Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-12 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by denifer Cart. Other Commissioners present were Bingham and Bass. Staff present were Moinar, Knox, Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Findings from the February 13, 1996 meeting were approved. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 96-032 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS VARIANCE REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A ZERO SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT FLAG DRIVE 1169 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD APPLICANT: PETER JENSEN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT The proposed lot is oversized at 22,044 square feet. There is an existing house and garage with an accessory unit above it which is set back approximately 170 feet from the street. The applicant wishes to create two parcels. There is an existing paved driveway to the garage that is about 12 feet wide and the applicant is proposing three feet along the south edge of the property be used for plantings to buffer the drive. The Variance is necessary because the existing driveway goes right next to the existing residence. Paving 12 feet would leave a zero setback for the house. The project impact is difficult to weigh. It is an existing situation. There is an accessory unit there. If they partitioned it would allow the owners to build a larger house. The applicant states in his findings that the setback requirements are aesthetic in nature. Typically, the reason for the setback requirement for a flag drive are for noise, safety, etc. The applicant states the Variance is needed for the preservation of property rights. A key Issues revolves around Criteria 3-That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses. The City's goal is to maintain a compact urban form through infill. Staff is taking a neutral stance. The accessory residential unit came into question and Molnar said in order for the applicant to have a legal separate unit with kitchen facilities, he would be required to go through a Conditional Use Permit application. PUBUC HEARING PETER JENSEN, said no one was living in the accessory unit and it does have a kitchen. Jensen said the property meets all the criteria of approval except for the driveway width. He calls it a "setback bottleneck". This is addressed fully in his findings. He is requesting a property line adjustment with no changes made to that area. Vehicular traffic exists and regardless of the action taken by the Commission, that condition will continue to exist. The Fire Department said there is adequate access to the rear lot. Jensen believes he has addressed all four criteria for a Variance without even needing one for infill purposes. He stated his property is within a public transportation corridor. He does not see any negative impacts of this proposal. Jensen said the neighboring property owner had not objections. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass said that if the partition and variance are granted, the applicant could build a bigger house with more cars and more noise. However, there are certain aspects of the application that the enhance the property. Carr is concerned at how the driveway skims the house. After going through the criteria there are many things she does not like, but cannot bend them enough to deny it. Bingham said there is no other way to get the developable space than to vote for it, but he does not agree that there will be no impact. Bingham moved to approve PA96-032 with the three attached conditions. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 96-035 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONVERSION OF A RESIDENCE TO A RESTAURANT VARIANCE TO AL1.OW FOR A DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 16 FEET RATHER THAN 20 FEET REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 1149 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts STAFF REPORT The applicant is requesting that the existing house be converted to a 40 seat restaurant. The applicant is proposing to add 448 square feet to the house in addition to a 500 square foot deck. The Staff Report outlines the site description and landscaping proposal. Ten parking spaces are proposed in the rear. The applicant is requesting a Variance for the driveway width of 16 feet. Staff believes there are unusual conditions existing. This property has been zoned C-1 for a number of years. The lot is oversized and they cannot do a lot line adjustment with the neighbors. The Oregon Department of Transportation has given their approval for the Variance. The applicant is proposing pavement graphics indicating two lanes. Another issue is how to handle handicap access to the restaurant and the applicant is proposing a lift to the deck. Staff is recommending approval of the application. Bass asked if there was sufficient room in the parking lot to back up. Knox said the Fire Department said it is enough with the driveway space. PUBUC HEARING PATRICIA GROTH, said she operated the McCully Restaurant in Jacksonville. She wanted to have a small lunch and breakfast restaurant. It is ideal for her situation because of the proximity to the college and hotels. She spoke with Mike Broomfield regarding the lift and that seemed to be the most logical way to accommodate handicap accessibility. MIKE DONNELLY, 407 Harrison Street, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He felt she brought many ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MARCH 12, 199~ qualities to Jacksonville and could do that in Ashland too. JOANNE JOHNS, 650 Spring Creek Drive, expressed her support for the application. She believes the criteria for Site Review and variance have been met. Jeff Weatherall commented favorably. VlTO NICO, 660 B Street, said it will be extremely dangerous to pull in the drive and come out of that drive. One cannot pull into the driveway with a regular size car and the make the turnaround to come out. He sees this as a safety problem. Bingham interjected that he put a 