AGENDA ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:00 PM 2nd Floor Council Chambers 1095 Duane Street, Astoria OR
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PROCLAMATION
3.a February 29, 2020 Proclaimed Rotary Day in Astoria
4. PRESENTATION
4.a Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Annual Report 4.b Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Parking Study
5. REPORTS OF COUNCILORS
6. CHANGES TO AGENDA
7. CONSENT CALENDAR The items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the City Council requests to have any item considered separately. Members of the community may have an item removed if they contact the City Manager by 5:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
7.a City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2020 7.b City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for January 23, 2020 7.c City Council Meeting Minutes for January 21, 2020 7.d Design Review Commission Draft Meeting Minutes for January 2, 2020 7.e Historic Landmark Commission Draft Meeting Minutes for January 14, 2020 7.f Liquor License Application from Rogue River Brewing Company doing business as Rogue Ales Public House, located at 100 39th Street, Astoria for a Brewery Public House 2nd Location Sales License 7.g Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program Request to Submit Application
8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS All agenda items are open for public comment following deliberation by the City Council. Rather than asking for public comment after each agenda item, the Mayor asks that audience members raise their hands if they want to speak to the item and they will be recognized. In order to respect everyone’s time, comments will be limited to 3 minutes.
8.a Council Final Deliberations: Appeal (AP19-03) By MMCG GOI Astoria LLC (Grocery Outlet) on Design Review Request (DR19-03) By MMCG GOI, LLC, for 2190 Marine Drive 8.b Council Support for County-Adopted Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance 8.c Resolution: Big Beams, LLC Clatsop County Enterprise Zone Abatement
9. NEW BUSINESS & MISCELLANEOUS, PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA)
1 THIS MEETING IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE DISABLED. AN INTERPRETER FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED MAY BE REQUESTED UNDER THE TERMS OF ORS 192.630 BY CONTACTING THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, 503-325-5824.
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2020 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2020
PROCLAMATION
3.a February 29, 2020 Proclaimed Rotary Day in Astoria
Mayor Bruce Jones will read the Proclamation for Rotary Day in Astoria. PRESENTATION
4.a Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Annual Report ADHDA Director, Sarah Lu Heath will present the ADHDA Annual Report. 4.b Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Parking Study ADHDA Director, Sarah Lu Heath will present the Downtown Parking Study. CONSENT CALENDAR
7.a City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2020 7.b City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for January 23, 2020 7.c City Council Meeting Minutes for January 21, 2020 The minutes of the City Council meetings are enclosed for review. Unless there are any corrections, it is recommended that Council approve these minutes. 7.d Design Review Commission Draft Meeting Minutes for January 2, 2020. 7.e Historic Landmark Commission Draft Meeting Minutes for January 14, 2020
2 The draft minutes of the above Boards and Commissions are included. Unless there are any questions or comments regarding the contents of these minutes, they are presented for information only. 7.f Liquor License Application from Rogue River Brewing Company doing business as Rogue Ales Public House, located at 100 39th Street, Astoria for a Brewery Public House 2nd Location Sales License A liquor license application has been filed by Rogue River Brewing Company doing business as Rogue Ales Public House. This application is a Brewery – Public House 2nd Location Sales License. A copy of the application is provided. The appropriate Departments have reviewed the application and the Astoria Police Department has prepared a memorandum for Council’s review. No objections to approval were noted. It is recommended that City Council consider the liquor license application from Rogue River Brewing Company doing business as Rogue Ales Public House, located at 100 39th Street, Astoria for a Brewery – Public House 2nd Location Sales License. 7.g Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program Request to Submit Application The primary goal of the Assistance to Firefighters Grants AFG is to enhance the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire- related hazards by providing direct financial assistance to eligible fire departments, nonaffiliated Emergency Medical Services organizations, and State Fire Training Academies. This funding is for critically needed resources to equip and train emergency personnel to recognized standards, enhance operations efficiencies, foster interoperability, and support community resilience. The current radios used by Astoria Firefighters are nearing eleven years old. The radios are out of warranty and can become costly to maintain. Currently, we have a couple of radios that require repairs. Firefighter’s radios are their lifeline during an emergency. This makes them a critically needed resource that will enhance safety. All fire agencies in Clatsop County are working together and jointly submitting for an AFG to enhance safety and interoperability. Cannon Beach Fire Department is submitting the AFG on behalf of all fire agencies. Astoria Fire Department staff are anticipating requesting twenty-four portable radios and fifteen mobile radios at a total approximate cost of $147,000. The City of Astoria would be responsible for a 5% match at an approximate cost of $7,400. If the City is successful with this grant request 3
the Fire Department will have one year to complete the purchase from the time the grant is awarded. The Fire Department will then budget the matching funds in the 2020/2021 capital improvement fund. It is recommended that the City Council authorize Fire Department staff to apply for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant AFG program to replace portable and mobile radios. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8.a Council Final Deliberations: Appeal (AP19-03) By MMCG GOI Astoria LLC (Grocery Outlet) on Design Review Request (DR19-03) By MMCG GOI, LLC, for 2190 Marine Drive On January 21, 2020, the City Council held a de novo public hearing on the Appeal (AP19-03) of the October 3, 2019 Design Review Commission decision to deny the Design Review Request (DR19-03) to construct a Grocery Outlet store at 2190 Marine Drive. The Council received evidence and closed the public hearing except to receive written rebuttal from the applicant / appellant. Written rebuttal was received on January 28, 2020. At its February 3, 2020 meeting, the Council considered all evidence submitted on the issue and made a tentative decision to deny the request and appeal pending adoption of Findings of Fact. Staff and City Attorney Blair Henningsgaard have prepared draft Findings of Fact for Council consideration. It would be in order for the Council to consider the attached draft Findings of Fact and make a decision on the Appeal. If the Council agrees with the Findings of Fact, the Council should make a motion to adopt the Findings of Fact and deny the Appeal (AP19-03) and Design Review Request (DR19-03). 8.b Council Support for County-Adopted Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance On January 8, 2020 the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance. A copy of that ordinance is attached to this memorandum. Michael McNickle, Public Health Director for the Clatsop County Department of Health, has requested that the Astoria City Council consider supporting the ordinance to aid in County enforcement within City limits. Other jurisdictions in Clatsop County have been asked to do similarly. Mr. McNickle will be present at the February 18th meeting to answer questions.
4 It is recommended that City Council consider supporting the County- Adopted Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance with in the City of Astoria City Limits. 8.c Resolution: Big Beams, LLC Clatsop County Enterprise Zone Abatement At the October 24, 2019 City Council worksession meeting, representatives of Fort George Brewery spoke to a Clatsop County Enterprise Zone application in process. As a part of that discussion, representatives from Fort George stated they wished to secure approval for a fifteen-year long-term rural enterprise zone abatement as provided by State law. Other representatives from the four jurisdictions who sponsor the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone were present at the worksession including City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria, and Clatsop County. Kevin Leahy, who is the Enterprise Zone Manager, and Melanie Olson representing Business Oregon, were also present and answered questions. At the January 6, 2020 meeting City Council approved the rural enterprise zone abatement agreement with Big Beams, LLC. This agreement included the application submitted by Big Beams, LLC (Fort George) processed by the Enterprise Zone Manager. With the aid of tax incentives, Big Beams, intends to invest approximately $ 12,500,000.00 by redeveloping the former Astoria Warehousing property located on Marine Drive. Agreements for a rural enterprise zone between the four Clatsop County Enterprise Zone sponsors and Big Beams, LLC have been approved by City of Astoria, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria and Clatsop County. ORS 285C.403 requires the governing body of the county and city in which the facility is located to adopt a Resolution approving the property tax exemption for the facility. The Astoria City Council will consider the draft resolution first followed by the Clatsop County Commission. It is recommended that Council adopt the Resolution as presented approving the enterprise zone tax exemption for Big Beams. LLC.
5 P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, Rotary International, founded on February 23, 1905 in Chicago, Illinois USA, is the world’s first and one of the largest non-profit service organizations; and
WHEREAS, there are over 1.2 million Rotary club members comprised of professional and business leaders in over 32,000 clubs in more than 200 countries and geographic areas; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Astoria, Oregon, USA was the third club to be recognized to Rotary International membership in the state of Oregon; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Astoria, Oregon was admitted to Rotary International membership 1 February 1920 and is celebrating 100 years of making a difference every day; and
WHEREAS, since the club’s establishment 100 years ago, professional and business leaders in Astoria have continued the Rotary legacy by providing humanitarian service, encouraging high ethical standards, and promoting good will and peace in our communities; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Astoria has participated in the Rotary Youth Exchange Program to promote international understanding through scholarships, exchange programs and humanitarian grants; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Astoria has funded scholarships for students in the Astoria School District to continue their studies after high school graduation; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Astoria’s past service projects have included: The Peoples Park, John Warren Field, bridge and cabin work at Camp Kiwanilong, yearly dictionaries for each fourth grader in the Astoria School District, and the foundations for the mounted buoys at the Columbia River Maritime Museum, among many others; and
WHEREAS, planned future service projects include quarterly maintenance of the Scandinavian Memorial Park, and working with other service clubs to develop informational welcome signs at the three “entrances” to Astoria, among others to follow; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Astoria is celebrating a CENTURY of Service at a Gala Dinner at the Astoria Elk’s Lodge on Saturday, February 29, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the following service by each Astoria Club Rotarian is PLEDGED - 100 acts of kindness and 100 hours of volunteer service in our communities for the year.
THEREFORE, I Bruce Jones, Mayor of the City of Astoria, do hereby proclaim February 29, 2020, as
ROTARY DAY IN ASTORIA
and encourage all citizens to join in recognizing, celebrating and honoring the Rotary Club of Astoria for 100 years of service to improve the human condition in our local communities, for its dedication to the Object of Rotary, and for its commitment to the ideal of Service Above Self.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have herewith set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Astoria to be affixed this 18th day of February, 2020.
______Mayor 6
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2020
TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ASTORIA DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSOCIATION ANNUAL REPORT
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
ADHDA Director, Sarah Lu Heath will present the ADHDA Annual Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review only.
BY: SUSAN BROOKS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENTS: ADHDA_JanJune2019.docx ADHDA_JulyDec2019.docx Financial Report_JanJune2019.xlsx Financial Report_JulyDec2019.xlsx
7 Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Encouraging community involvement and investment in preserving the character of historic downtown Astoria while promoting its health and future. P.O. Box 261 · No.1-12th Street, Suite 114 · Astoria, OR 97103 Phone: (503) 791 -7940 | [email protected] | www.astoriadowntown.com
ADHDA Reporting: January – July 2019
The volunteers, Board of Directors, partners and staff of ADHDA remain committed to driving investment and involvement to ensure we have a healthy and vital downtown for businesses, residents, and visitors.
We kicked off 2019 with our annual Volunteer Appreciation Night where we recognized Kirk Klinger, Pat Roscoe, Sondra Carr, Michael Angiletta, Jessyka Dart McLean, Tom Myers, Sean Fitzpatrick, Jessica Schleif, and Dulcye Taylor for their outstanding efforts on behalf of ADHDA.
In April, we hosted our annual downtown clean up event: Love Your Streets. This year, we focused on the planters. Nearly two thirds of the grey downtown planters were full replanted. Dozens of trees and hundreds of plants were planted by three dozen volunteers. With the help of Recology, we filled an entire dumpster with plant materials and a small dumpster with trash and non-compostables.
This year we took a different approach to watering these planters. We paid in-house staff to water three times a week and saw improved results in the plants and saved some critical funding.
Spring 2019 also saw the final funding pieces of the 13th Street Alley place-making project come together, and the release of the RFP. We gathered a review panel to judge the designed submitted by artists and cast their votes for finalists. Then we invited the public to comment on the finalists during the March 2nd Saturday Art Walk. We were pleased that the property owners, public, and review panel all shared the same preference for the piece submitted by Andie Sterling.
Once we received our permit for the wall graphic, work began with staff and volunteers power washing the alley. With the help of a City electrician and Bogh Electric, the lighting hookups were installed in their permanent fashion. By the time art work “Gathering Song” was completed, four local artists had worked on it. Finally, we celebrated the completion of the work with a ribbon cutting ceremony just before Independence Day. Over 75 attendees toured the alley and enjoyed live music at Astoria Station.
This May we received the thrilling news that the JC Penney building would be the recipient of $148,500 grant award to assist in their efforts to rebuild the original Duane Street façade and create handicap accessible restrooms on the ground floor.
In other funding news, the ADHDA worked closely with Innovative Housing, Inc. on their LIFT application. Our focus was on building local ‘innovative’ partnerships to help this project come to fruition. With partnerships at Clatsop Community College, CEDR, and ADHDA they received
8 Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Encouraging community involvement and investment in preserving the character of historic downtown Astoria while promoting its health and future. P.O. Box 261 · No.1-12th Street, Suite 114 · Astoria, OR 97103 Phone: (503) 791 -7940 | [email protected] | www.astoriadowntown.com funding and began construction. We also helped to produce the design charettes where in local residents were able to give feedback about their needs and desires for workforce housing.
Now in it’s second year, the ADHDA Promo Committee prepared 125 Coast Guard Welcome Kits that are distributed to individuals and families as they come into our areas. The kit includes passes to local attractions, a list of downtown businesses offering a military discount, our Dining Guide, and more.
In the first half of the year, the Biz Dev Committee welcomed twelve new businesses into downtown and provided them with information on resources, parking, and how to get involved.
Our accomplishments thus far in 2019 would not be possible without the dedication of our Board, our Committee Chairs and members, countless volunteer hours and the support of the City of Astoria. On behalf of ADHDA, thank you!
9 Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Encouraging community involvement and investment in preserving the character of historic downtown Astoria while promoting its health and future. P.O. Box 261 · No.1-12th Street, Suite 114 · Astoria, OR 97103 Phone: (503) 791 -7940 | [email protected] | www.astoriadowntown.com
ADHDA Report: July to December 2019
The volunteers, Board of Directors, partners and staff of ADHDA continue to thrive, building vitality and community in Astoria.
Our most exciting accomplishment of second half of 2019 was being awarded $150,000 to pass along to the Astoria Arts and Movement Center to repair and restore the 1924 Astoria Odd Fellows Building at 10th and Commercial.
We were approached by the owners of the building to partner in the National Trust Partners in Preservation Grant. Once we were chosen as finalists, we received a $10,000 marketing grant. Of those funds, $8,500 stayed in our community. We garnered over 90,000 votes in the public interest campaign and came in fourth place our of twenty nationwide finalists. These funds will cover the restoration of the Italianate windows, seal the envelope of the building from water intrusion, repair the stucco and provide for a brand-new paint job.
Our Business Development Committee continued their welcoming efforts with visits to ten new business in the downtown district. We provide information on parking and share resources that are available to them as small business owners. We also invite new businesses to present at our General Meetings through the “Pays to Know Your Business Neighbor” program aimed at creating multi-stop shopping through referrals.
The Biz Dev Committee also hosted a NEDTalk, Novel Efforts Downtown highlighting relevant local issues as a continuing education opportunity for our business and property owners. In September we hosted Seanette Corkill of Frontdoor Back Retail Design in partnership with Oregon Main Street. It was our goal to help merchants and property owners to how to best light their buildings and storefronts. A representative from Energy Trust Oregon was also on-hand to discuss rebates and incentives.
Our Promotions Committee spearheaded the district wide sidewalk sale over the July 4th weekend to leverage natural foot traffic during the holiday. This group also supported the Downtown Trick or Treat, an important image building event supported by the volunteers that hand Mitch’s Witches.
ADHDA serves as the fiscal sponsor for the Astoria Holiday Club who has stored, maintained, installed and taken down our extraordinary holiday décor for nearly two decades. We stand in admiration of their tenacity and longevity.
To match their spirit, the Promo Committee doubled down on efforts to increase foot traffic, retail sales, and boost holiday spirit. We continued our Shop Local Shop Plaid campaign and the 10 Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Encouraging community involvement and investment in preserving the character of historic downtown Astoria while promoting its health and future. P.O. Box 261 · No.1-12th Street, Suite 114 · Astoria, OR 97103 Phone: (503) 791 -7940 | [email protected] | www.astoriadowntown.com
Downtown Shopping Raffle. To support and build on these traditions, we decided to build out the Holiday Kick-off weekend. In partnership with The Liberty Theater we offered a free showing of Elf the movie, and asked folks to bring new clean socks for a ‘snowball’ fight. It was a grand success with hundreds of attendees, and a total of over 550 pairs of socks for our school children. These will be distributed through the Assistance League’s ‘Project School Bell’.
ADHDA also wanted to expand the Downtown Lighting event, growing on the success of years past. This year we were able to get a permit to close 12th Street between Commercial and Duane. With the help of the volunteers, the Clatsop County Fairground, Ohana Media, The Q Choir, the Astor Street Opry Company, the Astoria Fire Department, and Santa himself, we hosted hundreds of folks for caroling and the downtown lighting.
We were thrilled to hear from shops on 12th Street that they were unable to attend the celebration because their stores were full of shoppers. We’re also excited to hear from other communities that would like to expand the Shop Plaid ethos into their communities, as we borrowed it from Oakland, CA several years ago. Sometimes it takes years to solidify a brand or philosophy and we’re beginning to see the results of our dedication.
The ADHDA also hosted the PNW Brew Cup in September. Our 18th festival was a great success. The festival highlights our fermentation industry from breweries to distilleries and ciderworks. We estimate over 3,500 attendees enjoyed sampling beers, listening to live music, and making fish prints on Sunday Funday.
In 2019 we also began advocating for public restrooms in the downtown core to be most visible, accessible, and plentiful. This is based on feedback from our businesses and members about both visitors and folks experiencing homelessness putting a strain on existing systems. We’ve been working closely with the City of Astoria and the Parks Department as well as the Chamber on this issue and are pleased to be moving forward with a River Walk development grant request through the Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation, pending approval from City Council.
Lastly, Astoria was well represented at the annual Oregon Main Street Revitalization awards taking home awards for Best Historic Preservation Project: The M & N Building, and Main Street Manager of the Year: Sarah Lu Heath.
The Astoria Downtown Historic District Association continues the work of encouraging community involvement and investment in downtown Astoria through promotions, beautification, small business support, community building, historic preservation, and economic development. Thank you for the City’s on-going support.
11 Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Encouraging community involvement and investment in preserving the character of historic downtown Astoria while promoting its health and future. P.O. Box 261 · No.1-12th Street, Suite 114 · Astoria, OR 97103 Phone: (503) 791 -7940 | [email protected] | www.astoriadowntown.com
12 Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Profit and Loss January - June, 2019
Total Expenses Art Walk Advertising $ 1,124 Event and Program Marketing $ 6,024 NEDTalks $ 220 Welcome Walkabout Supplies $ 163 Love Your Streets Downtown Cleanup $ 3,737 Volunteer Appreciation Night $ 923 Holiday Event Expenses $ 1,748 Main Street Travel and Training $ 1,300 Coast Guard Welcome Kits $ 100 Downtown Watering $ 4,000 Sidewalk Tiles $ 660
Total $ 20,000
Monday, Feb 10, 2020 02:43:38 PM GMT-8 - Cash Basis
13 Astoria Downtown Historic District Association Profit and Loss July - December, 2019
Total Income 503 City of Astoria - Promote Astoria $ 20,000
CoA Agreement Related Expenses Art Walk Advertising Expense $ 1,600 Design Committee Advertising Expense $ 115 Promotions Committee Advertising Expense $ 83 NEDTalks $ 218 Walkabout Supplies $ 701 13th St Alley $ 5,437 Holiday Event Expenses $ 777 70557 Regatta Celebration $ 500 Memberships in Other Orgs $ 375 Seminar/Education Expense $ 2,253 PNW Brew Cup Marketing $ 2,240 Musicians $ 5,700
Total $ 20,000
Monday, Feb 10, 2020 10:57:50 AM GMT-8 - Cash Basis
14
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2020
TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ASTORIA DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSOCIATION PARKING STUDY
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
ADHDA Director, Sarah Lu Heath will present the Downtown Parking Study.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review only.
