Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-09 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 9, 1996 MINUTES CALLTO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Jenifer Carr. Others members were Jarvis and Bass. Staff present were Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Bass moved to approve the Minutes and Findings, the motion was seconded and the Minutes were approved as amended. Under 'Rebuttal" on page 6, 'Bass...would 'not' recommend tearing the roof down...". TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING 485 A STREET APPLICANT: STEVE HOXMEIER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Jarvis reviewed the tapes, minutes, and all other written Information as she was not present at last month's meeting. STAFF REPORT Molnar asked the Commissioners to review the memo dated April 9, 1996 from the Planning Staff regarding this planning action and noting nine recommendations. The original application received Site Review approval in April of 1994. During the construction phase, several changes to the building occurred and in addition, the applicant failed to receive several inspections. The project was red tagged and the applicant was given the option of complying with the original design or applying to go before the Planning Commission with a request that the modifications that have occurred be allowed to remain. The applicant has withdrawn the request for the restaurant. The Site Review is to allow for the exterior changes which have for the most part already been completed that deviated from the original plans as outlined in the Staff Report. Last month, the majority of Commissioners concurred with the Historic Commission that the design needs to go back to the original approval, with the exception of the roof. The applicant was given 30 days to go back to the Historic Commission review board and have some discussion about the applicant's long-term plans for the building. Molnar did not recall the Hearings Board direct the applicant and Historic Commission to seek a compromise. Jarvis said a compromise was mentioned on the tape. Carr recalled it was to see "if" a compromise could be effected, but not a direction to secure a compromise, but to seek a compromise, if possible. Molnar recalled that Bingham, who was substituting last month, had understood how concerned the Historic Commission was with the changes that had occurred with this application and wanted to the give the applicant some additional time to allow for further discussion. No new information has been provided by the applicant that is different than what the Commission has already seen. Staff's position has not changed since the original Staff Report (fixed windows not appropriate, the porch should still be incorporated). There has been over three years of meeting with the applicant and a lot o frustration throughout the process. Staff would recommend approval of this application incorporating the recommendations made by the Historic Commission. Molnar felt the Historic Commission did make a concession In that their original recommendation was to remove all the windows and this recommendation is to allow the two sets of single hung windows to remain but to replace the fixed windows. PUBLIC HEARING TERRY SKIBBY, 611 Beach Street, Historic Commission Uaison, said the memo from the Planning Staff reflects the recommendations made by the Historic Commission. The large windows are not compatible. Accurate drawings need to be provided by the applicant. Skibby presented current photos of the building. STEVE AND KATHY HOXMEIER,435 B Street, hoped the drawings submitted are accurate. S. Hoxmeler said he was not sure why the back porch elevation had to match the front. He did not feel the urge to make the porches the same because they are never seen at the same time. The half barricade on the porch breaks the wind. Molnar interjected that the railing around the west stoop match what is shown on east elevation and that the same detail be followed on both. K. Hoxmeier said because it is so windy it is nice to have a barrier on the building. S. Hoxmeier did not understand why he could not have a round window. The Historic Commission suggested it be six or eight sided or not at all. There are other round windows in the neighborhood (church and grange co-op). K. Hoxmeier thought it fit into the style of the building. S. Hoxmeier said he is willing to put up anything for skirting. On the east elevation, left hand side of the drawing, it gets fairly low to the ground and landscaping will cover most of it but skirting will necessary on the right hand side of the porch. S. Hoxmeier disagreed with the removal of the picture windows. There are many buildings in the neighborhood that have picture windows. He feels the picture windows give the building a nice bold appearance. K. Hoxmeier said the problem is if they have to remove the windows in the front, they will lose the view. They have not designed the building to be a Victorian house with more structured type windows. S. Hoxmeier said in the Staff Report from last month's meeting, it refers to the Historic Commission's Development Standards. He could not find anything in the Development Standards that would indicate his building is not compatible with the Historic District. S. Hoxmeier did not believe his changes were done "willy nilly". There were reasons for all of the changes that were made. Jarvis asked if Hoxmeier understood that the reason the building was approved on the plans he submitted, which are significantly different, was because that is how the Planning Commission makes approvals. It is expected, when plans are submitted, that those same plans will be developed. Did Hoxmeier realize that most, if not all of his