Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-12 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Carr, Bass, Bingham, Howe, Cloar, and Finkle. Absent members were Jarvis and Giordano. Staff members present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Howe moved to approve the Minutes of the February 13, 1996 Regular Meeting with a correction at the bottom of Page 4, under Staff Report. Add the word 'income' before ".....level than what has been identified...". The motion was seconded and approved as corrected. Howe moved to approve the Findings for the February 13, 1996 Regular Meeting. The motion was seconded and approved. PUBUC FORUM UNDA RICHARDS is frustrated about development in her neighborhood because the density is already very high. And even though she realizes there is a development plan for Ashland, if the Planning Commission is going to look at every development piecemeal in each neighborhood, then it is difficult for public concerns to be addressed. Bingham instructed Richards that city-wide and long-range planning Issues are discussed at study sessions. Howe encouraged Richards to have her name put on a mailing list so she would be notified of the study sessions. TYPE II PUBUC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 96-008 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR LOTS 34 THROUGH 37 AND LOTS 56 THROUGH 61 OF THE MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HERSEY STREET AND MOUNTAIN AVENUE PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE REVISED STREET AUGNMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AN EXISTING OAK TREE APPUCANT: DONOVAN GILMLAND Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts Site Visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT At last month's meeting, direction was given to the applicant to look at an alternate road design to go around the oak tree in the subdivision plan. In the packet, there is a small plan that shows Starltower Lane separated and going around each side of the tree. There was no other information submitted by the applicant at the time the Staff Report was written. The recommendations made by Donn Todt, Tree Commissioner, are reflected in the Conditions of approval Including Conditions 4 and 5. It wasn't until after writing the recommendations that it was noted from the engineered drawings for the street that a water line was passing near the root zone (Exhibit S-1). With redesign, the water line could be located within the ten foot public utility easement and the hydrant can be moved further away either to the south or the north. The dripline has not yet'been Identified by the applicant. In the memo to Jim Olson from Molnar the recomrnendation to the Planning Commission would be that all utilities be located to the far extent of the dripline line if need be, once that dripline is Identified; if the utility needs to be bored, that avenue would be pursued. If the Commission Is in agreement, additional wording will be needed in Condition 4. The applicant has also asked for a reduction in affordable units and McLaughlin Indicated this would be a separate application. PUBUC HEARING DONOVAN GILULAND, 777 N. E. Seventh, #209, Grants Pass, OR 97206, passed out a plan showing the parkway strip eliminated as requested by Staff. Gilliland was In agreement that the waterline not encroach into the dripline. He is willing to backfill over the tree roots and take other precautions that the Engineering Dept. recommends. Gilliland mentioned the lot layout and the elimination of lots one, two and three. McLaughlin saId this Information was not received in a timely manner, Staff has not had time to review it, and it has not been noticed to the neighbors, therefore the new proposal will not be heard tonight. Howe asked Gilliland what his reaction was by Staff's request to expand on the west sIde of the street. Gilliland is in agreement and saId that has been done by eliminating the parkrow strip. McLaughlin saId if the tree in the street dies, the Commission could impose the condition to replace with three trees, four inch caliper at breast height. The applicant thought two years would be fair. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Molnar's wording for Condition 4 (e) is as follows: That all underground utilities be located outsIde the dripline of the oak tree or that the applicant be responsible for boring beneath the dripline a minimum depth of three feet. Howe moved to approve Planning Action 96-008 with the Conditions stipulated by Staff Including 4(e) that includes undergrounding utilities away from the dripline of the tree and a further condition that if the white oak in the mIddle of Starflower Lane should die within the next three years, that the applicant would assume responsibility for its ramoval and replace it with two trees. The motion was seconded and carried with Cloer voting 'no". PLANNING ACTION 96-020 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW FOR A 26-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX 284 HERSEY STREET APPUCANT: EARL KING/AL TEITELBAUM Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 2 STAFF REPORT This property has a lengthy history as outlined in the Staff Report. This is a brand new application because all approvals have expired, but the design is the