February 25_ 2010 - City of Tale

Document Sample
February 25_ 2010 - City of Tale Powered By Docstoc
					                                                City of Talent

                                  Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

                                       February 25, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.

                                         Talent Community Center



I.     Call to Order/Roll Call

       Chair Darby Stricker called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.



       Members Present:                             Members Absent:

       Commissioner Stricker                        Councilor Lamb

       Commissioner Sonnenschein

       Commissioner Wise

       Commissioner Maynard



       Also Present:

       City Planner Mark Knox

       Councilor Cecil

       Minute Taker Darla DenHerder



II.    Consideration of minutes from January 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting



       Commissioner Wise moved to approve the minutes from the January 28, 2010 Planning
       Commission meeting. Commissioner Maynard seconded the motion and the motion carried
       unanimously.



III.   Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items

       There were none.



IV.    Public Hearing (quasi-judicial) Consideration of a Site Plan Review and Variance request to allow a
       roof structure to encroach into the required 10’ yard setback when the subject commercial property is
       adjacent to a residential zone. The proposed Variance is for a roof-awning structure to be built over the
       existing vacuum islands at the existing car wash located at 214 N. Pacific Highway in Talent. The
                                                                                                               1
purpose of the roof structure is to help reduce noise and light pollution onto the adjacent residential
neighborhood. (file no. SPR 2010-001 and VAR 2010-001)

Planner Mark Knox reminded the commission of quasi-judicial role of Commissioners. He said the
quasi-judicial decision is likened to a fixed goal post that is there for the applicant to make sure that the
application is meeting all the necessary criteria and that all of the opposition as well as the proponents
and decision makers need to base their arguments and approvals from the criteria.

Planning action in this meeting is for SPR (site plan review) 2010-001 and for a VAR (variance) review
2010-001; different criteria for each. The staff report contains the background information. Criteria for
the site plan review is listed in the staff report from 8-3L.150 A – F and then the variance criteria is
listed as 8-3L.150 A – D. Staff finding is also included. Variance is for a new roof structure over the
vacuum cleaner islands at the Talent car wash located at 214 N. Pacific Highway with the intent to
mitigate light and noise on to the neighbors to the east.

The car wash was approved by the Planning Commission in 2003. In 2005 a zone change occurred in
the adjacent property in the rear as well the acreage now known as the Clearview Development was
zoned residential. (Some of that is zoned commercial near the highway) In 2006 some residents were
built along the property line. Knox said that if the timing were reversed and the residences were there
first, and a proposal like this one came, they would be required to have some kind of buffering
standard, which is what the applicants is now seeking to do.

Commissioner Wise asked for clarification of maps; making sure he was reading it correctly.
Commissioner Sonnenshein asked what kind of issues this decision might be setting as precedence.
Knox replied that every application is considered individually and is independent Stricker asked Knox if
he had seen the original design plans for the car wash. Knox replied no. Stricker said a 9 foot wall was
constructed after the town houses were constructed. She asked if there was a variance for that 9 foot
wall. Knox said walls are like fences, not considered a structure. This applicant is asking for the
extension of the wall and the roof cover.

Comments from the applicant – David Hoye, 90 Suncrest,Talent. He said the wall was built at the time
of construction of the car wash; part of the approved plan. It was a 6 foot wall with a 6 foot fence next
to it. Variance request is to build the wall up to 9 feet and extend roof cover over the cars and continue
the wood fence another 23 feet alongside the landscaping.

Mr. Hoye said when the car wash was built, it was zoned commercial. City later rezoned the property
next to it residential with the Clearview Project. His plan is to buffer the commercial use better because
the 10 foot set-back requirement did not exist at the time of original construction. He read the
requirements for buffers.

Commissioner Maynard asked if he had received any complaints from other neighbors. Hoye said
nothing specifically. Commissioner Wise said that having a 9 foot barrier plus 14’ roofing seems a real
visual barrier. Hoye explained the first floor and second floor views from the town homes. The second
floor view looks down on to the car wash right now; so the proposed visibility of the living space will be
above the fence and the roof line will of the car wash with the view of the landscaping above that.
Commissioner Wise asked if it would be possible to put some landscaping against the concrete wall to
provide some visual buffer. Providing something green. Hoye said the design approval is already
pretty tight for driving right now. Commissioner Wise clarified he meant something right up against the
wall like bamboo. Hoye said something in pots would be possible.

Stricker said the applicant has met the criteria but the Commission could encourage some plantings
along the wall. Knox said the Commission can provide conditions and additional language for the
criteria to be met. Knox did remind the Commission that the applicant came forth on his own to
improve this situation. Commissioner Sonnenschein noted that the applicant also owns one of the
                                                                                                             2
     townhouses so that makes the situation unique. Knox said the Commission is not allowed to recognize
     that in this case because the townhouses are in a separate tax lot; it is a separate issue.