problems, have been because he has seen fit to deviate from what was submitted to the Planning Commission? Now the building looks significantly different and adjustments were not asked for until he was caught (Stop Work Order). Jarvis can understand why the original plans were approved. She can also understand based on that approval, why people are upset that Hoxmeier significantly changed things and the new plans do not look close to what was originally submitted. Jarvis believes Hoxmeier has a totally different application. It is apparent that what has been done is so different and so unusual that it would not have been approved. Hoxmeier would not have been granted an approval on the newly submitted materials. The changes were submitted after the building was done. That is not the way the Commission works. When ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 2 you live in a community, you have a responsibility to the community and everyone follows the rules the community has set up. Hoxmeler did not follow the rules. Hoxmeier did not consider the changes he made that significant. He believes the building is better now than it was. Jarvis said apparently the Historic Commission did not agree. The Historic Commission has compromised by allowing the roof to remain. Even though she understands that Hoxmeier did not intentionally break the rules, the Commission has to deal with the rules as they are because if Hoxmeier is allowed to do anything he wanted, the Commission would have no credibility when insisting on others doing it the right way. She hoped Hoxmeler could appreciate this. SKIBBY added what he sees happening is a much more contemporary design than traditional. HOXMEIER said it was never was intentional the building be contemporary or traditional. Staff Response Molnar said there were letters submitted by individuals in the area that have talked about some of the decision-making of the Historic Commission and Staff being more arbitrary in nature and not reasonable at times. However, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of the Historic District and historic structures. There are implementing ordinances that help preserve the resource. The Historic Commission is not a panel of experts but citizens appointed by the Mayor to try and Implement the design requirements in the ordinance. With regard to the comments made by Hoxmeler about compatibility with other structures, the burden of proof is on him to provide examples of those buildings before this body and before the Historic Commission. One specific design standard that Staff and the Historic Commission had a problem with was in the Historic Standards applied to rhythm of openings -- alteration of wall areas with door and window elements on the facade. It was not so much that other buildings in the area that have fixed or round windows but how do the windows work on this building. Is the rhythm disrupted by having a fixed window?. The feeling was that this standard had not been met with Hoxmeier's application. Molnar said the railing detail as shown on the original plan seemed to balance the building. There was a potential for plantings to reduce wind. Rebuttal Hoxmeier discussed not upsetting the rhythm of openings established by surrounding structures. The surrounding structures are the upholstery and furniture stores which have large picture windows, the grange co-op has the gas pumps, and the insurance company adds another element. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND REVIEW Bass strongly believes when something is approved one way, it should be built that way. If not, it is giving carte blanche to everyone to do the same, rendering the Planning Commission meaningless. The Historic Commission and Staff deal dally with design Issues and they have recommended the picture windows not be there. He would tend to go along with the Historic Commission and Staff. He would be willing to let Hoxmeler leave the back porch as it is because he did not notice it. He did however notice the windows were different and should be changed. ASHLAND PLANNING COl' 'IS.SION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 3 Jarvis said the existing picture windows are glaringly Inappropriate. It is so much more reasonable, particularly located in the Historic District, to have double hung windows as indicated in the original application. Though she agreed somewhat with Bass about the porch, she said the porch is on the west side which will be the side that is toward the street which will be seen along with the front porch so they should match. There are other ways to screen the wind. A fence and plantings could be used. Carr thought it imperative to point out that the Historic Commission was not being "hard nosed" on this application. They did compromise on the roof design and the double hung windows. Jarvis moved to approve Planning Action 96-039 with the attached Conditions, allowing the current roof design, and allowing five double hung windows facing Fourth Street. Incorporate the Conditions from the memo to the Planning Commission dated April 9, 1996. All other requests are denied unless otherwise modified as per the Conditions. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 96-030 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS 1609 AND 1615 PEACHEY ROAD APPLICANT: KATHY COX Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar showed the existing lots on an overhead. The applicant is requesting a Minor Land Partition and Lot Line Adjustment. The Staff Report outlines the details of the proposal. StafFs main concerns are with the Variances which have also been discussed in detail in the Staff Report. Staff prefers Plan A and would recommend approval with the attached nine Conditions. Carr read a letter from Kerry Lay into the record. PUBLIC HEARING KATHY COX noted the arborlst's report and how most of the trees are dead and dying. She has talked to Lay and told him they plan to plant trees. Bass noted that the project itself is self-imposed. The applicant could have only three lots instead of four. Jarvis said StafFs position seems to be that because there is easy access from Ross Lane, it could meet the Variance criteria for an unusual cimumstance. Molnar felt that Plan A is a better design but that does not mandate the Commission to approve a Variance. Condition 10 should be added: That prior to signature of the plat map, the Planning Staff Advisor receive a certification letter from the Talent Irrigation District that prove compliance with ORS 92.090(6). A.glLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 9, 1go6 4 Add Condition 11: That the TID pressure line easement on Lot D be vacated prior to signature of the final survey plat. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass moved to approve Planning Action 96-030 as proposed with the Conditions set forth. Jarvis seconded the motion and it carded unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 96-048 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS WITH THE TWO REAR PARCELS TO BE ACCESSED BY A FLAG DRIVE. VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN DRIVEWAY WIDTH IN ORDER TO RETAIN AN EXISTING TREE. 751 CLAY STREET. APPLICANT: JONATHAN LANDES Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar reported the information contained in the Staff Report. He showed an overhead of the project. The Fire Department has looked at the site and approves the driveway configuration. The significant trees saved will lessen the Impact of the proposed development. There is a narrow ten foot wide strip that appears on the tax lot map. The area is owned by the property to the south and states in the Warranty Deed it Is to be used for road purposes to the right of the public. This would include pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The applicant has a problem granting the five feet requested by Staff because it encroaches into the private yard area for parcel C. Staff would recommend a minimum of two feet to maintain 12 feet overall for an anticipated Improvement at some time in the future. Staff has recommended the applicant sign in favor not only for full future street improvements to Clay Street but also agree to sign in favor of an assessment district for the improvement of the pedestrian or bicycle route. Staff has recommended approval of the application with the attached five Conditions. Add Condition 6: That prior to signature of the plat map, the Planning Staff Advisor receive a certification letter from the Talent Irrigation District that prove compliance with ORS 92.090(6). Bass wondered if Tax Lot 5400 had a comparable clause for public use? Moinar did not know. There would still be an opportunity to obtain the easement through a partition or accessory unit. PUBLIC HEARING JONATHAN LANDES concurs with Staff's recommendations one through four. Landes believes the application meets the criteria without the addition of Condition 5. If he is required to give up two feet, it will cause a zigzag in the roadway, and the City may not obtain the land from Lot 5301. In addition, there is a very nice fence and landscaping along the parcel. He is concemed that the request for the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION Hr=ARINGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 9, 1996 5 easement will be a devaluation of his property. It appears the ten fee~ is sufficient. He is concerned about potential liability. He does not want to tear down the fence. Staff Response Moinar noted in the Partitions Chapter of the ordinance (18.76.090) the Planning Commission may require the dedication of land or easements, signing in favor of street improvements, conditions or modifications relating to the improvements such as sidewalks, utilities....etc. The State standard for a shared two-way bicycle facility allowing for screening and buffering would be 12 feet. Bass does not have a problem with ten feet, after all, this is Just block for sharing a bikeway. He cannot see the big deal in terms of safety for this short distance. Jarvis thought the only important reason to obtain the entire twelve feet would be that the City could not obtain any kind of funding if it were under 12 feet. Otherwise, it is fu.nctional at ten feet. Carr concurred. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis moved to approve Planning Action 96-048 with the attached Conditions. Remove the first sentence of Condition 5. Add Condition 6 regarding TID. Bass seconded the motion and It carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 96-044 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A SECOND TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION UNIT 868 'A" STREET APPUCANT: BE'n'Y CAMNER This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-045 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOT 9 ON BENSON WAY APPLICANT: RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOC. This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-046 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 2224 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2565 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: AARON PIDDINGTOH This action was approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES ApRli B, 1996 6 PLANNING ACTION 96-049 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE SPACE FOR ESPI 1060 BENSON WAY APPUCANT: STEVE DIERKS This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ~ ~ COgJMISSlO# HEARINGS BOARD MI!IUTES APRIL ~ 1gO6