Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Exhibits #2010-01239 . February 14,2011 RECEIVED FEB 1 4 ZOI1 City Council Ashland, Oregon ~. Re: Proposed restaurant in Lithia Park lcii;'ov..Shla:->d I P:anning }xh!Sit Exhibit # 15D) PA #d-O J../) -Cl.:-}~ I Date -z. hS/IIS1aff , ~2.-"""_ -=-..=-..,. Dear sirs: The parking requirements for the proposed 189-seat restaurant would be mitigated by scaling down the size of the restaurant, from 189 to 75 seats, and would be in hannony with the modest size of the surrounding buildings. I see no objection to an additional restaurant per se, but the proposed mammoth size is not appropriate. Yours truly, ~~or~~ C. Granat AsWand o~~--fUW~d=~~' fy ~_ Diana Shiplet From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Awdb@aoi.com Tuesday. February 15. 201110:22 AM sm ithda@ashiand.or.us shipletd@ashland.or.us For Council Meeting Tonight --.... ~.~-';.'~ ~'-'- , City of Ashl?"\. \ F 3r'Qin~ Exhib.t IEXi'!%':f-DO~ -- ?A #,?DIQ-61 J: 1, . ~ D~te:2-JI ~IStaff .~._,.",.,:c""""",~ Since Barbara is out of town I an sendin'g per your directions. First I would like to confirm that Comment to the Council is actuaily getting to the Council and is official input. I sent my comments to the site as directed by our local paper and assumed that this would not be violating ruies and the proper way to comment. The site seems to be more of a discussion format than a valuabie source for citizens to give input to our elected officials. Tonight (sorry to be out of town and unable to attend) I would like to urge the Council to confirm the Planning Commission approval for the Phelps application on the Park project and rezoning. This property shouid not be deveioped as residential but as commercial. a house would not be compatible to the Park and this corrects an aid issue of the final piece of the Park. The current building (commerciai) has been sitting vacant and in disrepair for many years. we not have a wonderful opportunity with a qualified appiicant to finish this property. I have known the applicant and they are the perfect fit to develop the site. As we talk about Economic Deveiopment and attracting new business and resources to town we are fortunate to have citizens with their history and qualifications. This is an enormous investment in our-City. As an added benefit it wili provide needed benefits to the Ice Rink. Piease do not add items to the approval. but just confirm the approval by your Planning Commission. Aian DeBoer 2260 Morada Ln. Ashland, 541-944-1600 Phelps Restaurant in Park 2/15/11 1 :D2 PM To the Ashland City Council, rCii;;f-;:~hla:'d --', Plan€tf'"~ ~hiM . 01 - Exhi .\#. D.? PA#.:"-DI~.::o!..?-34 .D~~e '1-/lil ~~l 02/15/2011 re the Phelps/Lithia Park rezoning action-PA #2010-01239 I. In rezoning this site to downtown commercial, it is necessary to look beyond this specific project to imagine what else could legally occur in this space should the restaurant cease to exist. I see in the Council Communication doc, 85 Winburn Way (PA #2010-01239), that these issues are addressed. I know that the council will satisfy themselves that the appropriate conditions are in place. II. There is only one commercial way into this project site: through the Plaza's N. Main St entrance. Last year the Transportation Committee working with Planning staff had already expressed concerns with this nexus of moving vehicles, ped crosswalks and cars trying to back out of Plaza parking spaces. Long before any site-specific concerns are raised, the increased pressure on this existing bottleneck needs to be addressed. I'm sure that police, fire and health have signed off on this project, but now might be a good time to question just how much and of what type increased traffic through the Plaza and on to Winburn Way could become a public safety concern. III. With the increased patron traffic, there will also be increased commercial service traffic through the Plaza to the site: food, beverage, linen and service vehicles. . What delivery parking provisions are necessary? . Will idling during deliveries be allowed? If so, how will that affect the experience of being in the Park? . Egress-how will the various service vehicles leave the site? Are they allowed to continue to Nutley, up Nutley to (residential) Granite St., then back onto N. Main? (How does the Sesame Restaurant handle these service traffic issues?) IV. Recognizing that the private financial considerations of those proposing this project are not a proper concern of the council, a 189-seat restaurant and lodging will need to generate consistently high levels of business throughout the prime tourist-season