BY: JENNIFER BENOIT, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
ATTACHMENTS: ParkingSurveyReport_FINAL.pdf
15
Astoria Downtown Historic District Association 2018-19 PARKING SURVEY REPORT
Purpose, Findings, Possible Solutions
[Date]
16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents Introduction ...... 2 Purpose of Report ...... 2 Background ...... 3 Summary of Findings ...... 5 2018 Parking Survey Summary of Findings ...... 5 Parking Survey Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………….7
Public and Private Parking Lot Inventory ……………………………………………………… 8
Options for improving Access to Downtown………………………………………………………9
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Astoria Parking Survey Summary ………………………………………………………………13
Parking Survey Area Map ……………………………………………………………………… 14
AM Weekday Survey Map …………………………………………………….………………15
Midday Weekday Survey Map …………………………………………………..…………….16
PM Weekday Survey Map ……………………………………………………….…..………….17
Parking Lot Inventory Map….…………………………………………………………..……… 18
Unreserved Parking table ………………………………………………………….………. 19
Public & Private Leased Lots table ………………………………………………..………19
Private Lots table ………………………………………………………………………..……20
Parking Stakeholder Survey ………………………………………………………………..…… 22
Public Survey Summaries ……………………………………………………………………...….25
References ………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sarah Lu Heath, Executive Director, ADHDA
Jeff Harrington, P.E., Public Works Director, City of Astoria
Shelley Kirby, Senior GIS Specialist, City of Astoria
Survey Volunteers: Ronni Harris, Kirk Klingler, Miriam Rose
Cyndi Mudge, Mudge Media 17 1 | P a g e
ADHDA 2018 PARKING SURVEY REPORT
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
Astoria parking issues were initially examined in 1963 and has since been the topic of two studies and a priority of city officials. Astoria continues to examine its parking needs as the needs of the city continue to evolve. Today tourism is a dominant industry for Astoria and on-going efforts to revitalize the downtown business district also impact parking needs for its core shopping district. The need to balance parking and downtown accessibility with maintaining a pedestrian friendly and walkable downtown with its historic nature creates distinct challenges.
The Astoria Downtown Historic District Association (ADHDA) received City of Astoria Promote Astoria funds to conduct a parking survey that evaluates private parking options, parking occupancy and possible solutions for resolving downtown parking issues.
The purpose of the study is to:
1. Update the parking space and occupancy information from the 2013 report.
2. Act on a recommendation from the 2006 City of Astoria report by Todd Scott to inventory private parking spots.
3. Create connections with businesses with private parking and employees seeking spaces.
The survey and research for this survey was conducted beginning in July 2018 with final interviews and surveys completed in September 2019.
BACKGROUND
The subject of downtown parking is not a new topic for city leaders and merchants. In 1963 the Astoria Chamber of Commerce formed a committee to work on the issue and engaged with the city. While an initial request to conduct a parking study was rejected, the city did consider several actions including the purchase of land for parking (later tabled) and declared making parking lots a priority, “entailing wholesale destruction of historic buildings,” (Scott, 2006. Astoria Downtown Parking Study Final Report, Appendix A). Fortunately, the wholesale destruction did not occur.
Since then, downtown parking has been a priority for city leaders throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Plans for the purchase of lots and construction of parking facilities were considered, pursued, but ultimately defeated. In 1987 a parking study led to the establishment of a parking district.
Throughout the 1980’s, downtown Astoria had parking meters (estimated installation late 1970’s). Meters were removed sometime between 1989 – 1991. Reasons cited for removal included: 18 2 | P a g e
1) Cost of repair/replacement and collection 2) Meters didn’t solve chronic problem of business owners and employees from parking downtown 3) Downtown Association advocated removal citing that meters affected shoppers more than employees and felt that time limits would do a better job of encouraging shoppers and monitoring chronic violators.
According to Rosemary Johnson, who was responsible for parking enforcement from 1980 to 1988, enforcement of fines to ensure consequences for violations is the best deterrent.
Following the removal of the meters, parking was not significantly addressed until 2006 when a study conducted internally by the City of Astoria was completed by J. Todd Scott, Community Development Manager. The study area was 6th to 16th from the river to Franklin. The study began in 2004 and a final report was approved in 2006. The report came to the following four conclusions:
▪ Usage numbers above 90% occupancy indicate that capacity has been reached. The areas that met this criterion was primarily between 10th and 13th on Exchange and the one-block vicinity of 12th and Commercial and in the blocks surrounding the parking lot located off 12th Street between Duane and Commercial. ▪ Their report concluded there was a need for employee parking at the central edge of the parking district (near the city plaza)identified as the heaviest use areas. ▪ The report noted that occupancy rates dramatically improve during government/bank holidays ▪ If council pursues its 2006 streetscape plan it would eliminate one or two parking spaces per block.
The summary also noted that since the City acquired the old “Safeway” block (located off of 12th between Duane and Exchange Streets), parking occupancy in these spaces increased while occupancy for the nearby on-street parking decreased. Since that report was conducted, the Chinese Heritage Park was constructed eliminating about 40 spaces and the use of the lots as unlimited time restrictions were replaced with time limits of two and three hours. These actions have increased street parking occupancy on the adjacent blocks.
2006 Highest Density Parking Snapshot
Space Type Location of Heaviest Use Daily Occupancy 2-hour limit Commercial (between 12th & 14th) and 70% 12th & 14th (between Marine & Commercial) No-Limit Exchange (between 10th & 13th) 94% 11th & 12th (between Duane & Exchange) Off-Street Former Safeway Parking Lot 71% 19 3 | P a g e
2013 Astoria Transportation System Plan
In 2013 the comprehensive Astoria Transportation System Plan (TSP) provided a detailed study of parking occupancy within the same downtown footprint studied for the 2006 report. This study was more comprehensive and involved a professional contractor, DKS Associates, to complete under the study under the guidance of city staff. The TSP is required by the state of Oregon with the goal of integrating local plans with state-wide plans. Portions of the TSP examined the parking district established in 1987.
The 2013 study noted that the downtown core has approximately 1,368 on-street parking spaces available. Of the available spaces, 559 have some type of time limit (e.g. two hour) or restrictions (e.g., ADA). 809 have no limits and are open for anyone to park.
The 2013 report noted that there were 134 public off-street parking spaces in two lots within the downtown core. The largest off-street public parking has 101 parking spaces and is located between 11th and 12th bounded by Duane and Exchange Streets. This count was completed prior to the creation of the Astoria Chinese Heritage Park, which eliminated 40 spaces. Today the lot offers 61 spaces. Another lot with 33 reserved off- street public parking spaces is located at the Sunset Empire Transit Center located at 10th and Astor. The reserved spaces are open to the public on weekends.
The 2013 study noted that the highest demand for both on-street and off-street parking was midday (11 am to 1 pm) and afternoon (2:00 pm – 4:00 pm). During midday they noted over 60% were occupied. Parking utilization was lowest in the morning with just over 40% spaces occupied.
20 4 | P a g e
2018 PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The 2018 study includes a survey of downtown parking replicating the snapshot update of the 2013 report, employed in-person and online surveys, and follows up on the recommendation of the 2006 report to inventory parking lots and find solutions for efficiency of use.
Summary of On-Street Parking Survey
Constrained Supply: The downtown core shows constrained supply (parking density of more than 85%) beginning at 11 am on Duane and Marine between 14th & 17th Streets. Franklin between 15th & 16th Streets is also heavily used.
Constrained use is also seen in central downtown on Commercial from 10th to 12th and on 11th and 12th Streets from the water to Exchange Street.
The greatest areas of constrained use grow in the evening showing occupancy greater than 85% on Duane and Exchange from 10th to 16th Streets and on Marine and Commercial from 14th to 16th Streets. (This may speak to service workers parking outside the parking district with shifts that begin mid-afternoon.)
These results are not surprising and reflect similar findings when a more in-depth study of street occupancy was conducted for the 2013 Transportation System Plan.
One key difference to note is the occupancy has increased in the east edge of the surveyed area along Commercial, Duane and Exchange between 15th & 17th Streets. (This may be reflective of renewed parking enforcement efforts that began in 2018.)
Morning use shows constrained parking on two blocks: Commercial between 8th and 9th and between 11th and 14th. There is Efficient use on Commercial and Marine between 14th and 15th.
Another problem area is around 8th and Astor near the River Walk. The 2013 report showed this area as high use for parking and those issues have recently increased due to the construction of a dialysis center on land that was used as parking (lot located between 6th & 7th off of Marine Drive). The impact has primarily affected staff of Buoy Beer. The remaining lot has eight spaces dedicated to Buoy Beer and 14 for Craft 3.
Overall, constrained parking supply is limited to a few blocks in the core of the downtown district and blocks surrounding the parking lot adjacent to the Chinese Heritage Park during peak hours (11 am to 1 pm and 5 to 7 pm). This is a typical pattern sometimes referred to as camel humps, representing restaurant traffic.
Parking for employees is more constrained for those working the west end of town by Buoy Beer. It’s also notable that many public parking spaces are to the south and across Marine Drive, not an ideal pedestrian crossing.
21 5 | P a g e
2018 – 2019 Public, Stakeholder and Employer Survey Summary
In 2018 fifteen business and stakeholders were surveyed and employees from three major private employers (Fort George Brewery, Mo’s Restaurant and Buoy Beer). In general, employees from Fort George did not find parking an issue and based on the lack of responses from Mo’s restaurant we conclude a similar response. Employees from Buoy Beer generated the highest response rate that shared a negative experience with parking. This aligns with the loss of available parking due to construction taking place along the river front, and loss of parking due to construction of the dialysis center on a former parking lot on the north side of Marine between 5th & 6th.
Other stakeholders mirrored the employee survey showing that they generally were not concerned about parking with the exception of those most affected by the construction along the waterfront and loss of spaces from the construction of the dialysis center. While the construction issues will clear up and solve those concerns, the loss of the parking lot due to the dialysis center has constricted parking for the neighborhood immediately east of this area.
Public Survey: In August 2019, during the height of the tourist season, the public was also surveyed. Fifty-seven personal interviews were conducted to complete the survey (the responses provided with the appendix include four test surveys). Thirty-nine responses came from visitors to Astoria Sunday Market (ASM). ASM is notable for its high use of parking spaces from both vendors (typically 145 vendors with vehicles) and increased visitors that add to the typical Sunday use from merchants and non-Market associated activities.
The remaining eighteen surveys were taken during the week from Commercial Street in downtown Astoria.
Survey summaries from on-the-street interviews found that:
72.13% drive a vehicle downtown
78.69% said that parking was not a factor in their decision to come downtown
40.98% are in downtown daily
40.98% are downtown for entertainment and 22.95% are downtown for shopping. 21.31% listed “other” for reasons to be downtown and note “all of the above’ work, shopping, entertainment, and dining).
Interestingly, only four respondents indicated that parking was an issue in the general comment section. The remaining comments expressed a positive experience being downtown. This supports the concept that parking in downtown Astoria is more available, less expensive, and shorter distnaces from destinations than is perceived by most people, and particularly when comparied to other tourist destinations.
22 6 | P a g e
Survey summaries from social media interviews found that:
In August an online public survey concerning parking was also conducted and garnered 289 responses.
93.43% drive a vehicle downtown
59.86% said that parking was a factor in their decision to come downtown – in contrast to those interviewed on the street.
37.76% are in downtown daily and another 30.07% are downtown weekly.
27.08% come downtown for shopping, 13.5% are downtown for work and 45.49% noted they were downtown for “all of the above” – work, shopping, dining, entertainment.
Distance to Destination; In-Person Survey
31% 37% 2 or fewer Blocks 3 Blocks More than 3 Blocks 32%
Distance to Destination; Online Survey
14% 2 or fewer Blocks
24% 3 Blocks 62% More than 3 Blocks
23 7 | P a g e
PARKING SURVEY CONCLUSIONS
Of the major private employers in downtown, response rate to the employee survey was lower than anticipated, showing a lack of urgency in regard to parking difficulties. The exception to this summary is Buoy Beer, which has experienced a recent and drastic change to losing the majority of their employee parking to new construction.
Private parking spaces, while anticipated to be an option to provide employee parking, is at capacity.
For shoppers, diners, and visitors, parking is generally available within the district, but sometimes not on the same block as the destination. Given that nodes of high congestion vary as businesses change over time, encouraging a change in mind-set and perception would be the best outcome for downtown merchants.
Visitors in particular have greater willingness to accept novel modes of transportation. When compared to Cannon Beach or the urban areas we typically receive visitors from, the cost and availability of parking makes our neighborhood easy to access. Once drivers have left Commercial Street, there is typically on-street parking availability within two blocks, which is seen as very reasonable accommodation.
24 8 | P a g e
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKING LOT INVENTORY
Astoria has five public parking lots, eleven leased lots and about 25 privately owned lots dedicated to customer or employee parking needs. Most leased spots are at capacity or have wait-lists.
Astoria has what the 2013 report referred to as “Pit Parking Lots” -- these are lots that are created where buildings once stood and later razed leaving a hole in the city’s footprint. In many cases, these holes have been converted to parking lots. Of the twenty-five privately owned lots, about six lots are considered “pit parking.”
Since the TSP report was completed in 2013 the downtown area has lost about 40 public parking spaces when the Garden of Surging Waves park was completed.
Food cart pods have taken another ten or so spaces from the lot located at the corner of 13th and Duane and another ten or so from the lot located at the SW corner of 11th and Duane. Total loss of 56 spaces in the downtown core.
One of the goals of the 2018 parking survey was to determine if a partnership between private parking lots could be arranged to allow use of those lots during off-hours when the owners are not using the spaces.
While there is a notable amount of private parking in downtown Astoria, the majority of those lots are already leased or unavailable for this type of arrangement. Insurance issues were also noted as a reason that kept owners from wanting to participate in such a partnership. With that said, many private business lots in town are already used unofficially as off-hour parking in the evening and on weekends.
Parking Lots
5 Public Parking Lots
11 City Public Parking Lots Leased Lots 25 Privately City Leased Lots Owned Lots Privately Owned Lots
25 9 | P a g e
OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN ASTORIA
Maintain and Improve Current Parking:
Recommendations
o Maintain Restricted Parking (3 hours/2 hours/1-hour limits). Consider increasing the number of 3-hour limits in some areas to improve the shopper experience. o Ensure some parking is preserved in the development of Heritage Square. o Maintain city ordinance restricting street parking for business owners/employees o Continue active Parking enforcement o Continue ADHDA education to merchants in keeping open spaces for customers o Ask ODOT to consider pedestrian crossing enhancements at 6th Street and Marine Drive.
Paid Parking Options, Not Recommended at this Time
Paid Parking Lot
Another solution is to revisit turning the city-owned public parking lot located off of 12th Street between Duane and Exchange (adjacent to the Legion Building and Heritage Park) into a fee lot. This solution was offered by City Manager Paul Benoit in 2008-2009 but was ultimately defeated by City Council when merchants through ADHDA made a case for free parking but including time limits to encourage greater turn-over. Nearby beach communities – Cannon Beach and Seaside -- who are also reliant on tourism have paid parking (meters or lots). However, this solution hasn’t been addressed since (2009) and it may be worthwhile to visit the benefits and opportunities of paid lot parking.
100 Car Parking Garage
Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 (Not considering land cost/availability)
The 2018 construction project taking place at the Seaside Civic & Convention Center included a four-story parking garage in its original plan for expanding their facility. The estimated cost for their structure (2017 dollars) was $6 to $7 million for an estimated 300 to 350 parking spaces, which included a structure that was seismically designed and offered tsunami evacuation shelter for about 3,000 people. The estimated funding of the structure proved too costly so plans to add the parking facility were scrapped.
The current standard for estimation is between $20,000 and $30,000 per stall, according to Russ Vandenberg, General Manager, Seaside Civic & Convention Center. Vandenberg based this estimate on their recent bidding process for a new parking facility in conjunction with convention center expansion. 26 10 | P a g e
Metered Parking
Returning to metered parking is the solution parking engineers would recommend for providing better access and turnover in congested areas. The downtown district may consider meters along Commercial Street. By installing modern metered parking, it is possible to shift people needing longer parking period into areas with less congestion within the district. In some cases, municipalities have used profits to fund local projects of interest to merchants affected by changes in parking.
Modern metered parking offers many advantages that the previous system Astoria used was not able to provide. For example, newer systems offer:
• Close to current display of nearby available metered parking; • Credit card & coin payments; • Instant deposit into designated account; • One meter can manage multiple spaces so fewer meters are needed; • Digital apps allow shoppers to get alerts when their time is running out; • Digital apps also allow for easier collection management by the city and by the parking enforcement officer. • Digital meters can be easily programmed allowing for greater flexibility. For example, the City could choose to shut metering off during December for holiday shopping or create a 15-minute grace period.
Conclusions:
o At this time, ADHDA has determined that the investment in a paid parking garage is unwarranted and far too costly in our current situation. o As constrained parking times are seasonal and event based, year-round paid parking may have a detrimental effect on businesses.
Recommendations:
o Park and Ride Options for Employees: Seasonal shuttle for shift workers that runs between the DMV lot located on Highway 202 just south of the round- about and encouraging carpooling. (At this time, we don’t believe that demand would be sufficient to gain adoption.) o Promote Walking and Cycling Options: Visitors should be encouraged to park their cars at the hotel and enjoy Astoria from the street level walking, taking the bus, riding a bicycle, using the river walk and trolley. Creating an awareness program for locals about available options would also be beneficial and may be executed in partnership with the Sunset Empire Transportation District and ADHDA. o Peak Day Shuttles: Other historic districts nationally and internationally have used specialized vehicles to move folks on circuit routes during peak seasons. For specific events, the Astoria-Warrenton Area Chamber of Commerce does a good job of running shuttles to their event from downtown and other outlying locations. 27 11 | P a g e
Signage
Recommendations for signage in downtown Astoria include:
• Blue P dot signage on Marine and 12th pointing to public parking lot at Heritage Square. • Public campaign encouraging people to carpool, bike, walk or trolley their way downtown.
28 12 | P a g e
APPENDIX
PUBLIC STREET PARKING SURVEY
Method and Purpose of Survey
The purpose of the parking survey was to create a quick snapshot of downtown parking use to see if there are significant changes since the 2013 study was completed. With this in mind, the survey was limited in scope and detail:
One Friday in July (capturing a typical summer day)
Surveyed area covered the same footprint as 2013 (see associated illustration)
Surveyed times were: 8 am – 10 am; 11 am – 1:00 pm; and 5:00 pm – 7:00 pm
Off-Street use of spaces
The survey did not specifically distinguish between cars parked in no-limits versus timed- limits
Measuring occupancy was based on the Downtown Strategic Parking Plan conducted by Rick Williams Consulting for the city of Bend, Oregon. Their formula offers a current explanation about measuring parking density.
Findings from the City of Bend:
Parking is considered to be constrained when 85% or more of the available supply is routinely occupied during the peak hour. In a constrained system, finding an available spot is difficult, especially for infrequent users such as customers and visitors. This can cause frustration and negatively affect perceptions of the downtown. Continued constraint can make it difficult to absorb and attract new growth, or to manage fluctuations in demand—for example, seasonal or event- based spikes.
