Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-09 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Jenifer Carr at 1:40 p.m.. Other members present were Jarvis and Bass. Staff present were Molnar, Madding and Yates. TYPE II PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 95-116 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THE REAR (OFF THE ALLEY) OF THE PROPERTY 687 BEACH STREET APPLICANT: BOB & JOY ZIEHL Ex Parte Contacts or Site Visits All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Madding reported the information from the Staff Report explaining that the main impacts of the accessory residential unit are the capacity and condition of the alley and the driveability of the alley adjacent to the applicant's rear property line. With regard to capacity, currently there are 24 parcels with rear property lines abutting this alley and of those approximately seven utilize the alley as evidenced by garages or parking spaces. As Staff requires applicants to utilize alleys, at times there is conflict with neighbors who want access but want the alley to remain quiet and unimproved. Staff feels that to require the applicant to pave the alley would be an onerous burden. Madding showed a video of the site and explained how the applicant is proposing to fill in the backup area to have 13 feet of backup space. Staff has recommended approval of the application with three attached conditions. Molnar reviewed the comments from the Fire Department expressing their concern that no fencing occur between the two buildings so when they set up on Beach Street, there will be no obstructions to the rear unit. PUBLIC HEARING BOB AND JOY ZIEHL, 687 Beach Street, want to build the accessory unit for her mother. The unit will be located on the rear of their lot with alley access. They plan to install a two space parking pad. There is adequate room for backup space as required by Planning. The pads will be 18 feet wide by 20 feet long. They want to raise the level of their yard for parking. The curved portion would back up 13 feet into the unused portion of the alley. There is vegetation growing into the alley and the Ziehls will be taking it back 13 feet. The cedar tree and the lilac tree will act as a buffer from the adjoining property owner. They are not going to install a fence. There will be no change to the topography of the alley except to add fill to the backup area. Carr asked if the applicant had read the comments from Don Paul stating they may be required to have a residential fire sprinkler system. Molnar said Paul did not have fire flow information at the time of the pre-application conference. The Ziehls stated that in the years they have there, they have not had any alley traffic problems. MAGGIE ANNSCHILD, 679 Beach Street, is a next door neighbor who had also made a request for a CUP for an accessory unit. She chose to drop it because the neighbors were so upset. When Annschild tried to find out why the neighbors were so upset, the neighbors thought the accessory units were destroying the community and they didn't want rentals in the neighborhood. Annschild does not believe this is a reason to deny the application. Some of the neighbors have had an on-going fight with the City regarding improvement of the alley. She prefers not to have the alley paved. There is very little traffic in the alley. SCOTT KURTZ, 676 Liberty Street, said he is not opposed to the CUP but he has a problem with the use of the alley for access. He thinks this alley is unique because it is a dead end, very narrow, and fairly steep. He can hear car engines as people drive up the alley and frequently cars travel too fast going down the alley. Children use the alley to walk to school. In speaking to Molnar, there is not automobile trip criteria for alleys in the city. He has a rental on the alley and tries to minimize the effect by renting to one person only. Prior to approving any additional accessory residential units, Kurtz would like the Commission to direct Staff come up with an automobile trip criteria for this alley. Jarvis responded that alleys are used to facilitate entrance into homes from the rear. Carr did not agree that Staff time should be used to develop trip criteria for alleys. Jarvis wondered if there is an 18 foot right-of-way how much is used for the alley. Molnar said generally 12 feet is used for the driving area. In this case, the backup area is required to be the full 18 feet. CHARLES FLOCK, 730 Liberty Street, said his concern is the condition of the alley. Since requesting the hearing, the alley has been graded allowing drainage on the sides. The alley can be further improved by grading and clearing out blackberry bushes, etc. to make full use of the right-of-way. Another improvement would be if the curb was painted at the alley entrance so cars could not park right up to the entrance. He also mentioned that more attention should be paid to those along the alley that backfill and narrow up the alley. When a driveway is put on the alley, he would suggest culverting so the drainage ditch is not filled in. Molnar suggested that adequate provisions be made for the Ziehl's parking area to ensure that drainage and runoff comply with the Uniform Building Code. Madding said a condition could be added: That a drainage plan be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior issuance of a building permit. Fiock also proposed a at least one-pull out on the alley for passing. Molnar said he could explore this with Engineering. He would want to work with the whole neighborhood since the issue of vegetation is sometimes very touchy. Some neighbors like it retained, others removed. Jarvis noted the applicant's plans show only 12 feet of backup area. It should be 18 feet. TOM STAMPER, 651 Beach Street, questioned the interpretation of R-1 zoning. When he purchased his home he could not build an accessory unit. He does not like the idea of rentals in an R-1 zone. He has liked the quality of life in his neighborhood. Jarvis explained that in 1991 the ordinance was changed to allow for accessory residential units. STEVE WILLING, 725 Beach Street, said when he looked at the number of accessory units, he was surprised to find that 15 to 20 percent of the units are on Beach Street. It makes a difference in terms of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 privacy and density. He requested that interior residential sprinklers be required. If the applicant would just make an addition on the rear of his home, it would not change the character of the neighborhood. JONI MCGOWAN, lives on the alley, and is concerned for the future. She would ask for consideration by property owners who build accessory units to design for privacy to the surrounding neighbors, limit the parking spaces, request any visitors park on the street, and have mail delivered downtown. The benefit of living on the alley is that it is a great wildlife route. Rebuttal The Ziehls did not believe there are too many accessory units. There does not seem to be a problem that the alley is one-way. They were assured by the Fire Chief that there was adequate and easy access in case of fire. The accessory unit will not be seen on the other side of the alley. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass moved to approve PA95-116 with the attached three conditions. Add Condition 4 that the applicant comply with Fire Department standards. Add Condition 5 that the drainage plan be reviewed and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Jarvis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 95-111 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, WITH THE REAR PARCEL BEING A FLAG LOT. 242 W. HERSEY STREET APPLICANT: ARNOLD AND MARY LOU GROSS This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 95-129 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE 442 HOLLY STREET. APPLICANT: HOLLIS GREENWOOD AND MARY PAT POWER This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 96-001 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS. 449 ORCHARD STREET APPUCANT: WILLIAM KNEEBONE This action was approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 PLANNING ACTION 96-003 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RE-CONSTRUCT AND EXPAND A NON- CONFORMING BUILDING (SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE) 212 VISTA STREET APPLICANT: MARK REITINGER This action was called up for a public headrig. PLANNING ACTION 96-004 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS 25 WESTWOOD STREET APPLICANT: ANNA HASSELL This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-005 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING GARAGE 555 RAY LANE. APPLICANT: ROI CROUCH This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-006 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS SOUTH OF 155 TERRACE STREET. APPLICANT: PEGGY ANN SAMMONS This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-007 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE II, 35 INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT. APPLICANT: MOUNTAIN MEADOWS L.L.C. This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-011 REQUEST FOR A SIDE AND FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR THE NEW RESIDENCE 605 ELIZABETH APPLICANT: SHANE R. THURSTON This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996