months of June-September. This business reality coincides with the highest, continuous and varied Park uses by the community, which is a proper concern for the council. While members of the Planning Commission acknowledge these conflicts, Page 1 of 2 Phelps Restaurant in Park 2/15/11 1 :02 PM they have also chosen to implement a traffic planning strategy that has an unblemished, twenty-year track record of failure in this town; specifically, the attempt to diminish car use in the downtown core by the deliberate planning policy of under- allocation of parking in that core area. Experience and the city's own data (as well as ,other municipalities' experiences) show that there is no useful correlation between car use and scarcity of parking. Rather, what experience does show is that if potential customers become fed up enough with inadequate parking, they don't find other modes to the same end, they just go somewhere else that does provide parking. That response is of no use to our downtown or this project. Hope is not a plan. The Planning Commission's proposals to address the above traffic volume v. parking issues for this project are based upon pure hope. (Or, as Einstein had it, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.") Neither should be a criterion that the Planning Commission is allowed to rely upon in passing an action of this scope and location. Lithia Park is the city's most valuable economic and cultural asset, the value of which should not be wagered on a hope. Respectfully, John Gaffey 637 Oak St. Ashland, OR Page 2 of 2 ;; RECEIVED FEB 15 2011 PIlILIP CLANG, ACSW. LCSW ORE. LCSW1141 . 00. LCSW-5500 :~~~~~~. February l5, 20ll i~E~:~~~tt- - ^\; \ Exhlth# _ IPA#~L.ao-.J..."L I~~te 'J. I1015taff.d., , 758 B Stred . Ashland. Oregon 97520 Residence 54l . 482-8659 Office!fax 541 . 482-5387 c-m8iL Phihp@mind.ncl. To: Diana Shiplet, Executive Secretary Re.: Attached testimony/ commentary on PA 20l0-0l239 and associated Development Agreement for Winburn Way Dear Diana: Attached are my comments (5 pp.) re: the above captioned. development, to be heard by the City Council this P.M. Commitments to my therapy clients preclude my attendance. I am providing sufficient copies for the Council, the record, the City Attorney, the Planning Dept. reps., and the Developer/his/her representative. Please see that they are distributed and get into the record. r your help, PHILIP 'C. LANG, ACSW, LCSW, Ph.D. attachment: Comments re: above cited planning application PlIILIP CLANG, ACSW. LCSW ORE. LCSW1141 . OIL. LCSW-5500 , '. ,'t:- ." 758 B Strcei. . Ashland, Ore8on 97520 Residence 541 . 482-8659 Offlce/fa, 541 . 482-5387 e-mail: Philip@mind.net. February lS, 20ll In re.: PLANNING ACTION fi20l0-0l239 & ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Conclusions 1) The planning action should be denied insofar as it: a) does not meet a host of ALUO criteria (for the zone and outside the zone) b) requires excessive, extensive exceptions and self-serving "interpretations cof various ALUOs, and abrogation of other ALUOs to "1ualif~..as a valid development. 2) The Development Agreement is a devious way to avoid tbe provisions of ORS 271.300 and ORS 271.3l0. regarding transfer of publicly owned property. BACKGROUND/HISTORY This planning application is a quintissential embodiment of virtually all the defects, inadequacies, and developer-biased elements of City of Ashland planning. 1. "More buildings ="progress '.' Ashland has always had a problem with maintaining a sustainable economy. It went from virtually total dependence on the railroad to absolute dependence on a tourist economy. As such it has been sensitive to a greater degree than most, to our economic ,"booms.. and :busts. As a result the evident but perhaps unspoken commitment in planning is not to be "planful" - viz. evaluate proposals in terms of ALUOs - but to approve most any and all development under the rubric of "progress". ''More is better" characterizes the approach. It_.is. 'understandable becaTjlse the tourist serving businesses are, for the most part ~hanging on" and need to make their annual income in a 9 month (maximum) tourist season. Nevertheless, this results in approvals not grounded in ALUOs, and eften, :as.. in this case, opposed to the public interest. In formal terms: we have zoning and other development criteria which presumably express the will of the people expressed through the legislative process - but constantly abrogated, "re-interpreted", or..simply ignored in pursuing the principal goal of serving "development". This not only violates the ordinances (and the larger public will), it is totally anti-ecological, in a town which c'J:lim to be committed to "ecology" and "sustainability". This proposal is an excellent example. 