Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-09 Planning MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Others present were Bingham, Medinger, Hibbert, Cloer, Carr, Powell, and Armitage. Thompson came in during the Ashland Shopping Center hearing. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Carr moved and Hibbert seconded to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1993 meeting. The motion carried. The Findings will be approved later in the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM Powell commented on how inspiring the American Planning Association conference was as well as the Planning Commissioners Training. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 93-004 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR VARIOUS TEMPORARY USES TO OCCUPY A PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1652 ASHLAND STREET (ASHLAND SHOPPING CENTER). APPLICANT: ASHLAND SHOPPING CENTER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Powell, Carr & Armitage were present on last month's Hearings Board. The Minutes from the February meeting and a letter from Dr. Sweet were entered into the record. STAFF REPORT The criteria were on the overhead and were mailed with the notice. This application was originally administratively approved as a Type I and called up for a public hearing by Dr. Dennis Sweet. The Hearings Board reviewed the application and felt it contained issues of importance that should be reviewed by the full Commission. This action involves portions of the Ashland Shopping parking lot, closest to Ashland Street. McLaughlin explained that temporaw uses are conditional uses and some of the operations set up in the past have not been in compliance with the ordinances. By giving blanket approval for a Conditional Use of various operations does take away some Planning Commission review power. This may be appropriate, however, in this area, there may be some things that would not be appropriate. There were mixed opinions among Staff on this action as some felt Ashland can be too constrained in their offerings and maybe we should not be limiting those offerings. Other Staff felt there is an image Ashland is trying to portray and certain uses or products would not be appropriate on that site. PUBLIC HEARING MIKE RYDBOM 7118 Hwy. 66, owner of Ashland Shopping Center, stated the shopping center has been available for 22 years for community projects. The Kiwanis Club uses it for a yearly sale, Ashland Middle School uses it for car washes, other organizations use it about every two weeks for a car wash. He is hoping approval of this action would cover this civic use. Rydbom believes it would be a disservice not to allow these non-profit groups. Rydbom explained that the food services groups have not had his permission to operate and he did not care if it was included in the CUP. McLaughlin said that Sentry Market has set up the barbecue as an extension of their business. DENNIS SWEET, 1135 Reiten Drive, owner of veterinarian office across the street from shopping center stated that since 1973 there have been a number of events at the Ashland Shopping Center and even though he does not object to spas, car washes, green houses, he is concerned with the barbecue that Sentry runs. If that use were to be continued, they should be required to apply for a permit. With regard to the pet vaccination clinic, he is concerned with the health hazards. Therefore, he wanted to see the prepared food use and vaccination clinic prohibited. Staff Response to Testimony McLaughlin explained that under "temporary use" there is no time limitation. Armitage thought it would be a good idea to limit the time for each temporary use at the shopping center. Hibbert favored listing specific uses that are appropriate and everything else would need a CUP. Bingham thought any food service operating in the parking lot would have to go ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 1993 through the Jackson County Health Department. RYDBOM thought the spa use, or any use would not need to run for more than five consecutive days. Hibbert suggested restricting the CUP to only non-profit groups, do not allow any prepared food and any other things that Rydbom could list. Rydbom would like to restrict the bigger uses, such as Ray's Sentry from doing business in the parking lot with no permits. Powell thought the CUP could be approved and reviewed in a year. Rydbom would like to allow anything non-profit and no food preparation on-site. Also, prohibit live animals. He would like to allow the spa and outdoor furniture sales. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Cloer believes allowing for the temporaw uses allows an opportunity to generate foot traffic for the shopping center and also provides some interest to the community. He does not want to exclude all for-profit uses. Armitage agreed. Medinger thought that the criteria such as scale, bulk and coverage included in a CUP are being evaluated in the context of livability and the "village" nature of the uses Rydbom has spoken of, and is an appropriate part of the quality of the livability of a small town and the Commission could make findings to that end. Armitage agreed with Medinger and added that time is a factor in bulk and scale and if a time constraint is added, then nothing can be permanent and out of balance with bulk and scale. One of Powell's original concerns was the Highway 66 plan and the strip mentality that could come from the CUP approval, however, she liked Medinger's concept of the "village" atmosphere. She thought a portion of the parking lot could be used. She was concerned by competition for the already established businesses and thought the Commission should look at how many times a year a certain use could operate. Jarvis thought that criteria could be met and findings can be met. She also thought the health issue could be examined and limit certain uses on those grounds. Bingham would like to see standards set for temporary uses in the near future. Armitage moved to approve Planning Action 93-004 with the attached Conditions and the following: There will no food preparation and no animals will be treated or any animal clinics set up. All non-profit