need to do a lot with a small area, and this is mostly a one-story design which he feels sends the wrong message to children within the community. He stated that consuming square footage and condemning property is not reducing sprawl, and as such the future use of the parcel is compromised. He cited AMC 18.72.010 which states that the purpose and intent is to enhance the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit, and concluded that using more land than needed is not an enhancement of the environment. Hearn noted that the European example cited by Thompson has smaller streets and smaller vehicles, to allow for smaller spaces. Thompson countered that he feels that the Europeans need bigger fire equipment due to the taller buildings, even in smaller cities. He stated that a full second story could shrink this footprint to 8000 square feet, and questioned the door heights. Chapman questioned how Thompson would accommodate parking. Thompson stated that he wants to move more functions from the first floor to the second to shrink the footprint, save trees, and provide more parking, including the potential for staff and patron parking for the library across the street. Thompson suggested adding a condition to limit the footprint to 8,000 square feet and to provide 8 parking spaces for library staff and patrons. Chapman questioned how such a limitation would work, and Thompson responded that the proposal presented is inconsistent with neo-traditional planning and the city’s own Transportation Element. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:51 P.M. Chapman noted there is landscaping along the area Swales questioned; KenCairn explained that that the trees have been added. Hearn questioned the orientation on the site for aprons and grade change. Fields suggested using larger statured trees in raised planters on either side of the tip of the triangle to provide shade. Fields also questioned if there is a color change to the glazing on the west side to lessen the heating effect of the summer sun. REBUTTAL Woodley stated that the apparatus space has been discussed since 1983, and moving the building was identified as important due to the grade drop. He also cited the curvature of the curbs, and noted that by moving the building they have allowed for a better site line. He stated that the location of the bays is thus critical to the use of the property. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 10 of 14 Ettlin stated that the glazing will be insulated, 1/2” panes with 1” spacing and without coating to be street friendly, but he stated that these details have not been nailed down yet. He stated that the intent of the shading device awnings is two-fold, both to provide some shade and provide a light reflecting shelf to reduce the needs for artificial lights. Graf stated that he agreed with the use of taller trees in the planter out over the plaza. Ettlin stated that he still feels that these would detract from entry. He emphasized that the design has improved the site clearances and they should not turn around and impair them another way. Chapman/KenCairn m/s to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed . KenCairn stated that proper large stature trees would add to and frame the entry without detracting from its design. McLaughlin noted that the plan is complete as submitted, but that it can be revised. Molnar noted that this design has Tree Commission recommendations included. KenCairn suggested making street trees a Planning Commission condition. Fields noted that heat will be a problem in the summer, and suggested greening and shading be used to absorb some heat at the entry. Ettlin stated that the architects have expressed their preferences, but stated that they are willing to incorporate these elements if directed to do so. Gardiner suggested that the final landscape design be amended to incorporate the recommendations of the Planning Commission as a condition to the approval. There was discussion of the need for greening of the plaza, and Fields emphasized that it should be something walkable. Briggs stated that she likes the steps for the sense of entry. Fields agreed with Briggs on the steps, but stated that he feels that the corner needs to be better resolved. In response to a question from Chapman, Woodley noted that Ted Mularz did a space needs study that indicated that an optimum site would be 1.75 to 2.25 acres. Woodley also confirmed that this site is only 0.74 acres. Woodley recognized that very few things are optimal, but stated that he believes that this application achieves a balance that is most appropriate to the site and to Ashland. Gardiner asked if the bay on East Main removes a street tree. McLaughlin stated that the shrubs will need to be replaced with larger stature trees for shade to mitigate the one street tree being removed. Briggs asked to address the comments from Thompson and Swales, and asked if the bay area could take a second story in the future. Ettlin stated that it could not with the present design, but he stated that it could be easily made to do so for a cost increase of 10-15% on the structural portion of the project, due to the large span areas. Briggs asked if it could be reinforced down the line. Ettlin confirmed that this would be possible in the future with added columns or additional beams. Woodley noted that the proposed design, as currently presented, will accommodate a doubling in the current staff levels. Briggs questioned the feasibility of a lower level for parking. Ettlin stated that the per-space cost was too high to proceed in that direction, but that it had been considered initially. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs stated that this design was much better than earlier drawings. KenCairn stated that there is a need to articulate another condition to address landscape issues to cool the plaza. She agreed with Fields that it could be “checkerboarded” with turf, but she noted that there would be some difficulty in irrigation the checkered areas. Gardiner noted that several existing conditions address the landscaping already, and suggested that #3 could be made to include “and Planning Commission.” Molnar concurred, and stated that this would cover including trees in planters at the entry, larger trees at the parking bay on East Main Street, and re-evaluating the use of tree grates in the plaza. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 11 of 14 McLaughlin noted that there would need to be some way to address vision clearance for both fire trucks and traffic. Hearn concurred with Woodley’s assessment that this application is unique due to the nature of the use. Molnar clarified that the arborist’s reports would be needed on the timeline listed to protect trees during construction. Gardiner noted that they had added #11 and revised #3. Molnar noted that #9 would need to be removed, leaving ten total, to keep the parking bay. Kistler noted that there was still the issue of the plaza landscaping, but KenCairn stated that the revision to condition #3 had adequately addressed this. Hearn noted that the parking bay on East Main Street would be marked for emergency vehicles only. Woodley confirmed that it would. Kistler noted that given the size and use of the site, versus the needs, he feels this design is a good job at Ashland’s density. KenCairn/Briggs m/s to approve Planning Action #2001-029 with the conditions noted. Roll call vote: Gardiner, Amarotico, Hearn, Briggs, Morris, Fields, Chapman, Kistler and KenCairn, YES. Motion passed unanimously. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2000-042 Kirt Meyer & Vadim Agakhanov 472 Scenic Drive SITE VISITS & EX PARTE CONTACT KenCairn noted a conflict as she had worked on this project. All others noted site visits. KenCairn exited the meeting. STAFF REPORT Harris noted a letter received from previous owner and current neighbor, Mr. Stonebrook, and noted that some information had been passed out due to omission from the packet. She explained that the lot is 32,000 square feet with double frontage on Rock Street and Scenic Drive, with the site located between Coolidge and Nursery Streets. She explained site features, including twelve trees over 6” in diameter at breast height (dbh). Harris noted that the project is currently a medical office with a conditional use permit that was approved in 1975. She pointed out that there are currently 18 parking spaces and a driveway now, with a lot of asphalt on the site. She noted that the proposed application is for 8 units on separate lots, with 3 detached units and the others attached to the south side of the side. Harris noted that the common areas are to the west of unit #1. She noted that while it is not entirely clear on the site plan, staff has added a condition to clearly delineate these areas on the Final Plan. Harris also noted the need for a public easement of sidewalk connecting the two streets. She noted that parking is provided by garages and 7 surface parking spaces. She clarified that this is a multi-family residential zone with a potential for 13.5 units per acre, meaning that 9 units would be allowed here. She pointed out that elements such as porches and dormers have been used to orient units to the street, and that the mass has been broken up and heights varied with dormers and hip roofs. She noted that the Historic Commission has approved this design, although they had specific recommendation about the windows for units #1 and #5. She stated that staff would be adding a condition #17 to incorporate the recommendations of the Historic Commission. Harris noted that the landscaping plan preserves all trees on site, and stated that there is a protection plan proposed as well. She noted that there is a common open space, and that each unit also has a private yard area, including a good-sized rear yard. She stated that staff’s only issue with the design had to do with solar setbacks on the north side units. She clarified that since staff raised this issue, the applicants have submitted revised elevations which were included in the packets and which have been found to be satisfactory by staff to address the solar concerns. Harris pointed out that all city services are available except storm drainage, which will need to be piped Rock and Nursery Streets. Harris noted that there are park rows and sidewalks in the design, and that the applicant has offered to sign in favor ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 12 of 14 of sidewalks for a future LID. Harris noted, however, that staff did not feel that the project met criteria without sidewalks. Harris confirmed that the Fire Department has approved the 20 foot drives as proposed with a 15 foot street and a 5 foot flat sidewalk. Commissioners Hearn/Kistler m/s to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed . Harris stated that staff recommends approval with conditions and the suggested following amendments. Harris noted that condition #5 called for a tree protection plan report. Harris stated that this would also be needed in the building phase as well as during pre-construction so staff would add wording to the effect that “prior to issuance of building permit will provide final report that all measures are in place.” Harris stated that condition #11 would address the sidewalk brushing