1964 station wagon in the drive today. Nico said you cannot predict that someone will be leaving while someone else in entering; what happens when the two meet?. Those pulling in will be stopping on Siskiyou while waiting for someone else to pull out. Knox said he checked with ODOT and they did not have a problem. HEATHER NICO 660 B Street, said her concerns were similar to Vito's. She thought the side streets were congested because of perking spaces going to the college and that is who should use them. The restaurant could place more of a demand on the street parking spaces. ANDY PATEL, 1145 Siskiyou, owns the motel next door. He said during the last five years the house has been rented and he has people parking in his driveway. His personal residence is against the wall where people drive in. He is impacted now with Subway Sandwich and the college students parking in his motel lot. He would like more soundproofing. ALAN DEBOER, 2260 Morada Lane, said the traffic circulation is not acceptable. Does ODOT know what they looked at?. What happens with one car coming in and one going out?. The driveway has a reverse angle. How can one stay in the lane and make a right turn into traffic? He believes this will create a real safety Issue that should not be allowed. RANDY WARREN, said he has a Ford truck and ha cannot pull out of the driveway without Impeding both lanes of traffic. It will be an Impediment to pedestrians and bikes. He did not agree that a fire truck could get in or out and that ODOT should do a traffic study on how to enter and exit the parking area. GARY BROCK, 383 Avery Street, has concams with safety and traffic. Also, the access to his basement faces the property. He has not seen any plan for how the drainage would be taken care of. The runoff should be tied to the city storm sewer system. Even if a drywell abuts his property, he will still have water in his basement. Knox said the drainage has been addressed and the applicant is looking at building a drywell. A sample rendering from the engineer telling how to solve drainage problem is in the packet. It will have to be engineered and show that it will work. Carr suggested adding a Condition that would address the drainage problem. Knox worded Condition 7: That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant submit engineered plans that eliminate any site drainage problems. Rebuttal PATRICIA GROTH said she is trying to create a bike rack in front of the restaurant and is the hoping this location will appeal to pedestrians. The top of the driveway is about 18 feet. She could make the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 driveway even slighfiy wider. She will have lines and an arrow Indicating where cars should be directed. With two cars passing, there is two feet of clearance between cars. She is creating a situation that is not ideal but she is trying to take care of each item. Her operating hours will be from 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. with no one on the premises at night so there should not be any night time noise. Groth showed pictures of two cars and the visibility. Groth also noted that property has been dry this spring. Carr wished to add a Condition concerning a water/oil separator in the parking lot. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass wondered if between Knox's discussion with ODOT and the applicant's, were they made aware of the actual situation. Knox said there were and the they suggested the road approach should be 24 feet wide which the applicant can comply with. Bingham found the concerns expressed were disturbing, especially the reverse angle to the driveway. When headed nose out, there is no way to get out without crossing into the other lane. Also, there is bike traffic on Sisklyou. Cars passing in the driveway will have to do it gingerly. Carr said she is not concerned with the angle of the driveway. She has made the turn many times from Safeway and the Strafford Inn and she sees nothing earthshaking about them. Knox said Staff weighed the issues but feel this will be an upgrade to the site. Bass would generally defer to the experts. If ODOT does not have a problem, he does not have a problem in terms of negative effects. He would tend to agree with the applicant that there will be a high volume of pedestrians patronizing the restaurant. Moinar commented that the City's Engineer looked at the site and he had little comment. Bass moved to approve PA96-035 with Carr seconding the motion. Bingham believed the angle of the driveway and the width of the driveway is a concern. The motion carried with Bingham voting "no". PLANNING ACTION 96-039 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING REQUEST ALSO INVOLVES A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY TO AU.OW FOR A RESTAURANT USE/EATING ESTABUSHMENT 485 A STREET APPUCANT: STEVE HOXMEIER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported there was an initial site review granted in 1994 for the structure. The action today was noticed as a request to review some exterior changes that occurred to the building which the applicant did not get approval for and differ from the original plans. Also as part of the notice was to allow for a ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 4 restaurant. It is noted in the Staff Report that 20 days prior this meeting the Planning Department did not have sufficient information on the Site Review portion of the application to change to a restaurant use. Staff recommended dropping this from the request or denying the restaurant. Major changes which have occurred to the building. It was brought to the attention of Staff that what was approved by the Historic Commission and Planning Commission did not match what has been built. A 'Stop Work Order' has been placed on the project. The only way to remedy this is to change the building back to what was approved or seek modification of those changes. Exhibits P1 (approved building design) and P2 (what has been constructed) compare the changes that have occurred. Staff's main concern is the change of windows and