Occupancy rates of 55% or less indicate that parking is readily available. While availability may be high, this may also indicate a volume of traffic inadequate to support active and vital businesses. Occupancy rates between these two thresholds indicate either moderate (55% to 69%) or efficient (70% to 85%)
29 13 | P a g e
use. An efficient supply of parking shows active use but little constraint that would create difficulty for users.
Efficient use supports vital ground-level businesses and business growth, is attractive to potential new users, and can respond to routine fluctuations.
Cited from Rick Williams Consulting (2017) page 25 retrieved from www.bendoregon.gov/home/showdocument?id=30975
Astoria Parking Survey Summary
Parking Use (190 total block faces)
AM Weekday Observations (8 am - 10 am)
Low use: 73.5%
Efficient use: 11%
Moderate: 12%
Constrained: 3%
Midday Weekday Observations (11 am - 1 pm)
Low use: 44%
Efficient use: 15%
Moderate: 14%
Constrained: 26%
PM Weekday Observations (5 - 7 pm)
Low use: 50%
Efficient use: 12%
Moderate: 12.5%
Constrained: 25%
*Percentages are rounded so will not equal 100%
30 14 | P a g e
Parking Survey Area
31 15 | P a g e
Parking use: AM Weekday Observations
32 16 | P a g e
Parking use: Midday Weekday Observations
33 17 | P a g e
Parking use: Evening Weekday Observations
34 18 | P a g e
Parking Lots
35 19 | P a g e
Unreserved Public Parking
Location Total No. of Owner Spaces Corner of 11th & Exchange (West of Legion Building) 17 City of Astoria
12th Street between Duane & Exchange 44 City of Astoria
13th & Exchange (pit parking) 13 City of Astoria
1590 Marine (People’s Park lot) 6 City of Astoria
900 Marine (10th & Marine) 6 Sunset Empire Transit District
Public and Private Leased Lots
Location Total No. Leased Owner No. of Avail as Amount Spaces of 3/2019 11th – 12th along rails (river front) 50 0 $90 p/quarter City of Astoria 11th & Exchange (West of Library) 6 0 $90 p/quarter City of Astoria SW corner of 13th & Duane 8 0 $90 p/quarter City of Astoria 10th & Duane (pit parking) 21 0 $50 p/m Claudine Hoch 900 Marine 16 0 $47.50 p/m Sunset Empire Transit District 1125 Marine (street level – corner of 20 0 $45 p/m Scott Seppa 11th & Marine 1167 Marine (pit parking) –West Lot 14 0 N/A Seppa (all leased to Cook Building tenants 1167 Marine (pit parking) – East Lot 8 0 1303 Exchange 7 0 $30 p/m Trish Bright (not yet (anticipated) available as of Jan 2019) 1076 Franklin (adjacent to church, 17 0 $40-$50 First United Methodist behind Senior Center) anticipated Church (parking not yet available; Church considering leasing as of Jan 2019) NE Corner 8th between Duane & 8 0 N/A Leased to Tenants of Commercial Snow building
36 20 | P a g e
Private Lots (not for lease or public use)
Location No. of Owner Purpose Spaces 800 block Duane St 22 Clatsop County Employee & Visitor Parking for County business 300 block 8th Street 19 Clatsop County Employee Parking (below grade) /fleet parking 826 Marine 22 Lower Columbia Bowl Customer parking – some spots likely to be used by new hotel project. 790 Marine 9 Sundial Travel Customer & Employee parking; willing to let others park on late during off-hours but not promoting it. 7th & Duane 19 Clatsop County Sheriff’s Dept parking Lot located between 6th & 8 Buoy Beer Employee parking 7th off Marine Drive (north side). Lot located between 6th & 25 Wauna Bank Intended use is for 7th off Marine (south side) customer parking (3+ years away) 7th & River Walk (across 14 Buoy Beer Customer Parking from Buoy Beer) 1076 Franklin 5 First United Methodist Senior Center (they Church have 22 total spots; 17 reserved for church patrons but are considering leasing) 750 Astor (parking lot for 18 Paul Larson Customer parking Safari, Video Horizons, Alano Club) 11th & Exchange (West of 36 City of Astoria Employee parking Library) 343 - 10th Street 900 Marine (10th & Marine, 8 Sunset Empire Transit Reserved for south side) District employees 1122 Duane 11 Columbia Bank Customers during banking hours; has arrangements with Hotel Elliott for their 37 21 | P a g e
guests during off hours 1100 Block Exchange 2 Senior Center Staff/Volunteers Street 303 – 11th (corner of 1th & 10 Bank of the Pacific Customer parking Commercial) 565 – 12th 11 Peace Lutheran Church patrons & Church staff 987 Duane (lot is between 30 U.S. Bank Customer & Staff 9th & 10th on Duane parking Shark Rock Center 24 Paul Caruana Customer parking for Astoria Coop (16) and Providence Heart Clinic (8) 1218 Commercial 20 Wells Fargo Customer parking 1248 Marine 10 Jerry Blakely 1400 block on 49 Parking for Astor Commercial Apartment tenants and 5 spaces leased to Commodore Hotel 1490 Commercial 8 Area Properties Customers/staff only 1508, 1511, 1535 12 Roby’s Furniture Customers/staff Commercial 101 – 15th Street 35 Mo’s Chowder House Customer only 16h & Franklin 56 Pacific Arts Center PAC performances. 16 & Exchange (south of 30 Astoria Armory)
Total Unreserved Public Parking: 86
Total Public & Private Leased Lots: 175
Total Private Lots (not leased): 396
Total Parking Lots: 657
38 22 | P a g e
PARKING STAKEHOLDER SURVEY
A selected stakeholder and employee survey was conducted as part of the study process. The focus of the survey was to get a sense of how businesses, employees and residents perceived parking in Astoria.
Surveyed Businesses
Astoria Brewing (also building owner)
Astoria Bistro & Bar
Astoria Coop
Astoria Visual Arts
Buoy Beer (also building owner)
City of Astoria
Clatsop County
Fort George Brewery (also building owner)
Mo’s Restaurant (also building owner)
Others:
Karen Allen, Astoria Brewing
Bruce Conner, Sundial Travel
Sean Fitzpatrick (building owner and lives downtown)
Paul Larsen, building owner
Lisa Smith, AVA
Noel Weber, building owner
Employees Surveyed
Buoy Beer (electronically – 43 responses)
Fort George (electronically – 11 responses)
Mo’s (printed survey – 1 response)
Summary of employer survey
Respondents: 7
Paid Parking: 3 respondents provide most, or all staff paid parking
Parking Policies: Most respondents either formally or informally inform employees that they are not allowed to park in customer spaces or on the street in front of their business 39 23 | P a g e
or in any timed parking area. The City of Astoria provides parking for its employees and staff are told to not park downtown.
When asked if they have a parking policy one respondent said, “Yes, we do. It’s called…’if you want a job…you will not park on (x) street or other street with 2 hr parking limits or under.’”
Do you want help finding parking for your employees? Only one employer responded with a “maybe” and the rest either said no or didn’t respond. Three already provide parking.
Suggestions to improve public parking: Below is a list of ideas or comments from those surveyed:
• Create a parking district map • Keep downtown employees from parking inside the zone • Possibly a parking structure • Parking attendant (respondent noted many business owners and employees park on the street) • Create more parking spaces for workers • Raise the parking ticket up by each offense: $10, $25, $50, $100, $200 • Possibly consider diagonal parking slots on Duane • Institute timed parking from 15th and Commercial to Exchange and 2-hour on 15th and 2-hour on North side of Exchange. • Doesn’t feel there is a parking problem
Special Issues: Two of the businesses surveyed are directly affected by the bridge repair work taking place along the River Walk at intersections at or near their business. The construction has highlighted the importance of available parking for customers. One business has seen a dramatic decrease since construction began and has reduced its staffing by half of what it normally is this time of year. The other business notes that customers seem to be finding them, but survey results indicate employees are struggling.
Summary of employee survey
Three companies were chosen for an overall employee survey. The business that generated the most comments was a company that has undergone a major disruption in parking and is currently surrounded by two construction projects.
Buoy Beer: 105 Employees; 43 responses
88% drive to work
12% walk to work
Where they park:
40 24 | P a g e
Astor Street was mentioned specifically by nine respondents with the majority noting they parked as close as possible and a few noted the employee parking lot (there are 8 spaces).
Challenges to getting to work: The majority of Buoy Beer employees noted that finding parking was their biggest challenge. A new dialysis center is being constructed near the restaurant on land that previously served as employee (and customer) parking. In addition, there is bridge construction taking place that limits where staff can park and still access their worksite. While the bridge construction will eventually resolve itself in two years, the dialysis center permanently removes parking that was unofficially available. Some respondents noted that they parked on the South side of Marine Drive and mentioned the hazards of crossing Marine as a pedestrian.
Weather and safety were mentioned by a few.
Fort George: 135 employees (60 full shift); 11 responses
91% drive
9% walk
0% bike
Where they park:
Primarily on Duane between 15th & 16th. One respondent noted they were afraid to tell us for fear their favorite spot would see changes. The rest simply noted they parked as close as possible or had no response.
Challenges to getting to work: Five respondents stated they had no challenges and only two mentioned parking as challenge. Traffic issues on 202 and Highway 30 were mentioned as was weather.
Only 11 employees from Fort George responded to the parking survey. This may indicate that fewer employees perceive parking as a challenge as opposed to Buoy Beer employees who have undergone a major shift in availability of parking and therefore may have seen the survey as an opportunity to voice their frustrations. Interestingly, none of the Fort George respondents mentioned riding their bikes to work although one noted they wished they could but lived in Warrenton. This is interesting only in that Fort George has a special campaign to encourage bike riding (they’ve given 75 - 80 bikes away to employees and estimate that at least 60 ride their bikes to work on at least a part-time basis).
Mo’s Restaurant: 30 employees; 1 response
100% drives to work
Where they Park: On Marine Drive
Challenges Getting to Work: None 41 25 | P a g e
Public Parking Survey
Two public surveys were conducted between July 17 and July 29. An online survey received 289 responses and an interview-style survey was conducted in downtown Astoria during the weekday as well as at Astoria Sunday Market. 61 responses were collected from the personal interviews.
Personal Interview Survey Summary Results
Responses: 58
Overall, those personally interviewed while downtown had positive responses to the parking situation. When asked if parking was a factor in visiting downtown 78.69% said no. 58.85% parked on the street and 23.73% used public parking lots. 69.48% parked three blocks or less with 40.98% noting they are downtown on a daily basis. 63.93% are in downtown for entertainment (40.98%) and shopping (22.95%) with 11.48% noting work as their reason for being downtown.
Comments were generally positive about their parking experience from those who were personally interviewed and the experience fresh in their thoughts. Those responding online tended to have more criticisms of their experience.
42 26 | P a g e
43 27 | P a g e
Those who responded to “other” primarily noted that they walked or were dropped off.
44 28 | P a g e
REFERENCES
City of Astoria Astoria Downtown Parking Study: Final Report June 14, 2006 J. Todd Scott, Director Community Development Retrieved from: http://astoria.or.us/dept/Community_Development
City of Bend Downtown Strategic Parking Plan May 31, 2017 Rick Williams Consulting Parking & Transportation Parking study retrieved from: https://www.bendoregon.gov/government/departments/growth- management/parking-study Specific report retrieved from: https://www.bendoregon.gov/home/showdocument?id=30975 Bend Shuttle Bus retrieved from: https://visitcentraloregon.com/central-oregon- stories/outdoor-activities-recreation-stories/free-summer-shuttle-takes-hassle-bend- parking/
DKS Associates In association with the City of Astoria and Oregon Department of Transportation Astoria Transportation System Plan (TSP) 2013 Chris Maciejewski, Project Manager Kevin Chewuk, Lead Transportation Planner Ben Fuller, Assistant Transportation Planner
Flowbird Parking Meter Solutions Retrieved from: https://www.flowbird.group/
45 29 | P a g e
CITY OF ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS City Council Chambers January 16, 2020
A work session of the Astoria Common Council was held at the above place at the hour of 1:00 pm.
Councilors Present: Brownson (via telephone), Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones.
Councilors Excused: None
Staff Present: City Manager Estes, City Planner Fryer and City Attorney Henningsgaard. The meeting is recorded and will be transcribed by ABC Transcription Services, Inc.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Item 3(a): Discussion on Prohibition of Formulaic Dining and Lodging Businesses
Mayor Jones briefly explained how this discussion related to the City’s vision for the future of Astoria, the importance of a thriving local economy and the city’s unique historic character.
City Manager Estes described Staff’s work done to date to research laws, regulations, and ordinances in other municipalities that prohibit or limit formulaic businesses. By the end of this discussion, Staff wanted direction from the Council about whether to proceed with developing an ordinance.
Planner Fryer gave a PowerPoint presentation on formulaic businesses and the various ways these businesses are regulated in other jurisdictions. The presentation included an explanation of how formulaic businesses are defined, a detailed comparison of regulations among various cities, and Staff’s recommended definition and restrictions.
Following the presentation, the Council and Staff discussed with the following key comments: A potential unintended consequence could be prohibiting local business owners from opening multiple locations. Staff had concerns about trying to restrict based on local ownership and they discussed with Commissioners which business would most likely be impacted, specifically referencing Pig and Pancake, Mo’s, and McMenamins. Staff reminded Councilors of the existing zoning ordinances that already limited formulaic businesses somewhat. Councilors shared their reasons for wanting to prohibit and restrict formulaic dining, to support local businessowners, protect local business owners from large franchises, support the local economy, and maintain Astoria’s character. The Council and Staff discussed two recent franchise hotel projects and shared ideas for limiting or prohibiting them in the future, which included encouraging redevelopment in existing buildings and only allowing locally owned hotels. Staff recommended the Council consider how they wanted to define local and how they wanted to deal with local hotels that are sold to non-local entities. They briefly discussed recent endeavors to restrict certain hotel development through the land use process. Councilor Brownson recommended leaving the door open for someone from out of town to do something beneficial for the community when no one local is willing, possibly by allowing out of towners to open businesses as long as they were not chains. McMenamins has 62 locations in redeveloped historic buildings. Each building is different. However, they could easily be considered formulaic based on the generally accepted definitions. Staff provided guidance on how to define formulaic businesses so that McMenamins would be allowed. Councilor Herman expressed concerns about allowing businesses as big as McMenamins because businesses with a lot of locations can easily squeeze out a smaller local businesses. Restrictions in other jurisdictions are based on a set of characteristics and the number of locations. However, after opening a location in Astoria, a business could continue to open locations elsewhere and exceed Astoria’s limit. Additionally, a franchise could purchase a locally owned business. Development Code amendments and an annual licensing process could ensure compliance with the City’s restrictions. The Councilors discussed how to define formulaic businesses and what characteristics should be avoided in Astoria. Staff recommended Code language for defining a franchise that included a list characteristics and a limit on a specific number of existing locations. Currently, 50 locations is the highest number being enforced and Cannon Beach does not allow any additional locations. To provide Councilors with some context, Staff listed franchises that had about 50 locations. Councilors were divided; some wanted the restriction to be no additional locations while other wanted to allow up to 50 locations.
Mayor Jones called for public comments.
Sarah Lu Heath, Executive Director, Astoria Downtown Historic District Association, said it would be a great asset for Astoria to have the only U.S. location of a foreign franchise. Additionally, she believed that defining a franchise based on criteria and the number of existing locations needed more consideration. Some hotel and restaurant groups have multiple locations that are all unique because they are in the business of opening hotels and restaurants.
The Councilors discussed and responded to Ms. Lu Heath’s comments with input from Staff and continued their overall discussion as follows: Mayor Jones wanted the limit based on U.S. locations, not global locations. Allowing local businesses to flourish is a side benefit when they do not have to compete with national chains. 46 Page 1 of 3 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 16, 2020 Councilor West noted that a franchise could start with their first location in Astoria, just like the company that recently purchased the Commodore Hotel. She did not want to deter outside businesses but also wanted to keep businesses small and unique. Other Commissioners expressed concern about corporate entities buying local businesses. Staff advised that economics and ownership could not be used in land use decisions and noted that the Holiday Inn is locally owned. In the Urban Core, hotels are only allowed over the water in existing buildings. This could be beneficial if done throughout the rest of the community, but it is not wise to craft code language with one specific company in mind. Staff asked for direction on how to define formulaic businesses based on the number of existing locations and listed which franchises would likely be allowed if locations were limited to 10. Mayor Jones suggested the limit be 25 locations in US because the intent was to avoid the very well-known national corporate restaurants. All other Commissioners agreed. The City already has design Codes that restrict standardized architecture. However, that had no impact on the Fairfield Inn. Staff asked the Council for direction on what characteristics should be used to define formulaic businesses. The Council and Staff discussed franchise and chain businesses with unique locations, like the Astoria Co-op Grocery, City Lumber, and Landry’s. Staff advised that the Council could create two sets of criteria, one for franchises with unique businesses and another for franchises with standardized businesses. The final consensus among the Council was to define formulaic businesses as any business with 12 or more U.S. locations and two or more of Staff’s recommended characteristics, or any business with 75 or more U.S. locations. Staff recommended allowing existing businesses to be grandfathered.
Mayor Jones called for a recess at 2:33 pm. The work session reconvened at 2:37 pm
Councilor Herman shared comments made during the recess by Ms. Heath, who had since left the meeting. Ms. Heath had said she did not want the City to limit the location of retail establishments. However, retail businesses are not being considered at this time.
Planner Fryer confirmed that the general consensus from the Council was to restrict formula restaurants, hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts, and not retail stores, banks, real estate offices, spas, hair and nail salons. She also confirmed that the Council wanted to define formula businesses as any business with 12 or more U.S. locations and two or more of Staff’s recommended characteristics, or any business with 75 or more U.S. locations. Councilors briefly discussed franchise bed and breakfasts and expressed concern about hotels getting crafty in the way they brand. Councilor Herman asked that more research be done on what businesses would be excluded by limiting locations to 75 in the U.S. She recommended the number of locations be limited to 50.
Planner Fryer led the following discussion to get direction on specific restrictions for formula businesses. Key comments were as follows: Restrictions on formula drive-throughs in other jurisdictions were reviewed and discussed. Currently, Astoria restricts them in certain zones. The trend now is for locally owned fast food restaurants to move into existing drive-throughs that are vacated by the national chains. Staff advised the Council to consider their use of the formula and the definition of drive-through, which is different from a restaurant that has a pick up window. The final consensus was to cap the number of drive-throughs allowed to the number of currently existing drive-throughs. All Councilors agreed that formula fast food restaurants should be prohibited outright throughout the City. Staff asked if the Council wanted to prohibit formula lodgings or regulate them differently. Mayor Jones suggested the City identify specific buildings that need to be saved and allow hotels in those buildings only. They briefly discussed the Red Building, Cannery Pier Hotel, and offering exceptions for historic buildings. Staff was directed to work on code language that reflected the Councilors intentions. Additionally, the consensus among the Council was to prohibit any new lodging that met their definition of a formula business.
Staff asked if Council wanted more discussion before Council’s direction was presented to the Planning Commission. Mayor Jones instructed Staff to send a draft of their recommendations to Council first, and then Councilors would decide if they wanted another work session.
Councilor Rocka expressed that the definition of formula business would still allow too much standardized architecture. Those businesses would still be subject to design standards. However, the definition could be changed to include business with 12 or more locations with standardized architecture and at least one other criteria. Staff was concerned about how that would be applied and how standardized would be defined. Ultimately, Councilor Rocka greed to leave the definition as is. Councilor Brownson suggested prohibiting standardized architecture through design standards.