texture, and Molnar noted that this could be coordinated with Public Works. Harris discussed staff’s solar concern for Briggs and reiterated that the applicant had adequately addressed this matter. Fields confirmed that there is no requirement to build to the street in this R2 zone, and noted that the neighbors’ objections were to the fact that the project conflicts with the surrounding pattern. Molnar stated that he feels that this application did a good job of replicating the existing pattern on the two public streets. He recognized that the internal streetscape is different, but emphasized that the external ends echo the patterns of those streets. Harris cited Ninth Street Alley as a similar situation. Briggs noted that Historical Consultant George Kramer is working on getting historic status for this neighborhood, and questioned staff as to what Kramer would think of this “str-alley.” Briggs stated her concern that such a hybrid would jeopardize inclusion on the registry for this neighborhood. Harris noted that the Historic Commission had approved the application and the issue was not raised there. Harris noted that in an R2 zone, the applicants were not required to give the city a street, but it was requested for the benefit of the neighborhood. Harris reiterated that the ordinance would only require a driveway in ordinance, and she stated that the applicant could do drives from either end, separately. She emphasized that the Fire Department had approved of this design for its provision for through access. Hearn agreed that this design promotes connectivity to and through the development. Harris stated that the design proposed will also give traffic better options to disperse. Chapman noted that this design also maximizes tree preservation. Harris noted that the drive is currently in place which helps to this end. Harris noted condition #17, that the recommendations of the Historic Commission, with the approval of the staff advisor, shall be incorporated into the Final Plan. Kistler noted that in recent town homes developments, there seems to be a problem with residents pulling into single car garages without a full car length in front at a 90 angle. He stated that this makes access difficult, and suggested that design standards are need to address this. Harris noted that this issue was raised in the pre-application, and Kistler concurred that this application treats the garages better than most. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 10:47 PM Tom Giordano, Architect/2635 Takelma Way and Kirt Meyer/Dead Indian Rd. Giordano noted that it is a pleasure to present this application to the Planning Commission, and he feels that it is a well-crafted project as the architecture and site planning mesh well to make everything work. Giordano emphasized that this project was a collaborative effort between the client, architect, planning staff, and the community members through neighborhood meetings, and stated that while they could have managed ten units with density bonuses for conservation, this design worked for the historic district. He noted that the Historic Commission had been helpful, supportive, and complimentary, and he thanked the consultant team and landscape architect. He pointed out the this was not an easy site, given the trees, topography, and solar issues in addition to the Historic District. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 13 of 14 Giordano stated that while it was challenging to make this project mesh, he feels it is one of his best projects in Ashland, and he attributes that success to the collaborative interaction. Hearn noted that the neighborhood opposition had more to do with the zone than the project itself. Giordano concurred with this assessment, and noted that he had created 3 separate, detached units to try to mitigate the effect on the neighborhood. He emphasized that even the triplexes are small and not out of scale for the area. Gardiner asked, and staff confirmed, that the solar issues had been addressed. The applicant stated that he was fine with staff’s conditions. Kistler questioned if there were any design changes that were not positive. Giordano stated that all of the changes, even the solar issues, were positive and actually improved the project. Giordano noted that he also tried to better position the garages to help their entries, and stated that he could adjust the planters as well. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:55 P.M. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs stated that she was not in favor of the hybrid street-alley, and suggested that the city will regret allowing it down the road. She expressed concern over fire access. Hearn stated that apartments have drives that end and do not go anywhere. Harris reiterated that for this zone, the requirement is for a driveway not a public street, and it is thus unusual, but really is a drive connecting to streets on both ends. She also emphasized that 22 feet is the standard when there is parking allowed on one side. Harris asked, and the Fire Department confirmed that their engines are only 9 feet 6 inches. Fields noted that this is good compact design for the zone, and cited the Holly Street project which had a dead end drive and much closer units. He stated that this is a better design and will be used. Fields/Hearn m/s approve Planning Action #2001-042 with the 17 conditions suggested by staff, as modified. Roll call vote: All YES. Motion passed. OTHER It was unanimously agreed that Gardiner would continue as chair, with Hearn and Chapman to share the duties of vice chair. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2001 14 of 14