     Commissioner Wise commended the applicant for coming forth with an effort to mitigate something on
     his own. He said that if there was another way to create another mitigation that might have another
     impact, it would be good. He said he did have some concerns from the residential side because the
     landscaping would actually be on the residential side of the wall; not the commercial side. He said the
     variance on the wall height rather than the setback that is a concern to him. Having a 70’ by 9’
     structure concerned him, and that is why he was seeking some way to provide some vertical relief on
     the concrete wall. Knox said different color block or a different kind of block can be used to provide
     some decorative element. Knox said maintenance of plants over time would be difficult.

     Stricker said she visited the site and she could see where the overhang and the additional wall would
     improve the situation and she appreciated Mr. Hoye coming forward as he has. She said she would
     like to encourage some kind of aesthetics on the wall.

     The Public Hearing was open to the public for comments. There were none.

     The Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m.

     Commissioner Wise suggested as a condition of approval that a decorative element be included in the
     wall such as the color of brick. Stricker asked Knox if this was allowable. Knox referenced criteria 8-
     3L.150(C) “The variance would not be detrimental to the purposes of this chapter, the objective of any
     City development plan or policy, the goals, policies or text of the Comprehensive Plan, or other property
     in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located.”

     Commissioner Wise moved to approve the application with the additional condition that an
     aesthetic element be added through variation of brick color and design be added.
     Commissioner Sonnenschein seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.



V.   Public Hearing (quasi-judicial) on an application Consideration of a Site Plan Review for a 8,640
     square foot theatre building (new Camelot Theatre) which will include 164 seats, stage, changing
     rooms, concession area, office space and small mezzanine area. The property is located to the north
     of 101 Talent Avenue and the existing Camelot Theatre. File no. SPR 2010-002

     The Public Hearing was opened at 7:25 p.m. Mark Knox provided the staff report. The applicant is the
     Camelot Theatre; not Talent Urban Renewal Agency as written in the staff report. The application is for
     a Site Review Plan. Knox read the criteria for a site review plan; 8-3L.150 Required Findings for
     Approval of Plan.

        1. A. The proposed development will be in conformance with the intent and objectives of the zone
           in which it will be located

        2. B. All applicable portion of the City Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plan are complied
           with

        3. C. The proposed development will be compatible with or adequately buffered from other existing
           or contemplated uses of land in the surrounding area

        4. D. That no wastes, other than normal water runoff, will be conducted into City storm and
           wastewater facilities



                                                                                                               3
   5. E. The following are arranged so that traffic congestion is avoided; pedestrian and vehicular
      safety, solar access, historic sites, and the public welfare and safety are protected; and there
      will be no adverse effect on surrounding property:

       1. buildings, structures, and improvements

       2. vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress, and internal circulation

       3. parking and loading facilities

       4. setbacks and views from structures

       5. walls, fences, landscaping and street and shade trees

       6. lighting and signs

       7. noise generation facilities and trash or garbage depositories

Knox noted the members of the Project Design Team for the new Camelot Theatre include; Architect
Bruce Richey; Landscape Architect Kerry KenCairn; Geotechnical Engineer Rick Swanson (Marquees
& Associates, Inc.); Civil Engineer Robert Gunter (Marquees & Associates, Inc.), Structural Engineer
Jason Prins (Structural Solutions, Inc.); Mechanical Engineer Dan Wehage (Wehage Engineering, Inc.);
Electrical Engineer Stephen Hills (ORPAC Engineering); Acoustical Consultant George Cardas (Cardas
Audio, Ltd); City of Talent and Talent Urban Renewal Association Civil Engineer Justin Gerlitz (ZCS
Engineering, Inc.)

Knox noted that on February 16, 2010 the Talent Architectural Review Committee reviewed the plans
again and recommended that some treatment be included on the north elevation wall such as wrapping
the false façade around the back. The TAR Committee voted to approve the plans and the motion was
approved unanimously. Commissioner Sonnenschein noted a mistake in the staff report on page 3. 8-
3L.150(C) under “Finding” – The third sentence should read, “To the south of the subject site will
eventually be a public street where it now is the old Camelot theatre; to the north of the site the land
remains vacant …”

Bruce Richey; Landscape Architect – Mr. Richey presented the designs (same as Commissioners had
received). He also had included some mock ups of what new buildings in the back by the new alley
way could look like and how the view from those buildings would not be directly of the north elevation
wall that the Talent Architectural Review Committee had concerns about. The TAR Committee did not
have access to those mock ups in their review. He also showed how the ramp on that side does break
up that wall visually, and that adding another architectural element on that wall would encroach on the
42” wide sidewalk there. (36” is required but 42” is still narrow for a sidewalk) He said the cost for the
false windows were $5,000 and said he inserted those on the front because it made sense but to add
them on the alley way side did not make sense expense wise. He said that with a building that size,
and the main focus being on the inside of the building, it is very difficult to add too many elements to the
outside. There will be quite a bit of landscaping.

