HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-10 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 1993
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other
Commissioners present were Hal Cloer and Jim Hibbert. Staff present were Bill
Molnar, John McLaughlin and Sonja Akerman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Cloer moved and Hibbert seconded to approve the Minutes of the July 13, 1993
Hearings Board meeting. The motion was unanimously passed. With a motion by
Hibbert and second by Cloer, it was the unanimous decision to also approve the
Findings.
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 93-090 IS A REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A
PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION WITH BALCONY ON MACARONI'S
RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 58 EAST MAIN STREET.
APPLICANT: ALLAN SANDLER
Cloer made a site visit and talked with the kitchen manager. He stated he would like
to hear the objective of closing off a small window.
Jarvis and Hibbert made site visits.
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said this is a request to place a second story addition on 58 East Main
Street, currently Macaroni's restaurant. The balcony will project over the sidewalk.
Since it is in the downtown area, no parking is required. Staff approved this last
month, and it was called up for a public hearing by Paul Nicholson of OSFA, and the
attorney for Joan Boyden.
The main concern is that the addition is compatible. In size, it matches up with the
streetscape, as most buildings in the downtown area are two stories. Staff has
recommended approval, subject to the four conditions in the Staff Report. All criteria
applicable to a Site Review have been met.
Cloer questioned if engineering details were part of the application. McLaughlin said
the preliminary work has been completed. He added seismic retrofitting has also been
addressed.
PUBLIC HEARING
ALLAN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect Street, said he did a lot of preliminary work before
anything was turned in. He has talked with Paul Nicholson, whose concern was the
rear elevation. The Historic Commission was also concerned with this and requested
rear elevations. Sandler said he has assured OSFA they would be consulted for the
final plan. He also said he wants to make sure everyone is happy. Joan Boyden, he
explained, has been questioning the encroachment on her building, however, prior to
applying, he went to court and won a judgment for the use of the stairway. The
existing patio will basically remain as it is, however, it will be enlarged. It will enhance,
rather than detract. Sandler then clarified the rear elevation that was submitted.
KEVIN HElDRICK, 521/~ East Main Street #2, said he would like clarification. He lives
in an apartment next to Macaroni's in the Boyden building and uses the stairway for
access. He has worked for Mrs. Boyden in the building as a contractor and has had
occasion to replace flooring, etc. He is very concerned about the stairway and
subsequent demolition that may occur. Heldrick also commented about the window in
the hallway. When the lights went out last week, he said it was like a cavern. If the
light from the window were to be removed, it would be very dark. He said he knows
the condition of the brick in the exterior wall and feels it would be a powdery mess if
one brick were to be removed. He declared he is also interested in the access they
have and wondered if they would still have access from the front stairway. Jarvis said
that according to the judgment, both parties will be able to use it. Heldrick then said it
seems to compromise security the apartment tenants now have. The door is locked
at night, so it will affect the seven apartments if traffic is coming and going. Also, they
won't be able to hang their bikes on the wall anymore. He wanted to know their rights
as renters. Jarvis maintained the courts have made that decision already.
LARRY WORKMAN, 39 South Central Avenue - Medford (partner of Robert Bluth who
represents Joan Boyden), said Ms. Boyden's chief objection is that the proposal is
contrary to a recorded deed restriction of 1940. It said anything constructed on that
floor shall not close or obstruct the light. Her second concern is that it would require
the modification of the stairway use. Changes will be necessary when it is brought to
code, which will require raising of ceiling, etc. She does not want any obligation to
pay for the upgrading. Jarvis proclaimed he direct objections to the criteria, as his
objections seem to be out of purview. Workman said he understands that, however,
Boyden wants it to be clear to the Planning Commission she has objections.