same. By moving unit 14 up to the street, it has been difficult for the applicant to locate 45 parking spaces. Three of the 45 spaces are in a stacked configuration which cannot he counted toward .the overall parking requirement. There have been letters submitted by neighbors in the area. Overall, the criteria can still be met. If the Commission chooses to approve, there are 22 attached Conditions. As the ordinances have changed over the past few years, Staff has done their best to Incorporate those changes such as covered bike parking and recycling facilities into the latest application along with the design from 1968. Finkle is concerned with impacts on neighboring properties. Does Staff believe the height of buildings and variation in massing have been addressed? Molnar said it was not pursued in the latest Staff Report because when the application went to the Council in 1993, the changes the Council made were to add unit 14 up.near the street and Increase the setbacks to address citizen's concerns. McLaughlin noted this is the City's highest density zone. In looking at changes, it is necessary to look at the intent of the zone which is to accommodate higher numbers of units on the property. Additional requirements can he Imposed in terms of setbacks and modifications as long as the opportunity is still there to meet the intent of the zone of adequate densities. Armttage noted this application is not 'new' in the sense the applicant chose not to build the 20 conditions into this proposal. PUBUC HEARING AL TEITELBUAM, applicant and DANIEL PARK, architect, have tried to work out the changes in the project to bring it into compliance with the current ordinances. They believe they have met the criteria for approval. The building coverage limitations have been met along with the requirements for off-street parking and bike parking. There are 45 spaces for parking. Special attention has been give to unit 14 to maintain a streetscape for the project that would be in tune with other dwellings along the street. The requirements have been met for adequate access, utilities and amenities that need to he provided for a development of this size. Carr wondered if the applicant had given any thought to the recycling facilities? Park said there are two dumpster locations and that would he the place for recycling. There should be room. McLaughlin said whatever size is determined to be appropriate for the amount of dumpster space needed, the applicant must provide an equal or larger size for recycling. Bass observed that unit 13 is right in the middle of the courtyard and it really breaks the courtyard up. FinMe is concerned about positioning a parking place right in front of unit 14 because it goes against the concept of creating units to Interact with the street. McLaughlin said this is in violation of the ordinance to have parking in front of a unit. Finkle suggested adding a condition to delete that parking space. Cloer expressed his concem about massing. He wondered if Park had thought about the use of color to create interest. Park has not been specifically involved with the color selection at this time, however, he ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 3 thought earth tones would be used. The mass will be broken up by the varying rooffines due to the change in grade. Howe wondered what kind of provisions have been made to connect the bike parking with the bike path to get through the sound attenuating fence. FinMe said there is not currently a bike path. Park said the fence is a wood structure and could be modified to Incorporate an opening. Howe asked if unit 15 will have a porch or patio. Park said unit 15 would have a patio. Howe went on to say that it looks as though there will not be many windows in some of the units. Parks said there is are closets in the upstairs against one outside wall so only two walls will be available for windows. Bass questioned Parks if there was any reason horizontal siding could not be used on the rest of the building In addition to the front unit. Park said it was a cost factor. McLaughlin told the applicants to consider prior to rebuttal, the three subcompact parking spaces as they do not appear to meet the requirements for depth and back-up. In order to make it balance out, it may require reduction of two units. DON RIST, 260 Joy Drive, Talent, OR, gave a history of the project and indicated his support of the project. MEL CANAL, 240 Ohio Street, stated his main opposition is that the density is too high. SUE EAGAN, 306 W. Hersey Street, explained she moved to the neighborhood five years ago. Since she has lived there, Hersey Street, a quiet street, has been paved and widened. Trees have been cut down on a nearby vacant lot and newly built condominiums have cut off her sunlight. The amount of infill in this R-3 area has affected the lifestyle of the families that live there. There are no sidewalks, open space or parks. It is difficult for her to drive from No. Main onto Hersay. Twenty-six additional units will bring increased traffic. She does not believe there is adequate access to and through the development. She would like to see the development set back a little more. Eagen understood the Parks Department was interested at one time in buying this lot for open space. Briscoe School is the closest open