Miscellaneous Non-Agenda Discussion Mayor Jones wanted the Council and Staff to discuss what the City could do when learning of privately owned properties that could be used for housing. Councilor Rocka had recently been contacted by property owner interested in working with the City to develop housing on her 1.3 acre parcel. The City has no budget or expertise that would all it to purchase property and build housing. However, other communities have leveraged land to get housing built. Maybe the City could help facilitate a sale of privately owned property to a housing developer.
Staff provided a thorough update on the City’s ongoing efforts to address affordable housing. The Planning Commission is working on Code amendments for warming centers, accessory dwelling units (ADU), and to help implement the county-wide housing study. Staff is also working out how to deal with dormitory style housing because owners of vacant properties have expressed interest. Topics not considered because they are 47 Page 2 of 3 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 16, 2020 controversial include a reduction of lot sizes, increased height allowances, reduced setbacks, and more lot coverage. Staff is using the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) landslide map to develop a new landslide development ordinance, which is required by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Also, the City is discussing partnerships with Clatsop County Housing Authority because they own low income housing.
Infill housing is controversial in Astoria and will present challenges. The State requires infill for cities with populations over 10,000 and Astoria will exceed that soon, so the groundwork should be laid now. Staff explained that before moving forward on compliance with the States infill requirements, they would need to discuss the topic with City Council at a work session.
Councilor Herman asked for update on the Merwyn. Staff said contractors were working on the building and the owners were looking for additional funding to improve and expand the scope of the project.
Councilor West recommended that Astoria explore system development charges (SDC) and construction excise taxes (CET). Staff explained the differences between SDCs and CETs. SDCs will be discussed at work session in March.
The next work session was scheduled for January 21, 2020 at 2:00 pm for department updates.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:41 pm.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Finance Director City Manager
48 Page 3 of 3 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 16, 2020 CITY OF ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS City Council Chambers January 23, 2020
A work session of the Astoria Common Council was held at the above place at the hour of 2:00 pm.
Councilors Present: Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones.
Councilors Excused: None
Staff Present: City Manager Estes, Parks and Recreation Interim Director Dart Mclean, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Dart-McLean, Finance Director Brooks, Fire Chief Crutchfield, Deputy Police Chief Halverson, Public Works Director Harrington, Library Director Pearson. The meeting is recorded and will be transcribed by ABC Transcription Services, Inc.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Item 3(a) Fiscal Year 2020-21 Departmental Priorities
Item (a): Public Works
Director Harrington updated the City Council on the progress made on their list of projects and day to day operations. He noted which projects had been complete, which projects were still ongoing, and which projects had been put on hold. His presentation included an overview of new projects that had been added to the list, funding sources and costs for each project, details about the department’s priorities and goals, Staff training, and challenges that impact the department. City Manager Estes gave a detailed explanation of the impact of state laws on gas taxes and the City’s bi-annual paving projects. He recommended that Councilors express their concerns to the League of Oregon Cities. Staff answered questions from Councilors about State laws, wastewater treatment, paving and intersection upgrades, the geographical information system (GIS), and Staff’s efforts to mitigate risk. Director Harrington provided copies of his presentation to Councilors at the dais.
Item (b): Astoria Police Department
Deputy Chief Halverson provided Councilors with copies of his presentation. He gave a detailed overview of the department’s accomplishments and challenges, priorities and goals, day to day operations, ongoing projects, service call statistics, and partnerships with other jurisdictions. During the presentation, he answered clarifying questions from Councilors about Staff training, call center operations, service call statics, and staffing levels. City Manager Estes noted that this presentation did not include a lot of details about relocating the public safety building because that would be discussed in an upcoming work session.
Item (c): Astoria Fire Department
Chief Crutchfield presented updates on staffing levels and volunteers, training, equipment upgrades, collaboration with other departments, policy updates, partnerships with other jurisdictions, reporting software, emergency response and disaster resilience. He provided information on ongoing projects, planned projects, department goals and priorities. Staff provided a brief overview on their work to make recommendations on a new public safety building and answered clarifying questions about the new public safety building, inspection services, training facilities, and policy updates.
Item (d): Astoria Parks and Recreation
Parks Maintenance Supervisor Dart-McLean gave a presentation on the department’s achievements, goals, challenges, budgeting, and priorities. He provided information on programs and projects, day to day operations, staffing levels, partnerships with other organizations, efforts to implement the Parks Master Plan, and upcoming changes to the scholarship program. Staff answered questions about grant funding for public restrooms, childcare services, consolidating the aquatic center and the recreation center, and park adoption programs. 49 Page 1 of 2 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 23, 2020 Councilors and Staff briefly discussed the need for more childcare, and the limited space and staffing that prevents the City from expanding childcare facilities and services. Supervisor Dart-McLean provided Councilors with copes of the department’s annual program guide, noting that Spanish and English versions were available at the aquatic center and recreation center.
Mayor Jones called for a recess at 4:13 pm. The meeting reconvened at 4:23 pm.
Item (e): Library
Director Pearson displayed three certificates appointing Charles W. Halderman as Postmaster of Astoria, which contained authentic presidential signatures and Pony Express seal. These certificates were recently found in the library basement and would be preserved, catalogued, and added to the archives. He provided the Councilors with copies of a handout showing the monetary values of the library’s services to the community over the last six months. He gave a presentation on the department’s ongoing projects, upcoming projects, programming and services, goals and priorities, budget considerations, an update on the renovation, partnerships with other libraries and community organizations, staffing levels, challenges, and policies. Staff answered questions from Councilors about carbon credit funding, hiring a grant writer for the renovation, facility maintenance, and the new mobile unit.
Item (f): Community Development
City Manager Estes handed out copies of a summary of his presentation on the department’s successes, challenges, and goals for the next fiscal year. He provided a detailed report on completed, ongoing, and planned projects. He explained the complexities and controversial nature of several of the projects, and shared details of Staff’s efforts to overcome challenges related to limited staffing, land use planning and policies, State mandates, and the unusually high volume of Code amendments. His presentation also provided an overview of day to day operations, collaboration with other departments, policies and procedures. He answered questions from Councilors about disaster preparedness efforts, policy and procedure updates, and the impact of a geohazard ordinance on the development review process.
Item (g): Finance
Director Brooks reported on the department’s priorities, goals, staffing levels, training, projects, challenges, and opportunities. She shared information about how all of the departments work together and with Finance to share resources and achieve goals. She also reviewed policy and procedure updates, legislative changes, services provided by vendors, tools and services provided to other departments and Staff.
Councilors expressed their appreciation for all of Staff’s work and their understanding of the challenges presented. The reports were very thorough and helpful for the Councilors.
Item 3(b): City Council Goals Updates
Mayor Jones suggested that City Council Goals be discussed at a future work session. City Manager Estes recommended the goals be discussed at the next work session, prior to discussing the public safety building.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:31 pm.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Finance Director City Manager
50 Page 2 of 2 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 23, 2020 CITY OF ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS City Council Chambers January 21, 2020
A regular meeting of the Astoria Common Council was held at the above place at the hour of 7:00 pm.
Councilors Present: Brownson, Rocka, Herman, West, and Mayor Jones.
Councilors Excused: None
Staff Present: City Manager Estes, Contract Planner Johnson, Parks and Recreation Interim Director Dart McLean, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Dart-McLean, Finance Director Brooks, Fire Chief Crutchfield, Police Chief Spalding, Deputy Chief Halverson, Public Works Director Harrington, Library Director Pearson, and City Attorney Henningsgaard. The meeting is recorded and will be transcribed by ABC Transcription Services, Inc.
REPORTS OF COUNCILORS
Item 3(a): Councilor Herman reported she was glad to see a large audience. She thanked everyone for attending and for caring about the community.
Item 3(b): Councilor Brownson reported that he attended the mini-boat launching at the Columbia River Maritime Museum (CRMM). Fifth graders from Vancouver, Columbia City, and Warrenton built five-foot-long sail boats that will float to Japan. The boats have tracking devices and they can be followed online at crmm.org. Pacific Power supported the program. He reported that Pacific Power also gave a grant to the Co- op for rooftop photovoltaics.
Item 3(c): Councilor West reported that Clatsop Community College would be hosting a talk on solar power on Thursday, January 23, 2010 at 7:00 pm. She also reported on the Council’s last work session to discuss banning formula restaurants and hotels. She and Councilor Herman spoke at the Indivisible North Coast Summit to people who wanted to know how they could get more involved at the political level.
Item 3(d): Councilor Rocka reported that he volunteered at the Warming Center.
Item 3(e): Mayor Jones reported that he attended an Astoria School Board meeting, where he read a proclamation in honor of school board members. He also spoke at a memorial service for Coast Guard Aviators and Boat Crew who’s lives have been lost in the Pacific North West over the last 60 years. He thanked Councilor Brownson for mentioning the educational programming at the museum. He hosted Senator Betsy Johnson, Representative Tiffany Mitchell, and Pacific Power CEO Stefan Bird at the youth education event. He announced that he has appointed Dave Kroening to fill the vacancy on the Astoria Planning Commission.
CHANGES TO AGENDA
No changes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were presented on the Consent Calendar: 5(a) City Council Work Session Minutes of December 12, 2019 5(b) City Council Meeting Minutes of December 16, 2019 5(c) Library Advisory Board Minutes of December 3, 2019 5(d) Design Review Commission Minutes of December 5, 2019 5(e) Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2019 5(f) Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes of December 17, 2019 5(g) Liquor License Application from Mac’s Deli LLC, doing business as Peter Pan Market, located at 712 Niagara Avenue, for a Limited On-Premises and Off-Premises Sales License
51 Page 1 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 City Council Action: Motion made by Councilor Rocka, seconded by Councilor Brownson, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Councilors Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones; Nays: None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Item 6(a): Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Readopting Certain State Statutes to Reflect Changes Made by the 2019 Legislature
A public hearing and first reading on this matter was held at the January 6, 2020 City Council meeting. The 2019 legislation passed by the Oregon Legislature, for the most part, became effective on January 1, 2020. Many of our City ordinances refer to or incorporate state statutes. Every year, the City routinely re-adopts all referenced ORS sections to pick up any changes made by the legislature. This is done by a "global re- adoption", which is the technique recommended by the League of Oregon Cities. The City is legally unable to prospectively adopt Oregon legislative changes, that is, we cannot adopt a state statute "as it now exists and is from time to time amended."
It is recommended that Council conduct the second reading and adopt the proposed ordinance.
Director Brooks conducted the second reading.
City Council Action: Motion made by Councilor Brownson, seconded by Councilor Herman, to adopt the ordinance readopting certain State statutes to reflect changes made by the 2019 Legislature. Motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Councilors Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones; Nays: None.
Item 6(b): Second Reading and Adoption of Amendment Request (A18-01) for Urban Core Overlay Riverfront Vision Codes
In 2008- 2009, the City of Astoria developed the Riverfront Vision Plan (RVP) to address issues dealing with open space, land use, and transportation along the Columbia River. The City’s north Riverfront (Columbia River to West Marine / Marine Drive / Leif Erikson Drive) was divided into four Plan areas of development: Bridge Vista BVO (Portway to 2nd Street), Urban Core UCO (2nd to 16th Street), Civic Greenway CGO (16th to 41st Street), and Neighborhood Greenway NGO (41st Street to east end of Alderbrook Lagoon). On December 7, 2009, after many public meetings and holding a final public hearing, the City Council accepted the Riverfront Vision Plan. Bridge Vista Overlay Zone was adopted on June 15, 2015; Civic Greenway Overlay Zone was adopted on October 6, 2014; and Neighborhood Greenway Overlay Zone was adopted on December 7, 2015. City Council directed further amendments to Bridge Vista in 2019. Those subsequent amendments were adopted on October 21, 2019. The current proposed amendment would implement the codes for the final section of the Riverfront in the Urban Core area.
Proposed code text amendments will include a new Urban Core Overlay Zone to address the standards for over-water, waterfront development, and land-side development including building height, building mass, width of structures, allowable uses, landscaping, new design standards, and public access to the water, etc. Proposed map amendments will include the creation of an Urban Core Overlay Zone and rezone of the area north of Marine Drive from the tourist-oriented commercial and shoreland zoning to C-3 (General Commercial) and C-4 (Central Commercial) zones similar to those south of Marine Drive.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 22, 2019 and November 26, 2019. The APC recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments (A18-01) for the Urban Core Overlay Area. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney. The consultant team and staff made a presentation at the City Council meeting on January 6, 2020. At that meeting, the Council held a public hearing and first reading of the ordinances.
If the draft code meets Council’s expectations, it would be in order for Council to conduct a second reading and adoption of the two ordinances for the Urban Core Area amendments.
Director Brooks conducted the second reading of both ordinances. 52 Page 2 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 City Council Action: Motion made by Councilor Brownson, seconded by Councilor Herman, to adopt the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff report for Amendment Request A18-01 by the Community Development Director, and adopt the ordinance amending the Astoria Development Code. Motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Councilors Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones; Nays: None.
City Council Action: Motion made by Councilor Brownson, seconded by Councilor Herman, to adopt the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff report for Amendment Request A18-01 by the Community Development Director, and adopt the ordinance amending the Zoning Map. Motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Councilors Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones; Nays: None.
Mayor Jones read the rules of appeal into the record.
Item 6(c): Public Hearing: Appeal (AP19-03) by MMCG GOI Astoria LLC (Grocery Outlet) on Design Review Request (DR19-03) by MMCG GOI Astoria LLC for 2190 Marine Drive
The proposal is to construct a one story, 16,000 square foot Grocery Outlet retail store was submitted in July 2019. The site is within the LS Zone (Local Service), GOZ (Gateway Overlay Zone), and CGO (Civic Greenway Overlay Zone). The applicable criteria, including design aesthetics and orientation of the building are reviewed by the Design Review Commission. Other zoning code requirements are reviewed administratively by the Planner. Traffic, driveway design, utilities, Public Works standards, and other site design issues are reviewed by the City Engineering Division. Those additional reviews would be completed after the DRC decision and when the appropriate applications have been submitted to the departments. Building Codes issues would be addressed by the Building Official at the time of a building permit application. It needs to be clear that the DRC and City Council review of the Design Review Request is not a decision on any of these other permits or issues.
The Design Review Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2019 and September 5, 2019. The record remained open to September 12, 2019 for the applicant’s rebuttal submittal. The Design Review Commission made a final decision on the request at their October 3, 2019 meeting and denied the request.
The applicant appealed that decision on October 23, 2019. The appellant cited several issues concerning the Design Review Commission decision. The complete list of issues appealed can be found in the Appeal of Decision document from the applicant’s attorney in the attached Record.
At the request of the appellant/applicant, at its November 4, 2019 meeting, the Council agreed to hold a de novo hearing on the appeal. That is, new testimony may be presented. With the decision to allow a de novo hearing, Grocery Outlet has submitted a revised site plan and building design changes for Council consideration. The major changes are in the location of the Marine Drive access, on-site pedestrian walkways, windows on the south elevation, and the monument sign design. The revised plans and a revised staff report addressing these changes is attached for Council consideration. The appellant’s attorney has also submitted a letter dated October 23, 2019 addressing the issues appealed. Staff has addressed those issues but has not made any recommendations in the staff report or completed the “Findings of Fact” on each of the new design issues as the City Council will need to provide direction on the final decision language. Some sections of the staff report will need statements on the Council’s findings and are noted as “Conclusion” indicating that findings need to be added.
A complete Record of all submittals, correspondence, minutes, public notices, and Orders are attached. The Design Review Commission denied the request and their Findings of Fact are attached as part of the Record. Any additional documents or comments received after the DRC decision and filing of the appeal are attached to the staff memo.
It would be in order for the City Council to hold a public hearing on the appeal and provide direction to staff on how they wish to proceed to the appeal. The Council has several options: 1) Uphold the DRC decision to deny the request, possibly with revised Findings of Fact; 2) Reverse the DRC decision and approve the request pending adoption of revised Findings of Fact; or 3) Remand the issue back to the DRC for reconsideration. It should be noted that a remand to the DRC would be heard by the DRC tentatively on March 5, 2020 (should that decision be made at the January 21, 2020 meeting) and if their decision was appealed, it would not be 53 Page 3 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 heard by the City Council until tentatively April 20, 2020, which is after the end of the extended 120 Days (April 10, 2020). The applicant is not required to extend the 120 Day period.
Planner Johnson presented the written Staff report, which included a revised site plan showing a shared access to Marine Drive. Correspondence from the public was included in the Agenda packet. All written testimony submitted to Staff since the Agenda was published was available at the dais, which included written versions of verbal testimony that would be given during the public hearing.
Mayor Jones asked if anyone objected to the jurisdiction of the City Council to hear this matter at this time. There were no objections. He asked if any member of the City Council had a conflict of interest or ex parte contact to declare.
Councilor Brownson declared that he spoke with Jeff at City Lumber about his concerns before this project was reviewed by the Design Review Commission (DRC). Those concerns were included in the written testimony Jeff submitted. The conversation would have no impact on his ability to make a fair judgement.
Councilor Herman declared that she read newspaper articles and social media posts about this project. However, that would not impact her decision or her ability to make a fair and objective decision.
Councilor Rocka declared he had read newspaper articles about the project, but that would not have any effect on his decision.
Councilor Brownson noted that one of the Daily Astorian’s articles on this project had been submitted as testimony.
Councilor West declared that all communication that she received about this project was forwarded to Staff and has been included in the Agenda packet.
Mayor Jones declared that he had also read some newspaper articles about the project. He opened the public hearing at 7:32 pm. He explained the procedures governing the conduct of public hearings to the audience and advised that handouts of the substantive review criteria were available from Staff. Mayor Jones called for the Appellant’s testimony.
Dan Dover 6600 Paige Road, The Colony, TX, Main and Main Capital Group (MMCG), requested the site plan be displayed on the screen. He stated the access points from 23rd Street to Commercial along Marine Drive have been reduced from four to three. The spirit of the overlay zone is to reduce the number of access points, which was done through an agreement with the neighbor. The location of the approach and the way it has been situated allows for more pedestrian friendly access off of Marine Drive. The access is protected all the way through the middle of the parking lot between curbs and bumpers to the front door. The narrative he had previously provided showed the original site plan and the existing site plan. Originally, trucks would access off of 23rd Street and now that is internal. The front door has been moved to make it more accessible to Commercial. There would be landscaping around the building. They have done their best to comply with every bit of direction received from Staff and the Commission. The truck dock on the south elevation was outstanding and no treatments had been done to it because the gas station is located in front of it. Glazing on that side could be a long-term maintenance issue. However, the new site plan is in compliance with new glazing on the south elevation. Originally, the plan called for channeling cabinet letters on the signage. The plan now proposes neon with acrylic overlay to better maintain the neon in the sign. However, it sounds like acrylic is an issue so they would be happy to remove it. They had started with a 10-foot monument sign with a slender middle, but the Commission required the sign be straightened from top to bottom. However, the Commission then decided the sign was not acceptable. Therefore, they have agreed to reduce the monument sign to five-feet with external illumination. The pedestrian friendly nature of the development was constantly brought up. That is subjective and they have not received much direction on exactly how to address those issues. Therefore, they hired a PhD and American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) planner to review the site plan and make a determination. He provided copies of the planner’s determination to Staff to be entered into the record, which were made available to the Councilors at the dais. They need direction on how to work with the City on the design of the site. The proposal is for an allowed use in the zone and they are doing their best to conform to what the City wants. They need specific direction on how to accomplish that. Every bit of direction received so far they have complied with only to have the DRC deny their request. 54 Page 4 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 Mayor Jones called for testimony in favor of the appeal.
