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