uses that Mr. Rydbom feels are appropriate, be approved. The for-profit uses will be spas and outdoor furniture and these two uses would obtain City business licenses. Five days is the maximum number of days ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 1993 allowed. No more than 20 days per year. Eliminate Condition 3. Review this action in a year. The motion carried with Thompson abstaining. Carr reminded the Commission that as the proprietor of the Ashland Shopping Center, Mr. Rydbom can say no to an inappropriate use. Hibbert asked if the Staff would advise other shopping centers that CUP's are required for temporary uses. PLANNING ACTION 93-026 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE AND RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 376 B STREET. PARKING TO BE LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING OFF OF THE ALLEY. APPLICANT: SUSAN DEMARINIS Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all except Medinger. Powell noted it was a new house. Cloer saw that half the alley was paved. Carr noticed a small building off the alley. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin said the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are on the overhead projector and that they were mailed out with the notices. The applicant plans to use 400 square feet of the front portion of the house for a chiropractic clinic on a limited basis. She will have a part-time assistant. If she did not have an assistant, this use would be allowed as a home occupation. This was approved administratively as a Type I and called up by the Hearings Board for a public hearing. Overall, Staff feels there is little difference in impact in this as a home occupation and allowing it for a limited chiropractic office. The Commission may want to add a Condition limiting the hours of operation as proposed by the applicant. The house next door at 386 B Street, is not a part of this application. The applicant has submitted a letter regarding the property at 386 B. Staff has approved with the attached three Conditions. Hibbert wondered if a Condition could be imposed that the CUP does not pass with the sale of the property. McLaughlin affirmed. PUBLIC HEARING SUSAN DEMARINIS, 386 B Street, stated that she is in the process of selling 386 B and would like to move the clinic to 376 B Street. She wants to condense her business. There will be only one person a day travelling on the alley and patients can park on the street. She cannot see any change in impact on the neighborhood. She ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, ~993 read a letter from John Groover, a patient, favoring the proposal. The letter was marked Exhibit P-5. DeMarinis said she will use the building near the alley as storage. She would also like the CUP passed on to another owner. TERRY SKIBBY, 611 Beach Street, spoke for the Historic Commission. The are concerned with the balance of commercial and residential uses and should be continued to be looked at and criteria developed. The Historic Commission voted favorably for this application. They voted to delay alley paving. Carr wondered if the Historic Commission looked at hours of operation. Skibby said that was a consideration because of balance in the neighborhood. DEBBIE WHITEALL, 350 B Street favored the application. She said DeMarinis has been a good neighbor and not created any problems with her existing business. FREDDI WEISHAHN, 338 B Street, reiterated what Whiteall said. She can see no impact. STEVE ENNIS, 1096 B Street, said that he is part of the subcommittee looking at R-2 uses. Ennis looked at the criteria and it seemed to him that the residential use with the professional office will generate more traffic. The parking on B Street is already tight on B Street. He did not think the frontage on B Street looked like enough to meet the requirement for the parking credit. He also did not believe it was the intent of the CUP ordinance to have a new residence built and let it become partly residential and partly office use. From the street it does not seem there will be a lot of activity in the front portion of the house and he views this as a negative impact because there will be not activity in the front portion of the house at night. Ennis thinks that each commercial approval has a cumulative effect. Jarvis asked Ennis how this use could create more traffic than a multi-family residence. Ennis responded that it seemed to him that the medical office along with the receptionist would seem to generate more traffic than a duplex. Staff Response to Testimony and Commissioners Questions McLaughlin explained the parking calculations. He referred to 18.92.060 (mixed uses). It was Staff's opinion that instead of requiring four spaces, since the doctor lives on the site and occupies only one space, there is a space available and the peak demand of two spaces is never going to be met by DeMarinis as a residential use while in operation as a doctor's office. This reduces the parking demand by 25 percent. If the Commissioners disagree, they can limit and require the applicant to not use any more than 350 square feet for professional office purposes and that would reduce the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 1993 5 parking demand to one space. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hibbert does not feel the traffic would be any greater than with the R-2 use. He agrees with Staff on parking. He would like to add a Condition that not more than 45 percent of the house can be used for business. Also, the CUP should not be passed onto another owner or tenant. Armitage agreed. Carr would like to see the inclusion of the concerns of the Historic Commission. She would also like to require the business hours be as per the Historic Commission and pre-app conference. Carr moved to approve PA 93-026 with limiting the office use to 30 hours per week and the amount of commercial space to 400 square feet. Also, the CUP should be exclusively for the applicant and no other professionals could be hired or the residence sublet. Hibbert seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Medinger left the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 93-030 