Mike Grungier, Marketing Agent for Wise Real Estate Advisors said in July, he placed his sign on the property along the highway and commenced marketing efforts. He thought maybe the hospital would be an interested party, but they were not. After 17 months, in November 2016, the property went under contract to a developer. After encountering a lot of hurdles, the buyer became frustrated. After 15 months, in January 2018, they terminated the contract. Ten months later, in 2018, the property was under contract again. Main and Main Capital Group develops sites for Grocery Outlet franchises. Over 15 months, they worked to fit this concept in the area with architectural design. The buyer has shown willingness to meet guidelines set by the City, revising their design at considerable expense several times. Over the past several months, they have heard about what people in Astoria envision, possibly something historic, smaller, local, mom and pop, storefronts operated by local people. Here were are 47 months later and no buyer has expressed interest in such a development. As a lead marketing person on this property, for six years he has talked to national tenants, local tenants, interested parties, and done due diligence on the property. He can confirm there is no serious buyers that have evolved. If City Council passes on this proposal, the next opportunity for this site would probably be decades away. The owners are left with no other choice but to lease the former Napa building to whoever brings a good deal. The property owners are required to pay taxes and have for decades, which requires income. The property will continue to look as it does now, run down, pot-holed, with trailers parked all over the place. This is a very visible site coming into Astoria. He would think the City wanted it to be something different with a higher and better use. The choice is the unattractive status quo with the potential for an undesirable tenant or an attractive new development that creates jobs and serves the community.
Bill Hestand 1400 Vibar Cove, Round Rock, TX, representing the property owner The Hestand Family LLC, said he had flown up from Austin to testify, but the testimony he had prepared was not on point. Therefore, he wanted to acknowledge that his brother drove down from Seattle, his sister drove in from Gresham, and the Hestand family wants a good and productive use of the property. However, they have been left with a very difficult and unpalatable choice for the City and for themselves. If this buyer does not get approved, the property will stay as it is and they will not put it back on the market for sale. They will put it up for lease and they cannot say what kind of lessee would take the building. The building is not pretty. He drove around it today. There are freight trucks stacked everywhere out into Commercial Street. The trucks drive in and out. His father ran the truck line from the mid 60s to the late 70s. The renters have been truck lines. Beyond the design review process, the Council must look at what is good for the City of Astoria. If the City does not approve a development of the property, it will continue to look the way it does. The developers working with the City now have put tons of money into this project to try to make it equitable and meet the City’s needs. Every time they were directed to make changes, they hired professionals who were very expensive to do a design they believed the City wanted. Then, the Design Review Commission would say that was not what they meant. This has been a shell game for the developers. He has to either find a buyer that is a legitimate developer who has the capability to turn the site into something good for Astoria. Between 25 and 35 jobs will be created by this project and the owner of the store is local. This is not a franchise run by a corporate entity.
Paul Davis 33 Auburn Avenue, Astoria, encouraged the City Council to vote in favor of the appeal. He testified at the DRC hearing. It has been very obvious that the developer has tried to meet all of the requirements that the DRC requested. The changes seen tonight include improved pedestrian access and an almost unnoticeable sign. Currently, the property is ugly and does not add to the city. However, the building is old and boarded up, which adds to the historic charm. The store will be completely hidden by the Co-op and the Mini Mart when driving into Astoria from that end of town. Drivers will see through the open parking lot and have a prominent view of City Lumber. When leaving town, the development will be obvious. He believed this was an improvement to the area. He had not heard from anyone in Astoria who wanted to put their own money into developing the property because it is ugly. This is a great use for the property that adds to the city and will remove a terrible eyesore. The parking lot will provide some nice open space. He looked forward to having a low-cost grocery alternative for the people in the community who do not have that option now. He asked that City Council vote in favor of the appeal.
Mayor Jones called for testimony opposed to the appeal.
Matt Stanley, 463 Jerome Avenue, Astoria, said he was present with the Co-op and an attorney. The Co-op also invested in a traffic analysis because they have invested heavily in the gateway to town. The Co-op has been in 55 Page 5 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 Astoria for 45 years and he had been working and living in town for 12 years. The Co-op designed a beautiful building that is really engaging at the pedestrian level. People can see into the production kitchen and sales floor from three sides of the building. That will not be the case with Grocery Outlet. Even though they added windows, they will be blocked with shelving. Additionally, the proposed design puts people in danger. Access for drivers and pedestrians is a serious consideration. There are sound legal reasons why the project does not meet the design standards. City Council only needs one, but there are several standards not met. He spoke to Mr. Greene years ago about developing this property because it was a site the Co-op wanted to look at. At that time, the owners were not interested in developing and just wanted to sell. It is not entirely genuine that they want to see this property developed into something. This is an important part of town that he wants to be proud of. Real estate is a long game and he did not believe 48 months was a long time. The Co-op is located in that area now, the hospital is growing and Walt Postlewait’s new development is coming. It will not be very long before a more appropriate design proposal for this site comes along. It is not a good argument that the community would have to stare at ugliness forever.
Ty Wyman 851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1500, Portland, Attorney for the Astoria Co-Op Grocery, said the Co-op recognized that the Councilors had a very stall stack of paper to review, so they asked him to summarize the record, which he did in his memorandum. The Gateway Overlay set a high bar of thresholds and standards. His experience is that when the City receives a record of this volume, the process can be lost. There are some design criteria that pertain to vehicle and pedestrian flow. The burden of proof is clearly on the developer. The developer had the choice to have this hearing on the record, where the Council would review the DRC’s decision directly, but they chose not to. The developer chose to have the Council make a de novo decision, which keeps the burden of proof on them. “The proposal must be supported by proof that it conforms to the application provisions of this Code.” (Astoria Development Code 9.030(c)) The applicant might be subject to a high bar, but nothing in the latest design suggests a different decision from the one the DRC made. The City Council’s decision could be appealed to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Should the City Council deny the appeal and the case is appealed to LUBA, the Co-op will join in the defense of the decision. The new site plan shows the developer has expanded the site to the south, which expands the area subject to be noticed under Oregon Revised Statute 197.763. He believed the DRC made the right decision.
Rick Nyes Principle Traffic Engineer with Greenlight Engineering, said he submitted a new report. He is a licensed professional engineer registered in Oregon and he was asked by the Co-op to address transportation related issues. Even with a revised site plan and the new traffic study the applicant submitted, there are still significant issues with the project. The project fails to meet the intent of the Gateway Master Plan. The applicant spoke about the spirit of the plan with access reduction to Marine Drive. The Gateway Plan is clear in its spirit and intent that there be no access to Marine Drive. The Astoria Development Commission (ADC) also supports denying access to Marine Drive. The proposal to remove one of the gas station driveways would trade a low- volume driveway for a high-volume driveway. That is not a good trade. Additionally, the Marine Drive access would fail to meet Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards for access spacing and sight distance. The applicant has not provided any tangible evidence that there is a need for the Marine Drive access, but they do elude to safety and congestion issues that might be resolved. Their analysis continues to be based only on the Marine Drive access and has never shown an alternative. The Marine Drive access also creates conflicts with the pedestrian environment, which the DRC was focused on. The new site plan illustrates pedestrian access to the west of the Marine Drive driveway. He failed to see how this would be an improvement. It still involves pedestrians crossing a busy drive aisle. With the removal of the Marine Drive access, it would be far easier to achieve a pedestrian oriented environment. He recently discovered Transportation System Plan (TSP) Project D.6 and this project would be in direct conflict with the ability to construct that project. That project involved realigning 23rd Street into Exchange Street.
Andrea Larson Perez 115 Skyline Avenue, Astoria, President of the Astoria Co-op Board, said she represented the nearly 4,000 owners and the community that has supported the Co-op for 45 years. Their owners have invested over $2 million of their private funds in the Co-op’s project. The issue is whether or not the applicant meets the Codes. The Co-op’s representatives have spent a lot of time to provide information showing the City Council that there is adequate evidence to deny the project based on the existing Codes and the intent of the Gateway Overlay project. Pedestrian safety and access is an issue and is the underlying intent of the vision for that end of town. She believed the Council had what they needed to deny the appeal.
Julia Stavenhagen Box 184, Hammond, said she just moved here in October 2019. The Co-op gave her a living piece of ownership in property here. She believed resources would be better spent as a community in working 56 Page 6 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 on a footprint that helps the carbon footprint and helps the populous adopt a new greener way of living, which she believed was vitally important. She was one of the undesirable tenants being spoken about. She is from Texas. She was born in Galveston and moved here to escape suburban sprawl. She hoped people would pull together to support an organization like Astoria Co-op instead of inviting a business that brings a lot of Texas sized problems.
John Ryan 2495 Mill Pond Lane, Astoria, said he supported the DRC decision. He objected to some of the mitigations provided to satisfy criteria because he did not believe they were significant to the approval of the plan. Changes to the site plan are irrelevant and add to an unsustainable situation at Marine Drive. The shared entrance with the Mini Mart is ridiculous. Moving an unused curb cut as a solution to a major entrance is not satisfactory. They will still have the Marine Drive access and the pedestrians will still be a problem. There will be no Marine Drive frontage for the design of the building. No one has said anything about the size of the building. The building will be one-third larger than the Co-op. The footprint will be a square sprawling structure not per the criteria. The design is cheap and Astoria is not getting the best of their selected designs. He did not know how one could say this would not be in conflict with similar uses, which is one of the criteria in the zoning. This is grocery store retail. The customer base has been defined as dissimilar, but that is not for the City or anyone else to decide and it does not mitigate the criteria. This project is wrong for the City, for Astoria, and the community of Mill Pond. Everyone has to live with this 16,000 square foot box at the corner.
George Garcia 4784 Birch Street, Astoria, said many people see this area as the gateway to the community and have invested money in their properties to beautify them. The owners have stated theirs is an ugly site. He asked why there were no sidewalks around the property. People wish there were sidewalks in that area. There is an increase in pedestrians. He asked that the owners beautify their property to make it more palatable to people who might be interested in purchasing it. Making the property more palatable might make the property more profitable. Sidewalks would be great. He asked why the store has not proposed to finance the sidewalks. Many safety crossings with flashing lights have been put in Portland and speed limits have been reduced. He asked why the Applicants had not proposed to pick up the tab for making the crossing safer.
Zetty Nemlowill, 478 Kensington, Astoria, said she was concerned about pedestrian safety in the area, which she believed pertained to the design criteria for building orientation and access. There is a crosswalk in proximity to the new Co-op, which is used by all kinds of people, people who ride the bus and people who come from Columbia Memorial Hospital. She spoke with shareholders, the hospital, Mill Pond Homeowner’s Association, and Mini Mart, who all have a collective concern and desire to see enhancements at that crosswalk. Talking with City and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) representatives, unfortunately, she discovered that any enhancements would be cost prohibitive in that area. There is no crash data to support enhancements to the crosswalk. She understood the constraints of government and wished Astoria could do something in that area. However, the Co-Op’s traffic engineer stated in documents he submitted as testimony that the proximity of the Marine Drive access shifts the problem from the west to the east. Pedestrians will have to cross an area of conflict with vehicles that have just turned from either direction of Marine Drive along with exiting vehicles that are stacked across or near the crosswalk, limiting visibility of pedestrians for drivers entering from Marine Drive. The immediate proximity and conflicts of the crosswalk may be surprising to drivers. Grocery Outlet developers have had a long time to hire a PhD and anyone else to say that the Co-op’s argument about pedestrian safety stinks. The City and ODOT cannot afford to do anything to enhance the pedestrian crosswalk right now. She asked the Council to do everything possible to protect the area. Any development that could come in does not need Marine Drive access. She urged the Council to deny the application.
Kris Haefeker 687 12th Street, Astoria, said he was concerned about the façade and how it collaborates with the adjoining buildings and supports the traditional building styles of that district. He asked Staff to display the proposed sign on the screen. Most of Astoria’s neon sign inventory is in the downtown area and those signs were put on those buildings because they built in the 1920s. In the gateway, there is a large inventory of historic buildings that predate neon signs. There are a few buildings in the area that have neon signs, but obviously they came when neon signs were popular. He believed the neon sign was not attractive or collaborates with adjoining properties. He wanted to see the façade treatment have a little more attention and historic nature that predates the neon era with some downcast lighting, something flatter, and not so glaring.
Brad Cabellas 235 23rd Street, Astoria, said since the Co-op has opened, parking has gone from the neighborhood. The site being proposed to build on usually has 10 to 25 cars parked on it. He submitted photographs into the record and said the Napa parking lot is full in the middle of the afternoon with overflow 57 Page 7 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 parking from the Co-op and hospital. The proposal is to put a big building on a small site with a limited number of parking spaces. The developer is counting on off-street parking. He had a problem with the City preaching about preserving river views. This building turns its back to those views. The developer has the ability to turn the building 90 degrees to face the river, but they did not want to step away from their stamped footprint and design with the site.
Karen Haines 2505 Mill Pond Lane, Astoria, stated this was a de novo hearing of an appeal by the applicant. She believed the changes to the proposal represented a new application and that the applicant should follow City code and submit this application to the DRC for consideration. Absent Council support for that, she recommended that the Council uphold the DRC decision to deny the application because it does not adequately address pedestrian access, orientation, safety, and neighborhood impacts. The site is in a historic urban setting. It is a highly visible site in the gateway to the community and it is adjacent to a single-family neighborhood on two sides. While grocery stores are an allowed use for this property, this applicant has overloaded the site with a 16,000 square foot facility that is 40 percent larger than the neighboring Co-op. The applicant could put a smaller footprint on the site and improve the pedestrian access and safety and neighborhood impacts. The design creates off-site impacts that need to be addressed, impacts on neighborhood traffic patterns, off-site parking demands, pedestrian safety issues, and signal and intersection improvements on Highway 30. Since the Co-op has moved in, she had the opportunity to see some of the neighborhood impacts with a grocery store in the area. The Co-op is a wonderful neighbor, but there is more traffic on the neighborhood streets. The traffic of most concern is the truck traffic. More truck traffic in the area is using the traffic signal at 30th Street. This will be exacerbated with a much larger grocery store in the area and that needs to be addressed. She urged City Council to send this to the DRC or uphold their denial. If the Council approves this development, she asked that they consider protecting livability in the neighborhood which will be compromised by the scale of the development. She asked that the Council restrict through traffic on Mill Pond Lane, and restrict employee parking on 23rd Street and Mill Pond.
Mayor Jones called for any testimony impartial to the appeal. Seeing none, he called for a recess at 8:24 pm. The meeting reconvened at 8:36 pm.
Mayor Jones called for the Appellant’s rebuttal.
Mike Ard, no address stated, traffic engineer representing the Applicant, said his traffic impact study was included in the record. The study was first done for the original project and has been redone for this hearing because a substantial change was made to the site plan by combining two driveways. Under the prior site plan with four accesses along Marine Drive, the project fell under a discretionary section of ODOT’s Code, Division 51 Rules for Access. Those rules allow ODOT to grant a waiver to the access spacing standards and other criteria on the basis of a net benefit to the highway system and because the accesses were already existing. The new plan, which combines accesses and reduces the number of accesses on Marine Drive, falls under a different provision of the Division 51 rules, Section 734.051-3020 Approval Criteria, “The department shall approve an application for a State highway approach that does not pose a safety or highway operations concern as set forth,” in another section under Condition B, which states, “The department and the applicant reach agreement that the application moves in the direction of conforming to approach road spacing, channelization, and site distance standards.” When the number of accesses to a site is reduced, the developer falls under this provision that says ODOT shall, rather than may, approve the access. This project is no longer under a discretionary decision by ODOT and access will be granted by ODOT. The intent has been to develop the site in a way that makes sense and conforms to City Code, which is very difficult to do. The Applicants have sought direction from Staff and the DRC about how to best meet the intent of the Code and provide the City with a good project that will meet their needs. He asked that the Council approve the project and provide him with conditions of approval to allow him to meet the intent of the Code. He asked Staff to display the site plan on the screen. He wanted to make decisions that benefit public safety. The site plan shows a pedestrian walkway from Marine Drive that is centered in the drive aisle and connects to the store. A parking lot naturally has people walking to and from their cars and the store. There will always be pedestrian conflicts in a parking lot. However, there is also the need to connect the sidewalk to the front of the store. The sidewalk was located in an area accessible by people in the parking lot and pedestrians from Marine Drive. Grocery stores do not attract a lot of pedestrians who intend to carry home groceries. However, the safe sidewalk facility will be available to all parties. If the Council believes the sidewalk should be located elsewhere, let him know through a condition of approval and he would be happy to comply. He believed the site should be developable as it sits. Testimony has been provided about a road that would sweep through the back side of the building and mow through the middle of the gas 58 Page 8 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 station to the south. If it is the Council’s intent to condemn the property and the adjacent property to build such a road, let him know. However, that would be a taking. He was operating under the rules as they exist right now. The site layout provided is his absolute best shot at making this work in a way that is safe and efficient for everyone. The access to Marine Drive is intended to allow safe access in and out of the building. Without that driveway, traffic will go down to 23rd Street. At the Marine Drive access, there is a center median that allows cars to turn into a safe spot where they can stop without interrupting the flow of traffic while waiting to turn in. Cars can also turn out into the median and make a two-stage left turn. Those opportunities are not available at 23rd Street, which creates far more congestion. The Greenlight Engineering materials reference a City Code that says, “Marine Drive, as a State highway and primary arterial roadway through the city, needs to be designed to minimize congestion,” through removing driveways. However, in this case, if the Marine Drive driveway is not there, traffic will need to stop as cars try to turn on to 23rd and congestion will increase.
Mayor Jones called for comments from Staff.
Planner Johnson clarified that Staff always sends public notices to an area larger than required and the reconfiguration of the parcel did not change the area required to be noticed. She reiterated that the Council was not being asked to approve the design of the walkway or the location of the driveway because those must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and ODOT. The Staff report states that according to City Code, a new use in the Gateway will not conflict with the downtown and there are no grocery stores in the downtown. Therefore, the findings note that this use will not be in conflict with businesses in the downtown. The Council is only considering the design and approval of the design does not mean the traffic issues would be approved. The Applicants have worked with Staff on the design issues and from day one, Staff has told the Applicants that the Marine Drive access and the pedestrian orientation of the building were critical. While the Applicants did propose a lot of changes, the Marine Drive access and pedestrian orientation are still a concern for Staff.
City Manager Estes reminded the Council that the Applicants have not waived their right to final written arguments. The Council may ask the Applicants and Staff clarifying questions, continue the public hearing to February 23rd, or close the public hearing except for final written arguments. The final written arguments would be due to Staff by 5:00 pm January 28, 2020 and the City Council would reconvene on February 3, 2020 to deliberate.
Mayor Jones said this hearing had been highly publicized, so he recommended the public hearing be closed so that Council could deliberate at the next meeting. Councilors Herman and Brownson stated they agreed.
City Manager Estes reminded Councilors about ex parte contact requirements.
Mayor Jones closed the public hearing except for final written rebuttal by the Appellant, due to Staff by 5:00 pm January 28, 2020.
City Council Action: Motion made by Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilor Rocka to reconvene on February 3, 2020 at 7:00 pm for final deliberation of Appeal (AP19-03) by MMCG GOI Astoria LLC (Grocery Outlet) on Design Review Request (DR19-03) by MMCG GOI Astoria LLC. Motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Councilors Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones; Nays: None.
Item 6(d): Resolution to Transfer Appropriations within Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget for Capital Improvement Fund #102
ORS 294.463(2) provides guidance for the transfer of general operating contingency appropriations that in aggregate during the fiscal year are less than 15 percent of the total fund appropriations may be authorized by resolution of the governing body.