2. The Developers Write Their Own Approvals! The questianable practice of allowing the developers - or their hired represen- tatf.ves to write the findings is..endemic to the planning process. The notion that this might be ethically or legally questionable or against the public's interest never gets attention. ... Planning Action #2010-01239 &.Winburn Way Development Agreement - p. 2 a. The absurdity of "neutrality" in the developer writing the findings In a report that requires exactitude and neutrality with respect to value judgments, any developer written findings will inevitably be biased. Biased by inevitable "interpretation" of the cOlIIIIlission's interpretations or statements, biased in its choice of adjectives describing the process, etc. These findings are full of such defects. One' simple example: "The COlIIIIlission finds that measures of this nature are likely to be particularly effective given that peak parking demand occurs at a time of the year when the weather is most suited to the use of non-automotive (sic) modes of transportation". (p. 6). I (8gdli6tiJtiig~ ~ggEg~r the legality of this practice has been .. challenged. It should be. Regardless, with the enormous reduction .in planning demands and activies, perhaps planning staff, who are paid .to do such things, might return to writing the findings. b. 'If developer written findings are the written basis for all subsequent actions and appeals, then the public interest is automatically compromised. !J.lHE FINDINGS. l) Zone Change (ALUO l8.l06.060.B) not justified in this application. The request does not meet subsections a., b., c., d., e. - none of the stated requirements. 2) Physical & Environmental Constraints (Chapter l8.62.040.I. Again, requirements have not been met. The potential impacts to nearby areas are enormous. (l.). They ~annot be mitigated against (2.). There are no "reasonable steps" that the developer can take"to reduce adverse impact on the environment:' Their actions are irreversible. Why is this true? We are talking about impacts on Lithia Park. Obviously this developer wants to increase the impact by drawing people to their monstrously large restaurant. The wear 'and tear ,and damage to the park will substantially increase. (Paenthetically so will our taxpayer costs in trying to "mitigate" viz. repair the damage', which is difficult and tenuous). 3) S~te Review Approval (ALUO 18.72.070). Sections A., B., C., of this provision would not be met if the provisions were not being abrogated. The developers want the advantages of C.l.D. zoning status without having their design comply to the Downtown Design Standards Zone (2.3 of Findings). In other words: a) "We don't want to worry about parking -so we want BUT - b) At the same time, while enjoying not having to provide ~arking (as a C.l.D. zone) "we don't want to abide by the building design standards for the C.l.D. zone." There follows (p. 5., para. 1) the .obfuscatory and non-specific COlIIIIlent that "The Planning COlIIIIlission further finds that the applicants are not requesting that Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendmends based on any specific criterion from the list of approval criteria, but rather through a combination of these criteria based on various relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." (underlining added). to be re-zoned C.l.D." one ~ . ~ Planning Action #2010-0l239 & Winburn Way Development Agreement - p. 3 -What this mushy non-specificity tiieans(lIihat"relevant goals" what "policies" in the Compo Plan?) is~ "don't bother us with the details of why we g,.ould be allowed to do..~ Specifd:city as a legal requirement of documents of this sort is apparently not needed in this one. What are the "relevant goals and policies" that support this application? 4) Parking.... Parking is simply impossible with the proposed development- and close to impossible without it. The tactic of rezoning as a C.l.D to avoid parking requirements - unmeetable as they are, will not change the parking problem; the application should be rejected for this prolem alone. The problems are manifold: a) There are only five (5) disabled parking spaces. Has anyone noticed that the number of older/disabled OSF attendees is increasing yearly? b) There are three (3) spaces dedicated to City of Ashland parking. c) The notion that providing bike parking places and showers (the latter for restaurant employees) is ludicrous: (l) Tourists are not going to hring bikes and.:! use them around