MARK DEW, registered engineer with Marquess & Associates, 1120 East Jackson
Street in Medford, said he had been retained by Joan Boyden to look at the stairway
in terms of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). He said he was here to point out the
facts. He submitted his engineer report as Exhibit 0-1. One of Boyden's concerns
was the head clearance, of which the UBC requires 80". The existing head clearance
is only 74". In his opinion, the 2 x 16 floor joist cannot be altered or it would weaken
the entire floor. Dew clarified which joist when questioned by Hibbert and stated it
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 1993
2
would compromise the integrity of the floor joist. He said he has already talked with
Building Inspector John Great and George Bernloehr, plans examiner in Salem. The
stairs are non-compliant, as they do not have adequate landing. In order to bring
them up to code, it would not leave adequate entrance to the apartments. Dew then
referred to the judgment and said it does not say there would be half ownership. The
stairway is owned by Boyden and Sandler has the right to use them. He then read
from the deed mentioned earlier and questioned Staff about solar access. McLaughlin
clarified solar access would not apply downtown. Dew then spoke about the space
used above and below the stairway by the apartment dwellers. The usage will be
affected if the stairway is altered. Jarvis questioned the legality of the stairs now. Dew
said they were legal when constructed. When remodeled, the State requires they will
have to brought into compliance. In his opinion, it would be impossible to bring them
up to code.
McLaughlin explained the deed restriction is a private dispute between the two
property owners. Who would pay for the repairs is also disputed. If Sandler cannot
obtain a building permit because of building code and deed restrictions, Planning
Commission approval would be void.
REBUTTAL
Sandler stated he will have his own structure and it will not be built on Boyden's
property. Everything will be engineered. The apartments will still have access and he
will have equal responsibility because of liability, insurance purposes, etc. The
stairway is not to code now. The building inspector felt there might be a way to make
the stairway legitimate. They will insist it is to code. The second story will leave more
than enough light. Also, he said they are willing to pay for another hallway built
around the parapet with doorways leading to the apartments so they can be locked.
Architect DAVE RICHARDSON, 1105 Siskiyou Boulevard, related there is a lot of work
to be done yet. They are taking it a step at a time. The window situation, which will
stay back five feet from the addition, will have added glass blocks. Also, they are
trying to maintain the five foot one-hour setback.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Hibbert said he was on the border regarding sharing the use of the stairway with the
tenants, however, since Sandler addressed that and he will be working with the owner,
he feels it should be alright. Cloer agreed and stated all the criteria have been met.
Hibbert moved and Cloer seconded to approve this action. The motion passed
unanimously.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 1993
3
PLANNING ACTION 93-091 IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
FIVE FOOT HIGH FENCE WITH AN EIGHT INCH LATTICE TOP, RATHER THAN
FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, ALONG ASHLAND
LOOP ROAD.
APPLICANTS: DEBORAH AND DENNIS HOFER
All had site visits.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar explained this was administratively approved last month, but it was called up
for a public hearing by the Hearings Board. A revised plan has been submitted by the
applicants' contractor. The height has remained the same, but they propose using a
stairstep approach in trying to follow the topography. There are aesthetic
modifications also, and the findings have been revised.
PUBLIC HEARING
HAROLD MILLER, 1517 Larkspur Street in Medford 97504, said he was here on behalf
of the owners and he is the contractor. Hibbert said the drawing does not show the
jog in the house. Miller explained the curve in the road, which was put in after the
Hofer's house was built. Hibbert questioned the need to build a fence higher than
three and one-half feet. Miller said the Hofers have a problem with lights shining into
the house on the second story. Headlights come from the northwest down Ashland
Loop Road.
Hibbert maintained he felt it should be adequate to have a four foot fence rather than
granting a Variance. He then questioned the ordinance regarding fences and parking
lots. McLaughlin said this is a different situation because parking lots are flat and this
road is sloped. Miller said when you are on the road, you are higher and the property
slopes downward. Hibbert still couldn't see why a Variance was needed, and
suggested it would be overkill.
Cloer said he is willing to go along with the design the applicants submitted.
Hibbert clarified his position. He said a four foot fence would be adequate for the
entire way, with maybe five feet on the top from the west to the jog in house, then
toward the front to the entryway, four and one-half feet solid to the top of the lattice.