At the time the Capital Improvement Fund # 102 budget was prepared, amounts were set for anticipated debt service on leases to purchase two new police vehicles. When new vehicles were reviewed it was determined hybrid vehicles were and this option was more than anticipated in the budget. A transfer in the amount of $2,510 from Contingency to Debt Service is required to provide sufficient appropriations for the initial lease payment. The transfer amount represents .24 percent, in aggregate, of the total fund budgeted appropriations. 59 Page 9 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020 A resolution is attached for consideration and approval.
It is recommended that City Council consider the resolution to approve transfer of $ 2,510 from Capital Improvement Fund # 102 Contingency to Debt Service.
City Council Action: Motion made by Councilor Brownson, seconded by Councilor West to adopt the resolution approving the transfer of $2,510 from Capital Improvement Fund # 102 Contingency to Debt Service. Motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Councilors Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones; Nays: None.
NEW BUSINESS & MISCELLANEOUS, PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA) There was none.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:56 pm.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Finance Director City Manager
60 Page 10 of 10 City Council Journal of Proceedings January 21, 2020
DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION Astoria City Hall January 2, 2020
CALL TO ORDER – ITEM 1:
President Rickenbach called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL – ITEM 2:
Commissioners Present: President Jared Rickenbach, Vice President Ian Sisson, Bob Levine, Nichelle Seely and Dulcye Taylor.
Staff Present: City Planner Barbara Fryer. The meeting is recorded and will be transcribed by ABC Transcription Services, Inc.
Item 2(a): Welcome New Commissioner
President Rickenbach welcomed Nichelle Seely to the Design Review Commission (DRC).
Item 2(b): Election of Officers
In accordance with Sections 1.110 and 1.115 of the Astoria Development Code, the DRC needs to elect officers for 2020. The 2019 officers were: President Jared Rickenbach, Vice President Ian Sisson, and Secretary Tiffany Taylor.
Vice President Sisson moved to re-elect Tiffany Taylor as Secretary for 2020; seconded by Commissioner Levine. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Taylor moved to re-elect Jared Rickenbach as President and Ian Sisson as Vice President for 2020; seconded by Commissioner Levine. Motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – ITEM 3:
President Rickenbach called for approval of the minutes of the December 5, 2019 meeting. Commissioner Levine noted the following change: • Page 4, Paragraph 19 - Sentence 3 should be a separate thought. [7:25]
Commissioner Levine moved to approve the December 5, 2019 minutes as amended; seconded by Commissioner Taylor. Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (to correct a procedural error for the following requests):
President Rickenbach noted no one was present in the audience.
ITEM 4(a):
DR19-04 Design Review (DR19-04) by Richard and Candace White to construct a single-family residence at 230 23rd Street within the AH-MP (Attached Housing-Mill Pond) Zone and within the Gateway Overlay and Civic Greenway Overlay Zones.
President Rickenbach asked if any member of the Design Review Commission had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts to declare.
Commissioner Levine stated he had previously declared his conflicts of interest and/or ex parte contacts.
President Rickenbach called for a presentation of the Staff report. 61
Page 1 of 3 Astoria Design Review Commission January 2, 2020
Planner Fryer reviewed the Findings and Conditions contained in the Staff report. She explained that Staff made a procedural error in applying the guidelines and standards to the application, and presented the corrections made to the Staff report.
Vice President Sisson asked if the 2-inch inset on the glazing and the 7-ft maximum height on the garage door still applied because they were standards. Planner Fryer clarified those items did not apply. The Development Code requires that either the guidelines or the standards be applied. The guidelines require a review by the DRC. When the standards are applied, approval is given when those standards have been met.
President Rickenbach opened the public testimony. Seeing none, he closed the public testimony and called for Commission discussion and deliberation.
Vice President Sisson moved the Astoria Design Review Commission adopt the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff report and approve Design Review DR19-04 by Richard and Candace White; seconded by Commissioner Levine. Motion passed unanimously. Ayes: President Rickenbach, Vice President Sisson, Commissioners Seely, Taylor, and Levine. Nays: None.
President Rickenbach read the rules of appeal into the record.
ITEM 4(b):
DR19-05 Design Review (DR19-05) by Tom and Jada Scott to construct a two-story single-family residence with an attached garage at 245 29th Street within the AH-MP (Attached Housing-Mill Pond) Zone and within the Gateway Overlay and Civic Greenway Overlay Zones.
President Rickenbach asked if any member of the Design Review Commission had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts to declare.
President Rickenbach declared that he had spoken with the Applicant’s general contractor who called after the meeting to ask about the window. He referred the contractor to Staff. The conversation would not add any weight to his ruling, and he believed he could be objective.
President Rickenbach called for a presentation of the Staff report.
Planner Fryer reviewed the Findings and Conditions contained in the Staff report. She explained that Staff made a procedural error in applying the guidelines and standards to the application, and presented the corrections made to the Staff report. She reminded that Condition of Approval 7, regarding the percentage of window glazing, had been added by the Commission at the last meeting.
President Rickenbach opened and closed the public testimony. He called for Commission discussion and deliberation. [No one in the audience]
Vice President Sisson asked if the clear hammered glass on the exterior lights was considered diffused.
Planner Fryer stated it could be considered diffused depending on how much light penetrates the hammered glass. One condition of approval requires the glass to be diffused. Conditions of approval are enforced during the building inspection process and when complaints are made to Staff.
Commissioner Levine moved the Astoria Design Review Commission adopt the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff report and approve Design Review DR19-05 by Tom and Jada Scott, with the following additional condition of approval:
• Condition of Approval 7 - Window glazing shall not exceed 50 percent of the west elevation façade. [17:00]
Seconded by Commissioner Taylor. Motion passed unanimously. Ayes: President Rickenbach, Vice President Sisson, Commissioners Seely, Taylor, and Levine. Nays: None. President Rickenbach read the rules of appeal into the record. 62
Page 2 of 3 Astoria Design Review Commission January 2, 2020
REPORTS OF OFFICERS/COMMISSIONERS – ITEM 5:
President Rickenbach encouraged Commissioners to attend the upcoming training. He noted the audio would be recorded for those who were unable to attend.
STAFF UPDATES/STATUS REPORTS – ITEM 6:
Item 6(a): Save the Dates • Thursday, January 30, 2020 @ 6:30 pm – Annual Commissioner Training by Lisa Phipps of the State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Blair Henningsgaard, City Attorney • Thursday, February 6, 2020 @ 5:30 pm – next DRC meeting
Planner Fryer reported that there were no agenda items yet for the February 6th DRC meeting. However, there was still time for applications to be submitted. If the meeting is canceled, Staff would notify Commissioners as soon as possible.
President Rickenbach said he appreciated the way Planner Fryer handled the corrections to the requests.
PUBLIC COMMENTS – ITEM 7:
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT – ITEM 8:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m.
APPROVED:
______Community Development Director
63
Page 3 of 3 Astoria Design Review Commission January 2, 2020
HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers January 14, 2020
CALL TO ORDER – ITEM 1:
A regular meeting of the Astoria Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) was held at the above place at the hour of 5:15 pm.
ROLL CALL – ITEM 2:
Commissioners Present: President Mac Burns, Vice President Michelle Dieffenbach, Jack Osterberg, Lynette Thiel-Smith, Ian Sisson, and Katie Rathmell. Jackson Ross arrived at 5:19 pm.
Staff Present: City Planner Barbara Fryer and Contract Planner Rosemary Johnson. The meeting is recorded and will be transcribed by ABC Transcription Services, Inc.
Item 2 (a): Welcome New Commissioner
Commissioner Thiel-Smith introduced herself, noting her personal, educational, and professional background.
Item 2(b): Election of Officers
In accordance with Sections 1.110 and 1.115 of the Astoria Development Code, the HLC needs to elect officers for 2020. The 2019 officers were: President Mac Burns, Vice President Michelle Dieffenbach, and Secretary Tiffany Taylor.
Vice President Dieffenbach moved to re-elect Mac Burns as President, Michelle Dieffenbach as Vice President, and Tiffany Taylor as Secretary for 2020; seconded by Commissioner Osterberg. Motion passed unanimously.
President Burns read aloud Resolution 2020-01 from the Oregon Heritage Commission recognizing January 14, 2020 as the 100th anniversary of Oregon’s ratification of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Commissioner Ross arrived at 5:19 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – ITEM 3(a):
The December 17 2019 meeting minutes were provided to the Commission after the agenda was published.
Commissioner Ross requested the following correction to the December 17, 2019 minutes: • Page 5, last paragraph – “Commissioner Ross said he definitely believed the murals were not of historic significance, and but did have a strong cultural significance.”
Commissioner Osterberg moved to approve the minutes of the December 17, 2019 meeting as corrected; seconded by Vice President Dieffenbach. Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
President Burns explained the procedures governing the conduct of public hearings to the audience and advised that the substantive review criteria were listed in the Staff report.
ITEM 4(a):
EX19-09 *from the December 17, 2019 HLC meeting* Continuation of Exterior Alteration (EX19-09) by Jessica Archer, BLRB Architects for Astoria School District to consider one issue regarding the wall and railing between the connector, Classroom Building and the Old Gym at 3550 Franklin 64 Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 1 of 9
Avenue in the R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone. The John Jacob Astor Elementary School and the Old Gym are designated as historic in the Adair Uppertown National Register Historic District.
President Burns asked if anyone objected to the jurisdiction of the HLC to hear this matter at this time. There were no objections. President Burns asked if any member of the HLC had a conflict of interest, or any ex parte contacts to declare.
President Burns declared that he had recused himself from the last hearing due to a conversation about the mural. He had remained in the room and listened to the discussion. However, he believed he could participate in the rest of the conversation without any undue bias or influence.
President Burns requested a presentation of the Staff report.
Planner Johnson noted that the school and gymnasium were designated historic in the Adair Uppertown Historic Inventory Area, not the Adair Uppertown National Register Historic District. The Agenda stated this incorrectly. She presented the Staff report and recommended approval of the revised plan. No correspondence has been received.
President Burns confirmed there were no questions for Staff and opened public testimony for the hearing and asked for the Applicant’s presentation.
Greg McCracken [10:30] Principle Architect, BLRB Architects, stated he believed the four-foot high ornamental fence with an eight-inch curb was much more sensitive than concrete and metal. He supported Staff’s recommendation for approval. He displayed historic photographs on the screen of the railing and explained that the currently, the railing is a 42-inch high galvanized steel rail with vertical pickets that stop people from getting on to the roof. The new rail will be more of a decorative element that matches the light well at the front of the building and is much less obtrusive than the original concrete retainer. The original proposal was a bit heavy handed and the new proposal makes more sense.
President Burns called for any presentations by persons in favor of, impartial to or against the application. Seeing none, he called for closing remarks of Staff. There were none. He closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and called for Commission discussion and deliberation.
Vice President Dieffenbach stated she believed the new railing was more appropriate than the original railing that was proposed.
Commissioner Ross said the design was more contiguous than the previous construction proposal.
President Burns, Commissioners Rathmell, Osterberg, and Sisson stated they agreed and supported the proposal.
Vice President Dieffenbach moved that the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) adopt the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff report and approve Exterior Alteration EX19-09 by Jessica Archer, BLRB Architects; seconded by Commissioner Sisson. Motion passed 6 to 0 to 1 with Commissioner Thielsmith abstaining.
President Burns read the rules of appeal into the record.
ITEM 4(b):
EX19-01 Exterior Alteration Request (EX19-11) by Mike Davies, on behalf of the Friends of the Astoria Armory, to add mezzanine level windows on the North and South elevations, replace first floor windows, replace entry doors on first and second floors with aluminum and glass doors, install awning over second story door, replace all windows on the North elevation with double pane windows, replace first floor windows to match the existing first floor windows on the North Elevation, add stairs to the second story deck, on the East and West elevations replace first floor existing and arched windows with insulated glass to match the existing historic windows at 65
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 2 of 9
1636 Exchange Street in the MH (Marine Heritage) Zone. The structure is designated as Primary in the Shively-McClure National Register District.
President Burns asked if anyone objected to the jurisdiction of the HLC to hear this matter at this time. There were no objections. President Burns asked if any member of the HLC had a conflict of interest, or any ex parte contacts to declare.
Vice President Dieffenbach declared that she had recused herself when the Commission reviewed this previously because her company was doing some of the work. That work has been completed and she did not believe her company any interest in this work. She did not believe she had anything to gain.
President Burns declared that the building is next to the heritage museum operated by the Clatsop County Historical Society, which had an interest in this project as the neighbor. He had not discussed this project with Randy Stemper who is a board member, and did not know if he still had a role in this project. He did not believe he would be influenced in any way.
President Burns requested a presentation of the Staff report.
Planner Fryer presented the written Staff report via PowerPoint and recommended approval with conditions. No correspondence has been received.
Commissioner Osterberg asked if this proposal was the same as EX15-15. Planner Fryer stated there were minor differences and confirmed the Applicant could explain them.
Commissioner Osterberg believed that the first sentence of Condition 2 on Page 10 was not appropriate for a condition of approval. He recommended the sentence be removed. Planner Fryer explained the intent of the condition was to recognize that building did not have a lot of ornamentation and that the original door might be important to show that might have been only ornamentation.
Commissioner Sisson said the images in the proposal looked different from the images used in Staff’s presentation. Planner Fryer stated the images should be the same, as they were from both the original and the updated applications.
Commissioner Sisson said he did not see the drawings from the original application in the agenda packet. He wanted to compare the drawings to see if there were any differences.
President Burns opened public testimony for the hearing and asked for the Applicant’s presentation.
Mike Davies, 89905 Manion Drive, Warrenton, President, Friends of the Astoria Armory, explained that after the approval of their first application in 2016, the armory encountered asbestos and underground fuel tanks. The Friends have now secured the building in their name and have funding to continue with the upgrades. The City Planner gave a long list of upgrades and they completed about a third of the list before running out of money. Future funding is planned. At this point, they would like to upgrade the windows. He made copies available of documentation on the windows. The original windows were steel. Currently, the steel is rusted and glass is broken. To save money and because steel was so expensive, wood was added at one point. Now, that wood is deteriorated. The windows have been boarded up and painted over. Years ago, someone added cheap vinyl windows to replace some of the rusted windows. Before their permit expired, they were able to complete one window to the specification in the report and an unused storage room was converted into an ADA restroom in the style outlined in the report. At this point, their funding allows and their primary interest is doing the arch windows in the upper portion of the building. They will also work on the wooden stairwells on the north and south sides. The stairwells are approximately 16 feet by 16 feet single pane wooden frames.
Vice President Dieffenbach asked if the Commission was reviewing everything in the packet with the idea that the Applicant would proceed with the items they have funding for and continue on with the list of items as more funding is obtained.
Mr. Davies said yes, the Friends are constantly raising funds. 66
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 3 of 9
Commissioner Rathmell said she guessed the arched windows were the only ones still intact from the original design.
Mr. Davies clarified that the rusted windows on the north side were all original. The windows in the arches were all rusted steel and the stairwells were originally wood.
Commissioner Rathmell asked if the Applicant would be going with the grid pattern on the design.
Mr. Davies said yes, the grid pattern would be duplicated. The arch windows have a grid and they would be replaced with aluminum grid.
Commissioner Rathmell said the design in her packet did not look like that and did not have multiple divided lites. It had much larger divided lites that gives a different look.
Mr. Davies confirmed that the intention is to duplicate the existing.
Commissioner Sisson added that the drawings lack labels indicating the elevations or call-outs for what is being proposed. He was not clear on exactly what the Commission was reviewing.
Unidentified Speaker [32:25] made available documentation showing the original grid pattern and the proposed grid pattern.
Mr. Davies stated he was under the impression from the report that the grid pattern would be similar to what was there. The intention of the report was to confirm that the grid pattern would match the current grid pattern.
Commissioner Rathmell said the number of lites made a big difference. If the intention is to match as closely as possible and the grids will have many more divided lites than the nine that are shown, the building will have a very different look. The grid is the only thing that gives the building a characteristic look, other than the arched roof.
Mr. Davies suggested making that a condition to satisfy the concern.
Commissioner Thielsmith asked if the Applicants found photographs of the original doors.
Mr. Davies said they have not found any yet. There are not a lot of exterior photographs. The building was a low bid government building, so there was not much ornamentation. It is their intention to try to find something appropriate for the period.
Commissioner Sisson asked if the mullein on the new window was internal between the two panes of glass.
Mr. Davies confirmed it was. The window was installed in a restroom with translucent glass and had an aluminum frame. An internal mullein is not the intention for the stairwells and the upper windows. The proposed windows would have external mulleins, aluminum frames, and true divided lites.
Commissioner Rathmell stated she thought only clear glass, not translucent glass was being used as an exterior application.
Mr. Davies explained that the translucent glass would be on the south side, where most of the first-floor windows were in restrooms. The rest of the windows would be clear glass.
Vice President Dieffenbach asked what the front doors would look like if the Applicants could not find photographs.
Mr. Davies stated the doors would be period appropriate and similar to the windows, aluminum framed with glass inserts. He had not seen any photographs of the front doors, but they were striving for as much natural light as possible. He confirmed this would be done on all the doors except for the emergency fire doors, which had already been replaced. 67
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 4 of 9
Commissioner Ross said he was not clear as to what the Commission was being presented with and what they were being asked to review.
Commissioner Rathmell explained that the Applicants had presented their plan for the windows and they had not yet raised the money for the rest of the work.
Mr. Davies confirmed that the deck would be similar to the one shown.
President Burns added that the request was to approve everything on the list, which was approved a few years ago as part of their first application.
Commissioner Ross understood that the finances would limit the amount of progress on the project the Commission had been asked to approve. He suggested it would be more appropriate to narrow the scope of what the Commission was being asked to approve.
President Burns asked Commissioner Ross what he was uncomfortable with.
Commissioner Ross stated he wanted to know what the doors would look like. Additionally, what the Commission has been shown for the windows on the east face is not what is intended.
President Burns explained that the Commission can approve with request with the condition that the windows match without seeing exact drawings.
Commissioner Sisson said he agreed with Commissioner Ross. He would feel comfortable with a condition about the window grid patterns, but there were no drawings of the awning and the deck.
Mr. Davies explained that he was not on the board when the first application was approved, so he did not know exactly what type of awning had been proposed. He suggested the request be amended to exclude any items the Commissioners were uncomfortable with.
Vice President Dieffenbach noted that getting the HLC’s approval of a design costs money and time. She suggested the Commission approve the windows as discussed and the continue the hearing to review the awning and staircase, as was just done for the school.
Mr. Davies said that would be great.
President Burns stated he liked the idea of a continuance.
Planner Fryer explained that currently, a final decision is required by April 4, 2020. A continuance would require a 30-day extension of that deadline. However, if the Applicant could submit materials to Staff by February 15, 2020, this hearing could be continued to March.
Mr. Davies stated he was very comfortable with that.
Vice President Dieffenbach said the windows were the only things that the Commission had sufficient information for, so all other aspects of the project would need to be continued.
Commissioner Sisson asked if the Applicant was planned to replace existing windows or add new windows.
Mr. Davies confirmed they only planned to replace existing windows.
Commissioner Sisson said the drawings did not clearly indicate which windows were new and which windows were currently existing.
Vice President Dieffenbach referred Commissioner Sisson to Pages 6 through 8 of the Staff report, which verbally describes the work being done.
Commissioner Sisson stated he was not comfortable making a decision without seeing a drawing. 68
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 5 of 9
Mr. Davies said the replacement of the existing windows will take a long time. Any additional windows would be added down the road, so new windows could be part of the continuance.
Vice President Dieffenbach asked which windows the Applicant needed approved tonight.