space but that involves crossing No. Main Street. Helman School is the next closest at a mile away. JOHN DOWD, 300 West Hersey, said with the building of this development, he will be looking at a wall, not the mountain. He also understood Mickelson requested the Parks Dept. buy this land from Teitelbaum. Dowd wondered with Increased development where people would get water. Also, there is no opportunity for condominium dwellers to park on the street. UNDA RICHARDS, 300 W. Hersey Street, has been happy to have this piece of vacant land for her son to play on. She said there had been a pond on the proposed property (existing natural features of the land such as wetlands have been identified-part of site review). She would challenge the Planning Commission to find open spaca in their neighborhood if Teitelbaum develops. The Infrastructure is not set up to get around the neighborhood. How can they get to a bus? There is no sidewalk and no light. She would ask for a 20 foot setback to allow for more open space. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 4 RON ELTERMAN, 296 Orange Street, asked for an Increased setback from 20 to 30 feet. Staff Response Carr wondered whet Impact the loss of the three subcompact parking spaces would have. McLaughlin responded thet there would need to be a reduction of two units. Finkle was concerned with transportation Impacts and the crossing of North Main by both adults and childnn. McLaughlin said it was possible to Impose a condition thet the applicant sign in favor of a traffic signal at No. Main and Hersey. McLaughlin added that the open space plan identifies neighborhood parks and schools function as neighborhood parks. FinHe and Cloer wondered if a natural featun hed been oblitented. McLaughlin said unless the parking chenges can be easily rectified, the application cannot be approved this evening because a couple units would need to be deleted and additional revisions made. Rebuttal TEITELBAUM said if then ever was a pond, in all the years he hes owned the property, he hes never seen one. It is true thet Mickelson from Parks Dept. contacted and told him the City would like the property for a park but the City does not heve any money. Park gave the Commission pictures of the site. He mentioned the bike path goes along Hersay street presently. They will consider using horizontal siding. Park spent time working out the details of the subcompact parking and unless he misunderstood, he believes the spaces meet the requinments. He thought the parking space in front of unit 14 met 18.92 (E)6 refers to stalls abutting the street. The space would be screened. McLaughlin said according the site design standard parking shall not be located batween the buildings and the street. The other spaces are required to be 8 feet by 12 feet with 22 feet of backup. Howe asked Teitelbaum about his contact with the Parks Dept. Teitelbaum said if the City has no money to buy the property, there is nothing more to discuss. McLaughlin told the Commission they can continue to allow the applicant an opportunity to nspond to the Issues and to revise the plan to match up to meet the City's requinments. Finkle thought the pedestrian cinulation needed to be addressed. Then is a gap in the sidewalk batween Hersey and the center of the project when people heve to walk across parking spaces which will probably be ~led with cars. The sidewalk appears to be 36 inches wide which is very narrow and not appropriate for sidewalk circulation. Molnar said the City usually adhens to a four foot minimum sidewalk width. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe believed the hearing needs to be continued to look at parking. If unit 13 is removed, that would change the interior circulation. What areas are paved and which are no~. If another space has to be removed to continue the sidewalk, that could put another unit in jeopardy. She would ask that the new drawing have an open space patio on #15, that there be a pedestrian access of a minimum four feet in width, continuous from Hersey Street into the complex. She would like the applicant to explore the use of horizontal siding all the way around unit 14 since that is the main visual connection with the area. Bass added that the applicant be required to sign in favor of future traffic improvements at Hersey and North Main Streets. Cart asked that the garbage and recycling receptacles be scaled out in relationship to the parking and show how much space will they take up. Bingham said this proposal is tired and he would like to see a new proposal. He strongly advised the neighbors to take advantage of the extra month they have been give to talk to the Parks Department and find out about money for parks. McLaughlin said he would talk with Ken Mickelson at the Parks Department about the issues that have arisen tonight. Teitetbaum asked for a 30 day extension on his application. Howe moved to continue Planning Action 96-020 and Carr seconded the motion. All Commissioners approved. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND ALL APPROVED. PLANNING ACTION 96-016 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A ONE-UNIT TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION 101 GRESHAM APPUCANT: KATHY BUFFINGTON Site Visit and Ex Parte Contact Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT The application is to convert a single family home to a traveller's accommodation for one unit and to be made a part of the adjacent property's traveller's accommodation. This is an unusual request. This is the first time anyone has asked to make a guest house out of a residential unit In an R-2 zone. There have been a few in the C-1 zone. The City has cleady chosen to only allow traveller's accommodations utilizing larger historic buildings to give some commercial opportunities for restoration or retention. The City has not allowed guest houses because an opportunity is lost for a home or rental unit and it could start to change the character of residential areas. It is commendable that the applicant wants to rent the house for the winter months but still the renters would be uprooted each year. It would ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 desirable to retain the traveller's accommodation as a historic resource. A Conditional Use Permit Imparts a tremendous amount of value to a property in allowing a use more intense or different than a permitted use in the zone. Staff's concern is that it may open up other opportunities for this in other areas. The ordinance does allow for the consideration of contiguous properties as a site. The Commission has the opportunity to balance and weigh the impacts of different uses. A balance should be created and therefore Staff has not recommended approval. Bass was curious as to why the Histodc Commission denied this application completely. He read the report but did not understand their logic. The building is what it is and it is not going to made any less than what it is. McLaughlin presumed it was because of neighborhood character and precedent. Howe asked what would happen if the applicant divided the comer off to make the lot larger, and McLaughlin answered that it appeared the lot could then accommodate another unit. Bingham asked for clarification of "precedent setting". McLaughlin said if it was approved it would be legal but the concern is that similar applications have no{ been approved and if it is approved, it will appear the City finds this type of application desirable and therefore would be likely to approve others of a similar nature. PUBUC HEARING KATHY BUFFINGTON, 91 Gresham, asserted that in the traveller's accommodation requirements it states that contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and number of units not in excess of nine. Buffington explained why she purchased the property and how she has tried to follow all the criteria. She plans to restore and upgrade the house and rent it from September through May for $680 per month. There are not many properties 20 years and older with contiguous properties that might be purchased. By allowing her this use, she will not be forced to create a new unit on the back lot or tear the house down and building a duplex. The existing house fits the neighborhood and keeps an affordable rental on the market. If this application is a great concern, then the language in the traveller's accommodation document should be changed through another process. She does not want to be the person who sets the precedent by being turned down. Buffington reported the house was built es a guest house to the property she owns now. She will be adding a porch, painting the exterior and extending the path to connect the main house to the other path. Cloer wondered how Buffington would feel about using the house as her residence. Buffington replied that she and her children have just the right amount of room in the larger house. It seemed ironic to her she would have to move next door to meet the rules proposed by Staff. Staff Response Finkle thought Buffington's point was well taken and there must be a weakness in the ordinance. McLaughlin said that could be explored. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 CARR MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M., THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND ALL APPROVED. Rebuttal Buffington said this house is a pert of the traveller's accommodation next door and guests will be coming next door to have breakfast. She asked the Planning office about combining lots and was dissuaded from taking that course. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe believes this application meets the requirements and the advantages of having an apertment on one side and a restored Victorian on the other with the potential for upgrading the house is far better than a duplex off the alley that would be unsupervised. This proposal is competibte with the existing use and an upgrade of the house. It does not seem to be a detriment to any other property along with preserving the back yard as an open spece thus preserving the neighbor's viewshed above while allowing for an open, friendly area. Finkle shares some of Staff's concerns but believes this will have a minimal impect. He cannot see anything strong enough to deny. Cloer agreed. Carr does not agree that this will be the loss of an affordable rental unit. She cannot find a reason to deny. Bass does not see this as precedent setting and would need to see if this went any further. This application does not seem comparable to the ICCA project (2nd Street) and should not have a detrimental effect on