That would give five feet where they think they need it. Jarvis would rather see five
feet with an eight inch lattice than five feet solid, then step down to four feet. She
stated five feet eight inches with lattice up to the jog could be built, then stepped down
to a maximum of four feet, including lattice. Miller said the owners agreed they would
like four feet with an eight inch lattice rather than five feet with the eight inch lattice.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 1993
4
Cloer said he could not see why the Hearings Board would deviate from what has
been applied, since there were no concerns expressed from the neighborhood. Jarvis
said she would be alright with five feet eight inches, then jogged down to four feet
eight inches in front. Cloer so moved and Hibbert seconded the motion. It passed
with a unanimous vote.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 93-099 IS A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVAL OF A 13-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION FOR AN
APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 96 CROWSON ROAD.
APPLICANT: ERV TONEY
Jarvis noted the Planning Commission does not grant unlimited extensions. Two is
the limit.
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 93-100 IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A
DRIVEWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT AN 18 PERCENT SLOPE RATHER THAN
15 PERCENT AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, FOR THE RESIDENCE TO BE
LOCATED AT 201 GLENVIEW DRIVE. ALSO REQUESTING A PHYSICAL
CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE WILDFIRE
LANDS AND EROSIVE AND SLOPE FAILURE LANDS.
APPLICANT: MARK HILL
Molnar said essentially this came through as a building permit with a 20% grade for
the driveway, which is the old standard. Currently, the standard is 15%, but a
Variance can be granted for 18%. There is not a buildable area on the lot.
McLaughlin added if the City does not allow a building on it, it would be a clear taking.
Partitioning, however, can be restricted. Molnar said the lot is so consistent in slope,
the owner would have to raise the house to meet the grade; however, then he could
not meet the two and one-half story limit. There are specific standards that need to be
met because the lot is in the severe wildfire area. Erosion during construction also
needs to be considered so hay bales would have to be used. In addition, the owner
would need to revegetate anything that is disturbed. Staff has given preliminary
approval with the conditions in the Findings.
Jarvis questioned the hydrant and sprinklers and it was noted the applicant asked for
a waiver. McLaughlin said the Planning Commission has no discretion on that, as it
would be part of the construction. Molnar said that in discussions with Fire Marshal
Don Paul, he indicated the Fire Department feels comfortable with the stipulations in
the Findings. McLaughlin said the applicant needs full compliance with Fire
Department concerns.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 1993
5
Hibbert asked why the applicant couldn't put in a 15% grade driveway, then
questioned why they would have to raise the house. McLaughlin said the garage level
is determined by the grade. Jarvis stated the applicant could build a different house.
Hibbert and Jarvis requested a public hearing.
Hibbert moved to have a public hearing on this. Cloer seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
PLANING ACTION 93-101 IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/APARTMENT AT
477 ALLISON STREET.
APPLICANTS: JANICE POEHNER AND MILTON MUSSER
Molnar explained the building has been designed as an apartment and will be used as
an office, but will be very easy to convert back to residential use. One of the
applicants is the accountant, who is very specialized in her work. Most of her work is
through the mail. The Historic Commission recommended approval with the condition
the use be limited to no more than two accountants.
Hibbert said he does not want to see commercial use in a residential area. He feels
the approval should go with the owner. If approved, he would like to see it reviewed
in a year.
Cloer moved to approve the action, limiting the use to two accountants. Hibbert said
he does not want to approve it like that. The application was approved by Cloer and
Jarvis.
PLANNING ACTION 93-102 IS REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE HALL STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE
BUILDING LOCATED AT 351 WALKER AVENUE.
APPLICANT: SOUTHERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 93-103 IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO
DIVIDE THE PARCEL AT 665 CLAY STREET INTO THREE LOTS.
APPLICANTS: DANIEL GRAY/LINDA DUPRAY
This action was approved.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 1993
6
PLANNING ACTION 93-104 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL LOCATED AT 108
GRANITE STREET INTO TWO LOTS.
APPLICANT: CARMEL BARNTHOUSE
This action was approved.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 1993
7