town. Particularly when they are on a tight schedule of meal-play- "\ meal-return-~o~acco~odation~meal-play, etc. (2) Are minimum wage restaurant employees expected/demanded to ride bikes from their remote living places since Ashland is unaffordable to them - risk traffic and a \ or full hour's commute? To expect this is fantasy; to enforce it will inevitably result in a lawsuit since ADA requirements for disctimination in employment against those who can't ride bikes (including the older worker). Page 5, para.2 erroneously asserts that rezoning could prove "beneficial" and "revitalizing. Page 5, para. 3 raises the issue of parking problems ("impacts"). "No problem" says the developer, since their "informal parking study over the course of the past year, (has): (the developer, that is) concluded that while parking:' is in high demand (!) later in the day and in evenings during the peak summer season....." liThe developer" and "i~formal study" tells us all we need to know about the inevitable conclusion. "High demand" translates easily, for anyone who has observed it to "impossible". THE WINBURN WAY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This agreement is nothing more than a circuitous way of avoiding the provisions of ORS271.300 and 27l.3l0 - the giving away of public lands w/out receiving cash or land of equal or greater value. The City of Ashland gave away -the invaluable Hargagine parking'lot to OSF in violation of that law. and now seeks to circumvent it with a "development agreement" that presumably provides the citizens with "benefits" that make up for the loss. These "benefits':!: (a) have never been designated as necessities or priorities by our own Park & Rec. Department, (b) could be accomplished at much less real cost, if desired, by our own Park & Rec. Dept. . . .,~ Planning Action #20l0-01239 & Winburn Way Development Agreement - p. 4 Who said that 'Idevelopment" had any place in the same arena with park land? The Charter Revision was rejected by the citizens of Ashland by a margin of over 3:l, in large part because it was leading in the direction of turning park land over to "developers". .If this ploy is allowed to pass, it creates a precedent and a "go ahead" for open season on one of our greatest, publicly owned and enjoyed assets. Planning Action 1/2010-01239 and its associated Development Agreement for Winburn Way shouls be resoundingly rejected. PIIILIP CLANG. ACSW. LCSW ORE. LCSW1141 . OIL. LCSW-5500 ... ._~~~~--::::J~' 758 B Street . Ashland. Orc3on 97520 Residence 541 . 482-8659 Office/fax 541 . 482-5387 e-mail: Philip@'mind.nel February l5, 2011 In re.: Storyville in The Park The developers of the 200 seat restaurant in Lithia Park have named themselves "Storyville in The Park." This is~a charming and amusing cognomen, selected..ingenuously - or 1ngentoas~y? "Storyville" was the name given to the red light district in New Orleans at the turn of the century and made famous by, Belloq'sphotographs of the prostitutes who inhabited it. It derives its name from Alderman (City councillor) Sidney Story, who in 1898 decreed that prostitution should be legalized. This was not a gesture or moral liberalism, but a pragmatic resignation, based also on the fact that much of New Orlean's wealth originated in the area.... How appropriate.... _.)l....~."'"':r " MEMBER OF THE OREGON AND CALIFORNIA BAR LLOYD MATTHEW IlAINES ATTORNEY AT LAW RECEIVED FEB 11 1011 TEL, (541) 4B2-9300 FAX, (541) 4B2-9334 Emoll: Iloydmhalnes@ yahoo. com 96 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 202 ASHLANO, OREGON, 97520 February 10, 2011 -.-........""',,-.....><.-""'. ~ ~._-...., i, City of Ashl",:.,< 'I. I' P:ann~ ~.'h!.bit . . Exhi~lllP s . PA#9lQlQ:_OI)..~~. ! Date 1-Ji r!i, Stalfl;)<:: . ....~-... - The Honorable Mayor . Meinbers of the City Council City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Opposition to Planning Action #2010-01239 Ladies and Gentlemen: Please consider this as public testimony in the above-referenced Planning Action, I, Lloyd M. Haines, have my business office at 96 N Main Street, Ashland and I am Ii downtown property owner, I strongly oppose this Planning Request to rezone the subject property to C-1-D, . Proi ect: The proposed project is to construct a 10,632 square foot building that will contain a 189-seat restaurant on the site of an existing fast food, take out business. The 189-seat restaurant will be the LARGEST restaurant in town. The proposal will provide no off-street parking, and in fact, will remove seven (7) existing off-street parking spaces that were required under the Conditional Use approval of the existing use. My