Gresham. Bingham shares Staff's concerns about precedent setting. Armitage has trouble with the converting of residential neighborhoods to tmveller's accommodations. Cloer is influenced by what seems to be an obvious unity of the guest cottage and neighboring building. It looks like someone built a guest house on their property. He believes it can be rented in the off- season. Armitage reminded the Commission they are looking at a Conditional Use Permit with specific criteria. Carr moved to approve PA96-016 with the attached conditions. Howe seconded the motion. The motion carried with Armitage casting a 'no" vote. PLANNING ACTION 96-033 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A TEN-LOT, TEN-UNIT MUTLI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD & MARY JANE AVENUE APPUCANT: RICHARD BOULTON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissionere had site visits. Bass stepped down and left the meeting because he is a neighbor and testified at the last meeting. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 STAFF REPORT Madding reported that this would ordinarily have been a Type I review. However, one of the criteria for Final Plan Is that building elevations and extedor material are in conformance with the purpose and the intent of this title and the approved Outline Plan. It was Staff's feeling that the elevations had changed to a degree that they questioned whether they were conforming to Outline Plan. The applicant has addressed Commissioner's concerns regarding pavers on the parking space behind unit 4. Grass pavers have been added to four out of the five parking spaces. The bike parking has been added. Madding showed elevations for both Outline and Final Plan. The footprints of the building are the same. Mainly the elevations have changed along with the roof pitches, the siding, porch coverings, and windows. The porches have been eliminated and a pergola is being used. The units facing Mary Jane have changed in a similar manner as those facing Siskiyou. Staff felt the appearance was a little more 'box'y' with the massing broken up less. Staff recommends approval of one of the plans with eleven Conditions. McLaughlin explained that the plans approved at Outline Plan was a specific design. The changes made by the applicant were substantial enough that the Planning Staff could not approve at their level. It did not comply with the ordinance. This is a different style of architecture that was approved. Madding entered the letter from Ron and Tracy Bass into the record. PUBUC HEARING RICHARD BOULTON, Portland, OR STEVE ASHER, Ashland Boulton disagreed with Staff and felt the changes he made were normal changes that would go from an Outline Plan to a finished plan when one takes into consideration some of the realities of the project. The footprint is the same. He has met the 15 conditions required at Outline Plan. Howe said she was concerned about the switching of porches to pergolas. The porch seems to be a true amenity as an exterior space. The pergola would barely keep the rain off. Boulton said units 5 and 6 are the isolated units on the back of the project. The porches are actually on the interior of the project on the private drive. They are not facing the street. All the other units have petlos that face into the interior courtyard. The pergolas are meant to match the patios on the interior. Unit 5 and 6 have a covered porch area on the back pert of the house (a covered patio). Boulton said the size of the porches on the other units vary. Finkle wondered how Boulton IS handling the retention of the trees along Bass's property. Boulton said he has employed an arborist as instructed and he has put together a pruning plan that will be presented when they apply for a building permit. Cloer asked about the seasonal stream running through the property. Boulton said what has been agreed upon by everyone is that seasonal water (TID runoff) will be picked up at the comer piped as storm drainage through the property. Carr Inquired as to why Boulton paid someone else to refine his already approved plans. Ashar mentioned some features he could incorporate that would keep the construction costs at a reasonable ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 199~ price. It would have been more expensive to build the design Bouiton presented at Outline Plan. The property will be extensively landscaped and he plans to spend about $30,000 for landscaping. Carr noted the Staff said the siding is different. Boulton said it is still four inch lap. Asher said the units are staggered all the way across. The gable ends are a shake siding. The roofs at Outline Plan would have been very expensive to build. From an architectural standpoint they might look more appealing, but they do not work. They decided it would be better to reduce the pitch of the roofs and put money back into landscaping. The window treatment on the stairwell has been Increased. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Carr wished to continue the hearing. Howe moved to approve PA96-033 with the attached 11 Conditions. Cloer seconded the motion and it carried with Carr voting "no". OTHER Study Session The Study Session will be held March 26, 1996 to discuss the No. Mountain Neighborhood Plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 12, 1996 10