Loading...
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