Commissioner Maynard asked about off street parking near the theatre. Knox said the more parking
spaces are required, the more it appears as a parking zone. Less parking allows for more of a
pedestrian area feel. He said that no additional parking had been planned for the theatre. Later in the
meeting, Marla Cates of TURA said that the West Valley View project will actually provide up to 70 new
on street parking sites. Mr. Richey had also noted the same in his presentation.

The meeting was open for public comment.


                                                                                                          4
Ron Laugheimer – 146 Hilltop Road, Talent. Mr. Laugheimer had to leave the meeting but handed a
note to City Planner to Knox, which Knox read. He said he loved the project but had parking concerns.
Not enough parking considered in the plans since there were approximately 60% more seats in the
theatre than the current one. He asked the Commission to carefully consider this matter.

Marla Cates, Executive Director,Talent Urban Renewal Agency – She said that TURA purchased the
property to work with Camelot Theater because placing the new Camelot Theater in the center of town
is extremely important. She stated how the new plans tell a story. She referenced elements proposed
in the plans being consistent to the history of Talent. “Talent was never a fancy town.”

Commissioner Stricker asked if the public open space in the West Valley View project would be built
out along with the Main Street or is it part of the deferred project. Cates said she didn’t know yet.
Commessioner Sonnenschein asked about the fenced area near the current theater; if the new theater
would take up that much space. Cates said the new theater is on two tax lots but does not take up the
entire tax lot of either.

Kerry KenCairn; Landscape Architect, 545 A Street, Ashland, OR. She addressed the concern of some
element on the alley side of the new theater being inserted. She said because there would already be
some landscaping on Talent Ave., it would be relatively easy to bring a vine panel up high on that wall.
It would soften that wall.

George Kramer, 386 N. Laurel, Ashland – He stated that this was a great project. He said it is very
difficult to build a large building and have it fit into the scale of the community, and one of the ways
though to do that is to mix materials and put the bulk of the emphasis on the corner, which the
designers have proposed. He said regarding the high use of metal siding on the building; it fits into the
Old Town Standards and by having the building on the corner and the metal seen there, visually it
tapers away into the larger space. Having a larger building behind the one in front was very typical on
Talent Avenue.

The meeting was open for Commissioner’s questions of staff, proponents or opponents.

Commissioner Stricker asked Knox about off street parking. It isn’t required, but does that mean the
subject is off the table entirely? There will be some challenges at Camelot Theater even at night now.
Knox said that essentially no. If the use was a conditional use application, it would be different. He
said 70 new spaces are being added within close proximity. The Theater is essentially an off hour use.
As new mixed uses occur, they will likely provide their own parking. Stricker said this then is a great
motivator for Phase #2 of the West Valley View project to take place.

There was a rebuttal comment from Bruce Richey. He showed again in the designs the off street
parking that will be available.

The Public Hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m.

General consensus of Commission was that they were all in favor of the project, additional landscaping
on that one wall would be good, and the parking issue is worth further discussion. Stricker encouraged
the City and TURA to get more parking as soon as possible.

Commissioner Wise moved to approve the proposed theater (file no. SPR 2010-002) subject to
the following conditions:

      That all submittals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless modified
       herein.

      That building permits be applied for from the Talent Building Department and all fees and
       System Development charges be paid prior to issuance of a building permit
                                                                                                        5
              That the project’s landscaping and irrigation elements be installed prior to issuance of a
               Certificate of Occupancy Permit

              That a Zoning Permit be obtained for any proposed signage prior to issuance of a
               Certificate of Occupancy Permit. Signage shall comply with the regulations found in the
               Talent Municipal Code, 8-3J-7

              That prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans identify the accessibility of the
               water storage vault due to its proximity along the east property line

        Commissioner Maynard seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

VI.     Application of Diane Glendening for Planning Commission position

        The Planning Commission interviewed Ms. Glendening for the open position on the Planning
        Commission.

        Commissioner Sonnenschein moved to approve Diane Glendening for a position on the Talent
        Planning Commission and to send the recommendation to Council for approval. Commissioner
        Maynard seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.

VII.    Commissioner’s Open Discussion

        Commissioner Maynard asked for confirmation of the next Planning Commission Meeting. It will be

        March 18th. Stricker asked if the Planning Commission goals could be put on that meeting’s agenda.

        She also requested educational training for the Commission be put on that same agenda. The sign
        ordinance needs to be stated as a priority on the goals. Knox mentioned the March 18th Conservation
        Training at 1:00 to be held at the Community Center.

        Commissioner Stricker encouraged each Commissioner to bring a copy of the by-laws to each meeting
        so that correct meeting order is followed. Commissioner Wise suggested 15-20 training on the proper
        order etc for meetings.

VIII.   Adjournment

        The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.

        Respectfully submitted by:



        ______________________________

        Darla DenHerder, Minute Taker



        ATTEST:



        _______________________________

        Darby Stricker, Chair

                                                                                                              6
7
8
9
10
11
12

				
DOCUMENT INFO