the loss of the porch area. Staff has the Historic Commission's recommendation of denial of the application with the exception of the continuous gable on the roof and the notches that are not in the current truss design. Bingham wondered how the building was built so far without anyone noting the changes. Molnar explained that the building inspectors may look for certain details that do not include design. Also, there were a series of inspections that were never called for by the builder. It seemed there was construction activity that continued after the expiration of the permit. PUBUC HEARING STEVE HOXMEIER, 435 B Street, said he should have realized the changes required approval. He made some spur of the moment decisions. His letter explains some of his changes. The view afforded by the windows he chose was much better than looking at the recommended windows from the outside. His friends and family approved the windows he chose. As far as not calling for inspections, Hoxmeler had a little more siding to go and was going to call the City. He had the foundation inspected and with the exception of the nailing on the roof, there is nothing else hidden. Bingham asked Hoxmeler why he deleted the porch. Hoxmeier said he may want to put it on yet. His wife suggested putting the deck on the 'A' Street side which would lessen the need for it on the Fourth St. side. Bingham explained to Hoxmeier that the process is such that plans are presented and approved by the Commission and the Building Department. The Historic Commission has to have plans to look at and make a judgment. Once the judgment is made, it is not acceptable to make a change. The Planning Commission, a public body which is given responsibility over how the development is to look, cannot simply change because someone had a different idea. Carr totally agreed with Bingham and having heard the original application two years ago, remembers very well the concerns of fellow Commissioners at that time. He was granted specific approval. He has not made any attempt to show his changes to the Planning Department. All the Commissioners at the original application had deep concerns but gave him approval anyway. CYNTHIA WHITE PETER BRUNNER, 242 VanNess, own two commercial lots on the northeast comer of Fourth and 'A'. They are not speaking in opposition but are looking to the Planning Commission for guidance. They have been involved with the Railroad Subdivision from the beginning, acting as agents for Southern Pacific. They attended several meetings with the Historic Commission, neighbors, etc. and the direction they took at that time was that the development of their comer would be scrutinized very carefully, because that would be the key to the commercial area in the Railroad District. They were also given the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MARCH ~2, t~6 impression that anything they proposed there would have to some extent mirror what was happening at that intersection; in other words, they understood they would build very close to the sidewalk. Because he has understood from his conversations with Staff that they would be able to do angle parking on Fourth Street. He is confused by the recommendation on Hoxmaler's applications that sidewalks are needed along A and Fourth. Molnar responded that this application should not preclude angled parking. However, the overall cross section of the street has not yet been decided. Brunner supported Condition 3 (dropping the restaurant). Motnar said the applicant agreed to drop this from his application. Rebuttal Hoxmeier agreed verbally to withdraw the inclusion of a restaurant from his application. He plans to install the sidewalks and landscaping as necessary. Bass explained to Hoxmeler that the Historic Commission is concerned about the outside appearance of the building, not how it looks from the inside out. Bass is not that concemed with the view and would recommend tearing the roof down and building the porch as approved and changing the windows to the original design. Bingham considered giving Hoxmeler an opportunity to come back to the Commission and show what he is going to do-to bring in an application in cement. Carr said if they deny it, Hoxmeler still has the right to build it as previously approved and the roof could be the exception. Molnar said the Commissioners could approve the request for modification but limit it only to the roof modifications and all other modifications go back to the original approval. Carr reopened the Public Hearing. Bingham offered the option to Hoxmeler of going ahead with his original application Including the porch and windows, allowing him to leave the roof as it is now built or to hammer out a compromise with the help of the Historic Commission and Staff to bring something beck that is in-between. Staff said the Historic Commission minutes reflect the mood of the Histodc commission on this application. Bass wanted to approve the request for modification but only for the roof change. The applicant can then choose to either build it as it has been proposed previously or come to the Commission again through the Historic Commission with something different. The Commissioners decided to continue the hearing, giving Hoxmeler an opportunity to meet with the Historic Commission and review his plan. Hoxmeier agreed. Bingham moved to continue PA96-039 in order to allow more time for the applicant to offer a compromise application. Bass seconded the motion and all approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 6 TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 96-034 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING) 19 HILLCREST. APPUCANT: DAVID ALLMAN This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-036 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A RESTAURANT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUSINESS 265 FOURTH STREET A VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED FOR A REDUCTION OF TWO PARKING SPACES. APPUCANT: CHRISSY BARNE'I'I'/JEAN KOWACKI This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996