Mr. Davies stated they would like to proceed immediately on the arched window and the stairwell windows on the north and south sides.
Commissioner Sisson said he was okay with the replacement of the existing windows, but the Commission did not have drawings for any of the other proposed items listed on the first page of the Staff report and should be continued.
Mr. Davies noted that the new windows were shown on the left drawing. The windows above the door were labeled as the mezzanine level, which is solid concrete. They were part of the first proposal, but the Friends currently have no plans to proceed until all of the other windows have been replaced. When the restrooms on the lower level are remodeled, the existing vinyl and boarded up windows will be replaced.
Planner Fryer suggested the Commission vote on the replacement of the first floor windows on the south elevation to match the existing windows, and the arched windows on the east and west elevations.
Commissioner Sisson asked if the Applicants were ready to replace the entry doors within the permit timeline.
Vice President Dieffenbach noted the Applicants could file for an extension.
Mr. Davies said possibly towards the end of the 2-year period. The remodeling project for the restrooms will be large and the windows are a priority.
President Burns called for any presentations by persons in favor of the application.
Paul Davis [52:30] 33 Auburn Avenue, Astoria, Friends of the Astoria Armory member, said he hoped the Commission would approve the windows. The armory is not a sexy project. It is not the Liberty Theatre or the Column. It is an old military building in a visual location right behind a beautiful old building. The Friends have struggled to find revenue because it is an old gymnasium. They serve a large segment of the community and the immediate need is to change the windows. Water intrusion is damaging the building and they are trying to save the building. The most recent battle was drywall that came down with mold behind it because water had been coming into the wall. A lot of money had to go towards roof repairs. Getting the windows approved is timely right now because the Friends have everything in place to move forward with that part of the project. He hoped they could find photographs of the doors, but he did not expect that doors from World War II on an old armory were ornate or glass. The Friends are committed to making the building a useful part of the community.
President Burns called for testimony from persons impartial to or against the application. Seeing none, he called for closing remarks of Staff. There were none. He closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and called for Commission discussion and deliberation.
Commissioner Sisson stated he was okay with replacing the windows with the added condition that they match the geometry of the existing windows and continuing the other items to a future meeting.
Commissioners Osterberg, Rathmell, Thielsmith, Ross and Vice President Dieffenbach stated they agreed with Commissioner Sisson.
Commissioner Sisson moved that the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) continue the public hearing on Exterior Alteration EX19-11 by Mike Davies to March 18, 2020 at 5:15 pm in City Hall Council Chambers to review the items that are new as well as the replacement entry doors, awning, and staircase [58:30] pending adoption of revised Findings of Fact; seconded by Vice President Dieffenbach. Motion passed unanimously.
69
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 6 of 9
Commissioner Sisson moved that the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) adopt the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff report pertaining to the replacement of the windows in Exterior Alteration EX19-11 by Mike Davies, with the following changes: • Add the condition that the replacement windows match the geometry of the existing windows • Revise Condition 2 as recommended by Commissioner Osterberg [59:45] Seconded by Commissioner Rathmell. Motion passed unanimously.
President Burns read the rules of appeal into the record.
ITEM 4(c):
EX19-12 Exterior Alteration Request (EX19-12) by Lyndsay Salmi on behalf of the Friends of Astoria Column to install two informational kiosks on the Column park grounds at 2193/2195 Coxcomb Drive) in the IN (Institutional) Zone. The property and the Column are listed on the National Register as a National Historic Landmark.
President Burns asked if anyone objected to the jurisdiction of the HLC to hear this matter at this time. There were no objections. President Burns asked if any member of the HLC had a conflict of interest, or any ex parte contacts to declare.
Commissioner Sisson declared that he was a former employee of the Applicant’s designer. He had no financial interest in this project or any bias or ex parte contact.
President Burns declared that he climbs to the top of the Column but had no other contact regarding this matter.
President Burns requested a presentation of the Staff report.
Planner Fryer presented the Staff report via Power Point and recommended approval of the request. No correspondence has been received.
Commissioner Sisson asked if Staff had any photographs of the existing kiosks. Planner Fryer stated those photographs were not included.
President Burns asked if the new kiosks would be the exact same type as the existing kiosks. He also wanted to know if the same company would be providing them. Planner Fryer suggested those questions be asked of the Applicant. She believed the kiosks looked very similar.
President Burns opened public testimony for the hearing and asked for the Applicant’s presentation.
Lyndsay Salmi, 1 Coxcomb Drive, Astoria, Astoria Column gift shop manager, said some of the images of the kiosks in the packet had been cut off. She presented Staff with more images of the proposed kiosks, which were made available to the Commissioners at the dais. She stated the kiosks would be more like informational panels, not obtrusive kiosks. The Column wants the ability to provide as much information as possible to guests and visitors. The kiosk on the promenade will provide information on the paver program and the kiosk on the viewing platform will provide information on the historical value of the burial canoe. The kiosks on the canoe will not open and will be very similar to the existing informational panels already in place that discuss the history of Lewis and Clark, the Columbia River, and other information. The kiosks on the paver program will open to show samples of the engraved pavers and provide instructions for purchasing a paver. The Column is a non-profit organization that relies on donations and purchases of tickets and merchandise. She offered to provide photographs of the existing informational panels.
Commissioner Ross asked if one of the kiosks would be interactive and allow people to look through different layers of material.
Ms. Salmi clarified that the kiosks would not be interactive for guests. Employees will be able to change out the content, decorate, and clean the interior. The other kiosks will not open; it will be a flat panel with graphics and text. 70
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 7 of 9
Commissioner Rathmell asked if the flat panel will be engraved.
Ms. Salmi stated the panel would be exactly like the panels already located at the Column, not engraved.
President Burns called for any presentations by persons in favor of the application.
Jonah Dart-McLean, 1555 W Marine Drive, Astoria, Astoria Parks Department, stated the Parks Department supported this project. The Friends of the Column are a great partner that does a great job of actively maintaining the park. This proposal will enhance the value of the visitor experience.
President Burns called for any testimony impartial to or against the application. Seeing none, he called for closing remarks of Staff. There were none. He closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and called for Commission discussion and deliberation.
Commissioner Ross said he was in favor of the request and believed the project should add value.
Commissioner Thielsmith stated she was not familiar with the kiosks already at the Column and did not know how to compare what was being proposed. Therefore, she would abstain from voting.
Commissioner Rathmell said she believed the proposed kiosks looked fine.
Vice President Dieffenbach stated the proposal met the criteria for approval.
Commissioner Osterberg agreed and said he believed the materials looked good.
Commissioner Sisson said he agreed as well, but wanted to see side by side photographs.
President Burns stated he was glad the Friends asked for permission.
Vice President Dieffenbach noted that the background summary on Page 1 of the Staff report refers to replacing broken steps.
Planner Fryer confirmed that Commissioners had received an email that included the necessary revision to the Staff report. The proposal is to replace two kiosks.
Vice President Dieffenbach moved that the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) adopt the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff report and approve Exterior Alteration EX19-12 by Lyndsay Salmi; seconded by Commissioner Ross. Motion passed 6 to 0 to 1 with Commissioner Thielsmith abstaining.
President Burns read the rules of appeal into the record.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS – ITEM 5:
Commissioner Rathmell reported that this was her last meeting.
STAFF UPDATES – ITEM 6:
Item 6(a): Save the Dates i. Thursday, January 30, 2020 @ 6:30 pm - Annual Commissioner Training by Lisa Phipps of the State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Blair Henningsgaard, City Attorney ii. Next HLC meeting: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 @ 5:15 pm
[Audio ended here at 1:16:46]
PUBLIC COMMENTS – ITEM 7:
No public comments. 71
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 8 of 9
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:31 p.m.
APPROVED:
______Community Development Director
72
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes 01-14-20 Page 9 of 9
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2020
TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FROM ROGUE RIVER BREWING COMPANY DOING BUSINESS AS ROGUE ALES PUBLIC HOUSE, LOCATED AT 100 39TH STREET, ASTORIA FOR A BREWERY PUBLIC HOUSE 2ND LOCATION SALES LICENSE
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
A liquor license application has been filed by Rogue River Brewing Company doing business as Rogue Ales Public House. This application is a Brewery – Public House 2nd Location Sales License. Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) requested Rogue Ales Public House apply for the Brewery 2nd Location License to correct a "tied house" issue which was created when OLCC issued the current Full On Premises, Limited On -Premises, Off Premises Sales and Distillery License located at 100 39th Street, Astoria. "Tied house" laws prohibit manufacturers and wholesalers from having any financial or ownership interest in a retail establishment. The Brewery 2nd Location License will replace the Limited On-Premises Sales License and the Off Premises license will not be renewed.
The Brewery – Public House 2nd Location Sales license allows the following:
May make malt beverages (but only at the 1st location). May sell and distribute malt beverages directly to WMBW licensees in Oregon. May distribute malt beverages manufactured on the licensed premises to any other premises licensed to the same licensee, whether a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retail premises. May sell and distribute directly to licensees in Oregon in a calendar year no more than 7,500 barrels (31 U.S. gallons to a barrel) of malt beverages produced by the brewery- public house licensee. May not import malt beverages into Oregon. May export malt beverages out of Oregon (Oregon has no requirements to ship or deliver malt beverages to a business or individual outside of Oregon; however, the state or country in which the business or individual is located may have requirements). May sell malt beverages, wine, and cider for consumption on or off the licensed premises. May sell malt beverages, wine, and cider to individuals in a securely covered container (“growler”) for consumption off the licensed premises (the container for wine and cider may not hold more than 2 gallons; however, the container size limit does not apply to malt beverages). 73 May sell malt beverages in a container holding seven or more gallons (“keg”) directly to consumers for consumption off the licensed premises. A “keg” is defined in ORS 471.478(4). If sell kegs must follow OAR 845-006-0441 (keg tag). The license comes with the privilege to make next-day delivery of malt beverages, wine, and cider directly to an Oregon resident. Note: must follow OAR 845-006-0392 and 845- 006-0396. To make same-delivery of malt beverages, wine, and cider directly to an Oregon resident the licensee must apply and received OLCC prior approval. Note: must follow OAR 845-006-0392 and 845-006-0396. Eligible to obtain a 2nd and 3rd location to do all license privileges except manufacture. Eligible to apply for a “special event” license: SEBPH. Must obtain an OLCC privilege tax bond. Must obtain liquor liability insurance (even if not allowing any on-premises consumption of alcohol by patrons).
The site is located at 100 39th Street, Astoria. The application will be considered at the February 18, 2020 meeting. A copy of the application is attached.
The appropriate Departments have reviewed the application. The Astoria Police Department has prepared the attached memorandum for Council’s review. No objections to approval were noted.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council consider the liquor license application from Rogue River Brewing Company doing business as Rogue Ales Public House, located at 100 39th Street, Astoria for a Brewery - Public House 2nd Location Sales License.
BY: SUSAN BROOKS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENTS: 01-20 LL Rogue Ales Public House Agenda Packet.pdf
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2020
TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT (AFG) PROGRAM REQUEST TO SUBMIT APPLICATION
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
The primary goal of the Assistance to Firefighters Grants AFG is to enhance the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire- related hazards by providing direct financial assistance to eligible fire departments, nonaffiliated Emergency Medical Services organizations, and State Fire Training Academies. This funding is for critically needed resources to equip and train emergency personnel to recognized standards, enhance operations efficiencies, foster interoperability, and support community resilience.
The current radios used by Astoria Firefighters are nearing eleven years old. The radios are out of warranty and can become costly to maintain. Currently, we have a couple of radios that require repairs. Firefighter’s radios are their lifeline during an emergency. This makes them a critically needed resource that will enhance safety. All fire agencies in Clatsop County are working together and jointly submitting for an AFG to enhance safety and interoperability. Cannon Beach Fire Department is submitting the AFG on behalf of all fire agencies.
Astoria Fire Department staff are anticipating requesting twenty-four portable radios and fifteen mobile radios at a total approximate cost of $147,000. The City of Astoria would be responsible for a 5% match at an approximate cost of $7,400. If the City is successful with this grant request the Fire Department will have one year to complete the purchase from the time the grant is awarded. The Fire Department will then budget the matching funds in the 2020/2021 capital improvement fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize Fire Department staff to apply for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant AFG program to replace portable and mobile radios.
BY: DAN CRUTCHFIELD, CHIEF
ATTACHMENTS:
83
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2020
TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: COUNCIL FINAL DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL (AP19-03) BY MMCG GOI ASTORIA LLC (GROCERY OUTLET) ON DESIGN REVIEW REQUEST (DR19-03) BY MMCG GOI, LLC, FOR 2190 MARINE DRIVE
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
On January 21, 2020, the City Council held a de novo public hearing on the Appeal (AP19- 03) of the October 3, 2019 Design Review Commission decision to deny the Design Review Request (DR19-03) to construct a Grocery Outlet store at 2190 Marine Drive. The Council received evidence and closed the public hearing except to receive written rebuttal from the applicant / appellant. Written rebuttal was received on January 28, 2020. At its February 3, 2020 meeting, the Council considered all evidence submitted on the issue and made a tentative decision to deny the request and appeal pending adoption of Findings of Fact.
Staff and City Attorney Blair Henningsgaard have prepared draft Findings of Fact for Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
It would be in order for the Council to consider the attached draft Findings of Fact and make a decision on the Appeal. If the Council agrees with the Findings of Fact, the Council should make a motion to adopt the Findings of Fact and deny the Appeal (AP19-03) and Design Review Request (DR19-03).
BY: ROSEMARY JOHNSON, PLANNER
ATTACHMENTS: GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.pdf
84 CITY OF ASTORIA Founded 1811 ● Incorporated 1856
1095 Duane St., Astoria, OR 97103
FINDINGS OF FACT - FOR APPEAL AP19-03
February 12, 2020
SUBJECT: APPEAL (AP19-03) BY MMCG GOI ASTORIA LLC ON DESIGN REVIEW REQUEST (DR19-03) BY MMCG GOI ASTORIA LLC TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL RETAIL FACILITY AT 2190 MARINE DRIVE
I. SUMMARY
A. Applicant: MMCG GOI Astoria, LLC 6600 Paige Rd #224 The Colony TX75056
B. Owner: Heestand Family LLC (Tax Lot 1402) 1400 Vibar Cove Round Rock TX 78681
Heestand Family LLC (Tax Lot 1401 & 1700) c/o T P Freightlines Accounts Payable PO Box 580 Tillamook OR 97141-0580
Bill Heestand, Managing Member Heestand Family LLC 1065 SW Wallula Dr Gresham OR 97080
CKRD LLC (Tax Lot 1400) PO Box 910 Warrenton OR 97146
C. Location: 2190 Marine Drive (formerly 2275 Commercial Street); Map T8N- R9W Section 8DA, Tax Lots 1401, 1402, 1700; Lots 1 to 6, Block 127, Shively; north portion of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 128, Shively; and vacated portion of Duane and 22nd Streets
2260-2264 Marine Drive; Map T8N-R9W Section 8DA, Tax Lots 1300 & 1400; north portions of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Block 126, Shively; and vacated portion of Duane Street
D. Zone: LS (Local Services), Gateway Overlay, Civic Greenway Overlay 85 1
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2
E. Proposal: To construct a one-story 16,000 square foot commercial building for retail sales
F. 120 Days: Application deemed complete on July 23, 2019. The 120-day period ends on November 20, 2019. On September 5, 2019, the applicant extended the date to January 23, 2020. On November 12, 2019, the applicant extended the date to April 10, 2020.
II. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
A. Design Review Commission
The subject property is located in the Gateway Overlay Zone, Astoria Development Code (hereinafter ADC) §§14.001-10.030 as well as the Civic Greenway Overlay Zone, ADC §§14.035-14.075, Zones. Design review standards for both overlay zones apply to the proposed project.
This matter came before the Astoria Design Review Commission (hereinafter “DRC”) on August 1, 2019.
Public notice was mailed to property owners within 250 feet pursuant to ADC §9.020 on July 8, 2019. Notice of public hearing was published in The Astorian on July 20, 2019. On-site notice pursuant to ADC § 9.020.D was posted July 12, 2019.
The DRC held public hearings on August 1, 2019 and September 5, 2019. The applicant’s final written rebuttal was received September 12, 2019. The DRC made its final decision on October 3, 2019, adopted findings and denied the request.
B. City Council
The applicant appealed the DRC decision on October 23, 2019 and requested de novo review. The Council agreed to consider the matter as such pursuant to ADC §9.040.F.
Public notice was mailed to Neighborhood Associations, various agencies, and parties to the Record on December 27, 2019 and published in The Astorian on January 11, 2020 pursuant to ADC §9.020.
The record before the DRC decision and subsequent submittals were presented to the Council at a January 21, 2020 de novo public hearing. The Council received evidence and closed the public hearing except to receive written rebuttal from the applicant / appellant.
86 2
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 C. Applicant / Attorney Final Rebuttal
The applicant’s attorney submitted final written rebuttal on January 28, 2020.
1. In applicant’s rebuttal dated 1-28-20, Item 1 states “. . . Because this is a de novo hearing, the City Council is making a new decision and owes no deference to the DRC’s decision. . .”
Finding: Deference to the DRC’s decision is not at issue. As requested by applicant/appellant, the Council considered the application de novo. On such review, the Council does not determine whether the DRC decision is sustainable as a matter of law. Rather, it determines whether the “proposal [is] supported by proof that it conforms to the applicable provisions of this Code.” ADC §9.030.C.
2. In applicant’s rebuttal dated 1-28-20, Item 2.B states “The DRC’s ‘visual knowledge’ was not part of the record before the DRC, was not, provided to the parties, and is not part of the record in this case. It is fairly described as an ex parte contact because the DRC’s ‘visual knowledge’ was obtained outside of the record and is known only to the DRC members . . .”
Finding: The Council heard the appeal of the DRC’s decision but allowed additional information and evidence with the de novo hearing. The Council does not sit in judgment of the factual bases for DRC’s findings. Rather, it renders an independent determination as to whether the “proposal [is] supported by proof that it conforms to the applicable provisions of this Code.” Any undisclosed “visual knowledge” of any DRC member is irrelevant to the Council’s judgment of the sufficiency of the evidence.
3. In applicant’s rebuttal dated 1-28-20, Item 2.A states “. . .To the extent either the DRC or the City Council relied upon, or attempt to rely upon . . . a ‘Historic Inventory Area’ and documents from that 2013 inventory which are not included within the Record . . . such reliance is contrary to ORS 197.195(1).”
Finding: Under ORS 197.195(1), the City was to “incorporate all Comprehensive Plan standards applicable to limited land use decisions into their land use regulations.” The Council assumes, without deciding, that this constitutes a limited land use decision. Simply to provide factual context, relevant portions of the Historic Inventory were provided to the Council for the January 21, 2020 hearing on de novo review. (Also, the Historic Inventory is subject to official notice.) The Council applies no provision of the inventory as a criterion applicable to this decision, thus complies with ORS 197.195(1).
87 3
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 III. BACKGROUND
Site:
The subject property is located on the north side of Marine Drive, between 23rd Street and the merger of Commercial Street and Marine Drive. The project covers three tax lots, a large portion of which is currently utilized as a loading area for industrial and commercial activity. It was formerly the location of TP Freight and a NAPA Auto Parts retail sales establishment. It also includes the adjacent mini-mart tax lot for shared access. The site is relatively flat and has access from Marine Drive on the south and Commercial Street on the north.
site
Area:
The proposed location is bounded on the north by Commercial Street, City Lumber hardware and home improvement store, Walter Nelson janitorial supply store, and a single-family dwelling in Mill Pond; to east by 23rd Street, a single-family dwelling in Mill Pond, Mill Pond Pergola park, and the Astoria Co-op grocery store under construction; to the south by the Mini Mart/Laundromat/Gas station, and across Marine Drive right-of-way with medical offices, Franz Bakery outlet, and City sewer lift station; and to the west by the intersection of Commercial Street and Marine Drive.