Obiection: In principle, I do not object to converting the property to C-1 zoning, that will acknowledge the years of commercial use of the property, if, and only if, parking is provided to meet the demands of such a large cO:rm:D.ercial venture. . "t;- """-. The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council January 10, 2011 Page 2 Downtown Parking Issues: Our downtown parking inventory is already inadequate to accommodate the needs of the City during our busy months. I believe our inventory of parking spaces is at least 250 below what is needed. From May through September, downtown parking is problematic. The City receives constant complaints from residents of downtown streets adjacent to Main Street and Lithia Way about cars owned by downtown employees and visitors parking all day on their streets, thus preventing residents from having any parking available for their own use. The problem exists on Granite, Church, Pioneer and B Streets, to name a few. The City employs the services of an outside contractor to monitor the two-hour parking restrictions in the downtown area. Additionally, the Council had adopted new and punitive measure to keep cars from parking for extended periods, including "repeat violator" tickets of $25 to $50. These actions acknowledge that downtown parking issues are real. The long-term solution to the problem is to create more off-street parking, by either creating new parking lots, possibly on Water Street at the old SOS site, or create more spaces in existing City lots by putting decks over the existing parking. In any event, something must be done BEFORE increasing the downtoWn parking demand with a new, 1 89-seat restaurant. Parking Issues Associated with the Planning Proposal: As stated above, the impact of a commercial restaurant of this size will be dramatic. Apparently, the applicant prepared aD. "informal parking study" without providing any real assurance that the project will not substantially exacerbate the downtown parking situation. A full and detailed PARKING STUDY, by a _ reputable professional should be prepared to assess the downtown parking situation and the impact the project will have before the project is approved. Approving the zone change without this inform.ation would, in my opinion, be negligent on the part of the City. Winburn Way is already a traffic and parking nightmare during the high season. Cars are constantly searching for parking spaces adjacent to the park. Traffic is 10 -if .,..---., , The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council January 10, 2011 ' Page 3 constantly stopping to accommodate cars pulling in and out of spaces. With the creation of another l89-seatrestaiIrant at this site, that will require 10-20 employees to operate, the traffic/parking problem will increase from difficult to impossible. Applicant proposes to alleviate/mitigate the parking issues by urging employees and customer to use "non-automotive transportation (bikes, free bus passes and walking)". On it's face, this proposal is woefully inadequate, if not humorous, . when talking of a project of this size and scope. Code Requirement-The Zoning Code Change Requires a Public Need: In order to Amend the Zoning Map, the applicant must show "the change implements a public need", or "circumstances relating to the general welfare exist and require such an action" or a "substantial change in circumstances has occurred... necessitating the need to adjust to changed circumstances..." None of these requirements can be met in this application. In fact, 'all we have before the Council is a proposal to cram a large building onto a small lot, without parking and without consideration for the traffic pattern disruptions that will occur. The Planning Commission found the "potential negative impacts... weighed against the benefits,.. by improving the streetscape... ice rink facilities... Pioneer Hall courtyard..." make the project worthwhile and deserving of a zone change. I absolutely disagree. If such criteria are sufficient for zone changes, any futUre development proposals that offer the City attractive improvements will be approved despite being problematic. I would suggest that this project is better suited for another location. There is sufficient, appropriately zoned land downtown to create this project. The old North Light project land is presently in the hands of a bank, is zoned commercial and has off-street parking. There is no need to create more C-1-D land to accommodate this new project. ':.....c...