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND VARIANCES TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 1253 AND 1257 QUINCY STREET. VARIANCE REQUESTED FROM THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR A FOUR-PLEX. VARIANCE REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS AND FROM MINIMUM FLAG DRIVE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: MICHAEL GUTMAN/JOHN STADELMAN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all except Hibbert. Cloer noticed the tight, crowded result that has occurred because of the apartments being built. He felt nervous about the requested change having an adverse effect. He would not like to see it get any worse. Bingham also noticed the crowded lot and a shed or accessory unit behind the house. He had a brief conversation with the tenant and he said the back units were all rented. Powell noticed the same thing and wondered if it would look better without the fences. STAFF REPORT The criteria for a Variance are noted on the overhead projector. The Minor Land Partition criteria can be shown, if necessary. Molnar explained the history of this ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 1993 property as outlined in the Staff Report. This proposal is for a Minor Land Partition to split off the existing residence and the four-plex onto their separate lots. The Variances include a lot size variance to allow for the four-plex to be on a lot which is approximately 1400 square feet deficient to what is required in the ordinance. The flag drive width Variance would allow for a width of 12 feet instead of 20 feet. The other Variance is to allow the residence to be on a lot 44 feet wide instead of 50 feet wide, as required by ordinance. In 1987 the applicant chose to maximize the density. It is clear from the Type I Findings that the lots should be consolidated. It is difficult to make a finding for the variances because of the past history. Are these variances necessary to preserve the property rights of the applicant? The applicant has been able to achieve densities over time. The property has been developed in accordance with zoning. Molnar noted a correction in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" to add the word "not" after "Staff does". Staff has recommended denial of this application. Bingham wondered if approval of this proposal would change anything. McLaughlin said the only change would be drawing lines on paper. PUBLIC HEARING MICHAEL GUTMAN, 1263 Quincy, explained that in 1987 he wanted to provide small, efficient, affordable homes designed for single people. The planner at that time suggested Gutman do a PUD where the parcel would become one tax lot and all the units would be able to be individually owned. The Planning Commission denied the PUD. Gutman then received approval to build a four unit apartment complex combining the two lots into one lot. Towards the end of construction, he asked for a lot line adjustment and the City agreed. With regard to the most the current proposal Gutman noted that the there will no change to the driveway and it is still 16 feet wide. The partition is drawn to show approximately 11 feet of driveway belonging to the four-plex and five feet belonging to the house. There would be an easement providing access for the house. He said he was confused as to how to do this project in the beginning, however, he went along with Staff and now feels he meets the Variance criteria that the circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The fences have been erected to provide privacy and open space for each yard. Jarvis said that Gutman made the choice to develop his property the way he wanted to. He could have developed something less dense. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUI_A,R MEE'rlNG MINUTES M/d~CH 9, l~ Gutman, now speaking as a neighbor, presented a handout (Exhibit P-4). There are 117 units in his block, five of which are owner occupied. There would be no negative impact to have another owner occupied unit. LESLIE BALLEW, 321 Alta, said as a realtor she is aware of the affordable housing crunch in Ashland. What is meant by preservation of property rights? The Variance is being asked for in order not to diminish Gutman's property rights. Were conditions self-imposed? She believes Gutman was working innocently. What is Ashland's stand on affordable housing? This is an opportunity to create an affordable housing unit with a paper change only. Ballew submitted her statistics on affordable housing as Exhibit P-5. GUTMAN does not plan to live in the house forever and wants it on its own lot. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hibbert has a problem with the lot size and density. Jarvis does not think approval of this application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. Even though Bingham liked the affordable housing idea, he does not see that the applicant meets the criteria that the conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. Carr moved to deny Planning Action 93-030 as it does not satisfy the criteria of approval for a Variance, particularly: that there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere and that the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed, and that approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. Hibbert seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER The Minutes from the Joint Study Session and Field Trip minutes were approved. The Wiley Findings were approved as corrected. There was a typing error that Staff will correct. Carr moved to approve, Bingham seconded and the Findings were approved. Councilman Phil Arnold recommended that someone from the Planning Commission attend the Traffic Safety meeting to talk about parking on A Street by Euromek, if the Planning Commission felt strongly about this issue. The Traffic Safety meeting will be held March 24th at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 1993 McLaughlin and Armitage have been discussing "team building". They thought it would be an opportunity to work out differences between individuals by learning more about each other. They thought it should be facilitated through a team building process. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 1993