The broader area is dominated by major institutional uses, including the Columbia River Maritime Museum and Barbey Center, City of Astoria Aquatics Center, Columbia Memorial Hospital and Pavilion, Oregon State University Seafood Lab, and residential development at the Mill Pond.
88 4
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 Proposed Construction:
This proposal is to construct a one story, 16,000 square foot Grocery Outlet retail store. Retail Sales Establishments are an outright permitted use in the LS Zone (Local Service). The applicable criteria, including design aesthetics and orientation of the building are reviewed in this staff report.
Style: single story rectangular (almost square) building 132’ x 124 with a parapet wall; tower element at northwest corner entry
Roof: 27.7’ high to top of parapet with 33’ high to top of tower element; sloped roof with white TPO membrane over rigid insulation over metal deck; roof hidden behind the parapet
Siding: each elevation has a mixture of horizontal fiber cement lap siding with 6” reveal in “Putnam Ivory” color, and vertical metal corrugated panels in “Decatur Buff” color
Windows: clear, insulated low “E” glass; 2” x 4.5” aluminum, true divided, storefront window system; fixed; 2” x 4” wood casing
Doors: steel man doors; steel coiled overhead cargo door; single full lite, aluminum sliding entry doors
Other Design Elements: metal canopy over entryway; steel trellis canopy on three sides; corner boards on horizontal siding
Exterior Lighting: single and double head bronze or black pole lighting in parking lot; wall mounted fixture at loading dock, all four elevations; goose neck pan design; clear glass with bulbs within the fixture for shielding.
Signs: neon individual can letter wall signs with no clear acrylic face on west and east elevation; external lit 5’ high monument signs on northwest corner of site.
IV. BACKGROUND CODES
The Gateway Overlay Zone (hereinafter GOZ) was created to implement the concepts and guidelines of the Astoria Gateway Master Plan, dated April 1997. ADC §14.005. Development within this area is reviewed for consistency with the Design Review Guidelines in ADC §§14.020 through 14.030. ADC §14.015.B.
The Civic Greenway Overlay Zone (hereinafter CGO) was created to implement the principles of the Astoria Riverfront Vision Plan of 2009. ADC §14.035. Applications for non-residential development are reviewed for consistency with the Design Review Guidelines in ADC §14.025. ADC §14.040.B.
89 5
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 V. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT
A. ADC §14.025 describes a purpose of the GOZ to promote architectural styles characteristic of Astoria and encourage: • A variety of styles; • Simplicity of style; • Historic building types commonly found in the Uppertown area; and to discourage: • Building styles and details not inspired by Astoria’s past; • Monotony of design.
Finding: ADC §§14.015B through 14.030 adopt the provisions of ADC §14.025 as criteria for designs in the GOZ. This section describes the most fundamental principles to be applied in the review of new construction and major renovation in the GOZ.
Finding: Three historic building types commonly found in the area include waterfront industrial, commercial, and residential. The proposed development is a commercial building. The structure is one story tall (27.7’) with a tower element over the main entry (33’). The structure uses some materials characteristics of waterfront buildings with the use of horizontal siding and the corrugated metal siding. However, the design of the building is modern and does not reflect the historic building types in the Uppertown area.
Finding: Uppertown is a Historic Inventory Area in the City of Astoria. The 2013 Historic Inventory indicate that 80% of buildings are sided with wood, 16% synthetic, and only 1% metal. The primary building designs include 32% Victorian era, 27% Late 19th/20th Century American Movements (Craftsman), and 30% Modern Period. The City Council finds that the proposed design of this building is similar to modern “shopping mall” structures and makes no effort to reflect Astoria’s historic character.
Finding: The proposed building is a simple rectangular almost square plan with the parking area on the west end of the lot. Building entrances face the rights- of-way on the north and south side of the tower element, but the main front facade of the building faces the parking lot to the west. Proposed materials are contemporary, smooth, fiber cement siding of horizontal boards, corrugated steel, and commercial aluminum framed window system. These features reflect the contemporary commercial design of the proposed new Co-op Grocery Store at 2350 Marine Drive. The proposed building includes corner boards similar to other Uppertown building facades and metal trellis and solid awnings found on both historic and new construction in this area.
Finding: One of the primary purposes of the GOZ is to inspire varied architecture that is reflective of Astoria’s past. This does not require that new buildings mimic historic buildings, but it discourages new buildings that mimic contemporary designs. A design is to be reviewed for its compatibility with the area based on “. . . styles characteristic of Astoria. . .”, not how it compares to 90 6
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 another new contemporary building.
Finding: Appellant’s argument that its design should be approved because of its similarity to other buildings within the area, including the Co-op, Safeway, Gateway Cinema, and the CMH pavilion misses the mark. The Council agrees that this building has some similarity to other more modern buildings in the area however this fact is a reason why this design was not approved. GOZ design standards discourage buildings that mimic modern designs.
Finding: The Council finds that the applicant has employed a building style similar to the Co-op and other modern buildings in the area. This is a style not inspired by Astoria’s past. The requirements of ADC §14.025 are not met.
B. ADC §14.030 sets forth standards that govern the design of the proposed development, specifically pertaining to “building orientation”, “building massing”, and “access and parking design.” Many of these standards use the verb “should”. ADC §14.001 defines that term, as used in Article 14 of the code, as a requirement unless “unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible.” Thus, to whatever extent an applicant fails to meet a given standard, it must prove that development of the site in compliance with the standard would be either unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible.
The applicant/appellant repeatedly asserts, badly, that it is unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible to develop its desired floor plan (a 16,000 sq. ft. rectangle) in compliance with the standards set forth in Article 14. This addresses the wrong question. An applicant must demonstrate such unreasonableness, impracticality, or unfeasibility as to any potential development of the site, not simply to the applicant’s preferred site plan.
ADC §14.030.C governs “access and parking design.” Subsection 1 thereof provides as follows: “Curb openings onto Marine Drive or Exchange Streets are discouraged.”
Finding: ADC §2.981.4 is a development standard applicable in the LS zone that addresses the same issue. ADC §2.981.4 provides as follows:
“Access drives and parking areas should, where possible, be located on side streets or non-arterial streets in order to minimize congestion on Marine Drive.”
Marine Drive is, as noted, a State highway and the only road into or out of town to the east. The provisions of ADC §14.030.C.1 are designed to minimize the impact of traffic delays on Marine Drive and to create a more aesthetic design for the gateway entry into the downtown area with buildings up to the sidewalk and hidden parking areas.
Finding: The applicant has proposed the use of a curb opening from Marine 91 7
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 Drive and a prominent parking lot in the front of the store. The requirements of ADC §2.981.4 have not been met.
Finding: ADC §14.030.C.1 also provides that “[p]arking lots should be on the interiors of blocks or behind buildings . . ..” Thus, an applicant must either (a) place any parking lot on the interior of the block (behind buildings) or (b) prove that it is unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible to do so. The subject proposed parking lot runs to the exterior of the site along much of the adjacent street frontage. The applicant does not propose compliance with this standard, so must prove that it is either unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible to do so.
Threshold evidence of such infeasibility would necessarily include drawings of the site with no parking along any fronting street. The Council finds nothing in this record by which the applicant even attempted to meet this threshold or evaluate development of the site without parking lots along so much of the site exterior.
Finding: ADC §14.030.C.1 also requires that onsite vehicle parking be “as unobtrusive as possible”, or that an applicant prove that it is unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible to achieve that standard. For persons travelling east from downtown the parking lot will be the most prominent feature of this development; for persons travelling west towards the downtown, the parking lot will be the only portion of the development seen. As proposed, the Council finds onsite parking is highly obtrusive from adjacent public areas, such that the applicant/appellant must prove that compliance with this standard is infeasible.
Threshold evidence of such feasibility would require, at a minimum, depiction of design treatments that obscure views of parking areas. Such treatment could include shrubbery, fencing, and/or false walls. Evidence of the effect of such treatments would include depictions of the site from the perspective of a person on the adjacent right-of-way. Only with such threshold evidence could the Council judge whether onsite vehicle parking is “as unobtrusive as possible.” Finding no such threshold evidence in the record, the Council concludes that the applicant/appellant has not demonstrated that it is unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible to make onsite vehicle parking “as unobtrusive as possible.”
Subsection 2 of ADC §14.030.C provides as follows:
“Building facades and entries should face the adjacent street. Main entrances should face a connecting walkway with a direct pedestrian connection to the street without requiring pedestrians to walk through parking lots or across driveways.”
Finding: The proposed project will include approximately 2/3 of the block, which is an unusually shaped triangular piece of property. One unusual feature of this site is that it directly connects with three City streets, Marine Drive, Commercial and 23rd Street. Of those three, Marine Drive, a State highway, has the highest 92 8
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 functional classification. With reference to the various traffic studies, the Council finds that most patrons will access the subject property from Marine Drive.
The nature of the proposed retail store is a grocery supermarket more conducive to clients arriving by vehicle. Nonetheless, each fronting street includes sidewalks, and some pedestrians will access the store. Pedestrian access is not the primary focus of the store’s clientele, however, as indicated by the design and the applicant’s submissions and arguments. Rather than placing the main facade and entrance facing one of three adjacent streets the applicant has designed the building entrance on the west side of the building facing the parking lot. The design includes a pedestrian access way through a parking lot in the front of the store. The proposed design, thus, does not comply with the requirements of ADC §14.030.C.2.
For the reasons described above, this code section allows an applicant to demonstrate that it is unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible to provide a main entrance that does not require most pedestrians to walk through parking lots or across driveways. The applicant has provided no alternative design or convincing reason for its decision to place its building on the east side of the lot and its parking lot on the west.
C. ADC §14.030.A governs “building orientation” within the GOZ. Subsection 1 thereof provides as follows:
“Development projects should form visually continuous, pedestrian- oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street.”
The goal of this standard can be described as the development of a “downtown”, “pedestrian-friendly” commercial development reminiscent of historic Astoria, rather than a “shopping center”, “automobile-friendly” commercial development that grew out of the 1950’s. As described above, the applicant proposes significant vehicle use area between the main building face/entrance and the primary adjacent street. As such, for the reasons set forth above, this code section requires an applicant to demonstrate that it is either unreasonable, impractical, or unfeasible to provide a visually continuous, pedestrian-oriented streetfront with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. The applicant failed to provide the Council any material evidence regarding the reasonableness, practicality, or feasibility of developing the site without vehicle use areas between building faces and the street.
ADC § 14.030.A.3 provides as follows:
“If the proposed project is large or situated so as to become an entrance or major focus of the City, the design should recognize the project’s prominence and should be both compatible with its surroundings and complementary to the City as a whole.” 93 9
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2
Finding: While the proposed building would not be a major focus as an entrance to Astoria from the east, the project will be a major focus of the City for traffic from the west. The triangle point of the site on the west makes it highly visible from eastbound traffic on Marine Drive. The parking lot and entire front facade of the building would be the primary focus of anyone travelling east. The proposed project would be “a major focus of the City” as that term is used in ADC §14.030.A.3.
Finding: Whether the project qualifies as “large” is problematic. In the context of ADC §14.030.A.3 the Council finds the term requires a comparison of the project’s relationship to other developments in the GOZ. This project proposes to develop 2/3 of the block on which it sits and is larger than its adjacent developments. The proposed project should be considered “large” as that term is used in ADC §14.030.A.3.
Finding: The proposed design utilizes materials that reflect the surrounding commercial buildings with the use of horizontal fiber cement siding and vertical corrugated metal. These are materials similar to City Lumber at 2142 Commercial Street, Astoria Co-op at 2350 Marine, and CMH Pavilion at 2265 Exchange Street. The building will be a contemporary commercial design which is compatible with and reflects other newer commercial buildings in this area, but not to surrounding Uppertown historic buildings.
Finding: This project is larger than most developments in the area and will be highly visible to eastbound traffic. The high visibility of the site from the west, the size of the building, and the location of the parking lot in front of the building are not consistent with the GOZ requirements. While, the surrounding buildings at this intersection are contemporary commercial buildings, the proposed design is more of a generic design and not complementary to the character of Astoria as a whole.
Finding: The DRC found that the building design, size, and orientation is contemporary and is not complementary to the historic character of Astoria as a whole nor to the Uppertown area. The City Council agrees and adopts this finding as its own. As a prominent site on a major route in and out of Astoria’s Downtown and Gateway areas, development standards for the GOZ and the CGO mandate that development of this property complement the historic character of Astoria. The requirements of ADC §14.030.A.3 are not met.
D. ADC §14.030.B. provides as follows:
“the height, mass, and scale of buildings should be compatible with the site and adjacent buildings. Use of materials should promote harmony with surrounding historic structures and the character of the waterfront.”
94 10
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2 Finding: The proposed building would be 16,000 square feet, one story with a small tower element at the entry. The buildings in the general area are as follows:
• City Lumber, 2142 Commercial: store 10,260 sq. ft; upper sheds 5,800 sq. ft; lower shed 10,400 sq. ft; (total 26,460 sq. ft); one story • Walter Nelson wholesale, 2240 Commercial: 7,900 sq. ft; one story • Dr. Park Medical Center, 2120 & 2158 Exchange: 25,500 sq. ft; four story • CMH Pavilion, 2265 Exchange: 18,400 sq. ft; three story • Mini-mart/Laundry/Shell gas station, 2264 Marine: 6,100 sq. ft; one story • Astoria Co-op, 2350 Marine: 11,580 sq. ft; one story • Residence, 285 23rd: 3,200 sq. ft; two story • Existing buildings on the site include TP Freight at 2140 Commercial (5,000 sq. ft) and Napa Auto at 2275 Commercial (7,200 sq. ft) for a total of 12,200 square feet of buildings.
At 16,000 square feet, the proposed building would be comparable with City Lumber facility, Dr. Parks building, and the Pavilion, which are multi-story buildings, and would be slightly larger than the Astoria Co-op building. It would be substantially larger than the other buildings in the area. To envision the size of the building, the center tax lot is 15,000 square feet and the tax lot to the east where the building will be located is 22,300 square feet; therefore, the building would be just slightly larger than the center 15,000 square feet lot.
Adjacent buildings range from one to four stories tall. The proposed building would be one story at 28’ tall. The other one-story buildings in the area are approximately 20’ to 28’ tall.
While larger than some of the buildings in this area, with the mixture of building sizes and heights in this area, and its location off Marine Drive on Commercial Street, the proposed building size and height would not be out of scale with the general development of the area.
The building would have horizontal smooth fiber cement siding and vertical corrugated metal siding. Other buildings in the area have wood and/or fiber cement panels, horizontal siding, corrugated metal, brick, and some cedar shingles. The proposed materials are compatible with the character of the waterfront in this area.
The City Council finds that while there are some buildings larger than the proposed structure, the building would be out of scale with the majority of development in this area and maximizes development of the site reducing the amount of landscaping possibilities to buffer the building from view. The proposed materials are contemporary but do not sufficiently promote harmony with the character of Astoria.
The requirements of ADC §14.030.B are not met. 95 11
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2
V. CONCLUSION
Under ADC §9.040.E.1, “[u]pon review, the reviewing body may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the lower body . . ..” Based on these Findings of Fact, the City Council finds that this application does not meet the applicable design criteria, so affirms the decision of the Design Review Commission. Therefore, the Design Review Request (DR19-03) and Appeal (AP19-03) are denied.
96 12
T:\General CommDev\APPEALS\2019\AP19-03_Grocery Outlet\for 2-18-20 CC Meeting\GO Findings revised final_RJ_2-12-20.doc DCAPDX\3320086.v2
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2020
TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR COUNTY-ADOPTED TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSING ORDINANCE
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
On January 8, 2020 the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance. A copy of that ordinance is attached to this memorandum. Michael McNickle, Public Health Director for the Clatsop County Department of Health, has requested that the Astoria City Council consider supporting the ordinance to aid in County enforcement within City limits. Other jurisdictions in Clatsop County have been asked to do similarly. Mr. McNickle will be present at the February 18th meeting to answer questions.
The ordinance imposes certain restrictions on tobacco retailers:
must get a license; can not operate within 1000 feet of a school; and must submit to county inspections.
It also imposes administrative penalties for failing to comply that can be appealed to the County Manager.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council consider supporting the County-Adopted Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance with in the City of Astoria City Limits.
BY: JENNIFER BENOIT, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
ATTACHMENTS: County-Adopted Tobacco ORDpdf
97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2020
TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION: BIG BEAMS, LLC CLATSOP COUNTY ENTERPRISE ZONE ABATEMENT
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
At the October 24, 2019 City Council worksession meeting, representatives of Fort George Brewery spoke to a Clatsop County Enterprise Zone application in process. As a part of that discussion, representatives from Fort George stated they wished to secure approval for a fifteen-year long-term rural enterprise zone abatement as provided by State law. Other representatives from the four jurisdictions who sponsor the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone were present at the worksession including City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria, and Clatsop County. Kevin Leahy, who is the Enterprise Zone Manager, and Melanie Olson representing Business Oregon, were also present and answered questions.
At the January 6, 2020 meeting City Council approved the rural enterprise zone abatement agreement with Big Beams, LLC. This agreement included the application submitted by Big Beams, LLC (Fort George) processed by the Enterprise Zone Manager. With the aid of tax incentives, Big Beams, intends to invest approximately $12,500,000.00 by redeveloping the former Astoria Warehousing property located on Marine Drive. Agreements for a rural enterprise zone between the four Clatsop County Enterprise Zone sponsors and Big Beams, LLC have been approved by City of Astoria, City of Warrenton, Port of Astoria and Clatsop County.
ORS 285C.403 requires the governing body of the county and city in which the facility is located to adopt a Resolution approving the property tax exemption for the facility. The Astoria City Council will consider the draft resolution first followed by the Clatsop County Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council adopt the Resolution as presented approving the enterprise zone tax exemption for Big Beams. LLC.
BY: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS: 108 LTREZ_Resolution_Astoria_and_Big_Beams_LLC.docx
109 RESOLUTION 20-
IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SPONSORS OF THE CLATSOP COUNTY ENTERPRISE ZONE AND BIG BEAMS, LLC. WHEREAS, Clatsop County, City of Astoria, Port of Astoria and City of Warrenton are Sponsors of the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone; and WHEREAS, the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone was originally established June 2013 and expanded in November 2018 to include properties within the City of Astoria; and WHEREAS, the Sponsors of the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone have negotiated with Big Beams, LLC for an extended abatement under the Long-term Rural Enterprise Zone requirements outlined in Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 123 Division 690; and WHEREAS, the Sponsors of the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone have approved the Written Agreement with Big Beams, LLC; and WHEREAS, Big Beams, LLC has submitted the necessary application to the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone Manager; and WHEREAS, ORS 285C.403 requires the governing body of the county and city in which the facility is located to adopt a Resolution approving the property tax exemption for the facility. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF ASTORIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: To support the Agreement as negotiated by the Clatsop County Enterprise Zone Sponsors with Big Beams, LLC by signing this statutorily required Resolution. Section 1. Effective Date The provisions of this Resolution shall be effective February 18, 2020.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020.
APPROVED BY THE CITY MAYOR THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020.
______Mayor ATTEST: ______City Manager
ROLL CALL ON ADOPTION YEA NAY ABSENT Councilor Rocka Brownson Herman West Mayor Jones
110