--. The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council January 10,2011 Page 4 A Bad Precedent: Permitting a Zone Change in a situation such as this will open the floodgates for additional requests to enlarge the C-I-D district without addressing the downtown parking issues. Lithia Way, Water Street, Pioneer and Oak Streets all have C-I zoning that will desire similar treatment to that being requested in this application. . Why should Lithia Way, which is C-l on one side of the street and C-I-D on the other side, not be rezoned entirely to C-I- D and therefore, have consistent and logical zoning on this major downtown artery? Why should the North Light land not be rezoned to C-l- D, and eliminate.parking requirements in exchange for deeding the City one ofthe lots to be used for the "public good?" Appropriate Zoning of the Subiect Parcel: . In my opinion, the appropriate zoning of the subj ect parcel should be Col. The project, as designed, could be developed on the site and provide off-street parking and therefore, avoid the parking and traffic issues discussed above. By adding one more "benefit to the City" in addition to what the developer is presently offering, to wit, build a lid on top of the existing adjacent City parking lot (skating rink) that will become a parking deck, the problem is solved. The downtown gets additional parking and the developer gets his building and meets parking requirements. Conclusion: I respectfully request this application for Zone change be denied. I suggest the City procure information/input from reliable consultants to determine the actual downtown parking needs for 2011 and for the next 20 years. I suggest we determine the best way to address downtown parking needs and not exacerbate the parking problem by adding another 189-seat restaurant to downtown without parking. sub' d, .-...;0""'""...-,.......... ~.., . , RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2011 ----- "Shelley" <shellev@mind.net>wrote: !. City of Ashla~.c' 'I Fiaf!.q~"ol;xhibi.t ExtllkU ODlP '.PA#30~-OI).2~ ~Date1-71- S~ff- r ;."".....,.."',- As I am unable to attend the City Council meeting Tuesday night, I would like to share my thoughts on the proposed new building across from Lithia Park. I am really concerned about the lack of attention to the issue of parking, which remains a serious problem downtown. At select hours there is parking available .along Lithia Park, but if there is much activity there at all, whether it's folks'going Christmas shopping, attending races and band concerts, graduations, etc:, parking becomes a big issue. We happen to live at the base of Nutley St., one block up from the park. Nutley is a narrow street which continues to allow parking on both sides of the street. When a lot of people are attending an event of any kind, the parking spills up to our street. Cars park on both sides, including typically obstructing our driveways, and then have to pass each other on what is now a one lane street. It's difficult for all of us to back out if we have to. We have lived with this for years, but have a lot of concern over the situation worsening, as it undoubtedly would. I happened to see a few minutes on TV of your council meeting where a representative of the people who want to erect this building was interviewed. I found him oddly vague in his response when asked who the building was actually meant to serve; private parties or the public in general. I can't imagine considering the state of the economy and restaurants in general in Ashland that they are going to rely on passersby or kids stopping by for ice cream cones while ice-skating. I guess I am wondering if they are going to be recruiting as an arena for larger groups and if so, how that will impact the parking situation there. I am just really concerned about adding to an already crowded environment without any attention to the need for additional parking. I hope that will be part of your discussion. Thanks for your kind attention. Sincerely, Shelley Busby &ril Lucas From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: commenUo_the_council-bounces@list.ashland.or.us on behalf of jrandbjo@mind.net Monday, February 14, 2011 10:21 AM CommenUo_the_council@list.ashland.or.us [CommenUo_the_council] Fw: restaurant A TT00098. txt - Original Message ---- From: irandbioCalmind.net To: iohnCalcouncil.ashland.or.us Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:20 AM Subject: restaurant - --~ '...,- ~ , "-. JECEIVED , FEB 1 4 2011 What this city does NOT need is another restaurant, especially one across from Lithia park where parking is already at a premium! Betty Jo Reynols 1 'i City of Mh:,,:.c ,- Fa..min'bSx~blt Exhit:. {(8jg., PA if Q10\Q-D1 :\ [.''lte:::-/;~Staff ..,....:.,.<...........