Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-13 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Jarvis, Medinger and Bingham. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 93-128 IS AN APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 635 THORNTON WAY. APPEAL BASED UPON SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE, AND LOT WIDTH/DEPTH REQUIREMENTS. APPELLANT: MARALEE SULLIVAN APPLICANT: DON JOHNSON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Bingham and Jarvis had a site visit. Medinger had no site visit but he is familiar with the property. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported the appellant placed a packet of information into the record. McLaughlin stated this application involves the appeal of a building permit. When issuing a building permit, the City also issues a zoning permit. The appellants are appealing the solar on this site, as well as lot width and lot depth. The reason it may appear there was bizarre intrepretation to the solar ordinance is because this is a bizarre lot. The words of the ordinance have been followed. The main concern is where the solar access is measured from. McLaughlin showed the overhead and explained how Staff arrived at the northern property line. This was also reviewed with the City Attorney. When a section of the ordinance is unclear, Staff refers to the Purpose and Intents sections. However, the explanation of a northern lot line is very clear. The lot width and depth was another issue. The appellant says this lot was not recorded until 1986. If this is the case, it may not be a legal parcel and would not be recognized by the City as a buildable site. If, however, the lot is legal, if the building is within setbacks, the owner can build. Bingham believes the intent of the law would be to protect Sullivan's solar rights. If the ordinance is strictly read, Staff's intrepretation would be fine. McLaughlin said if there is some ambiguity that requires intrepretation, then they would go back to the Purpose and Intent. Bingham referred to page 6 of the appellant's document and a pamphlet handed out by the Planning office. The pamphlet is not the wording in the ordinance. At that point, McLaughlin said the ordinance is the document to which would be referred. Medinger would have interpreted the northern lot line to the secondary northern line instead of the far north that Staff interpreted. PUBLIC HEARING JUDITH UHERBELAU, 607 Siskiyou Blvd., representing Maralee Sullivan said she put her client's comments in writing because didn't feel she would have enough time. The Staff Report raised some issues not in the written material. In applying the zoning ordinance, which part of the lot does one look at? The vast majority of the lot is in the County. The building permit was first signed off by Planning on August 16th. If you apply the definition of a lot, it can apply only to a lot in Ashland, so even though it is not written, it has to be applied to the definition. The definition of a lot must be ambiguous because Staff had a problem. Planning made a land use planning decision when they ignored lot width and depth requirements. Given the definition of the grandfather clause, there is real ambiguity. What has to be recorded? The phrase "which does not meet", that includes not only a substandard lot, but why not a lot that is too big. Technically, the zoning ordinance calls for the northern property line but that completely defeats the purpose of the solar ordinance and thus voids the ordinance. It is obvious the applicant wants city services. If this permit is not allowed, that does not make his lot unbuildable. He could annex. If the building goes forward, it denies the Sullivan's solar access and will cast a shadow. (She did not know how far.) McLaughlin said the house was designed to meet solar setback B so there is 16 foot shadow at the secondary northern lot line. MARALEE SULLIVAN, 550 Tucker Street, said it is hard to get perspective of the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD OCTOBER 13, 1993 MINUTES proposed house and how it will effect her property. There is a steep hill leading up to the lot. There will be a two-story house looming. She understood the solar access ordinance would protect them. Even though the math might work out, the purpose and intent of the solar access ordinance would be violated. She is just asking for a right to sun. EDWARD BERNARD, 639 Prim Street, thought it appeared that this dwelling is trying to sneak into the city limits to get city services and is barely meeting the minimum standards. This lot is uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. Why can't it be moved further up Thornton and be annexed into the City and make it a home that would fit into the neighborhood? JEFF MAYFIELD, 2381 Place, Medford, is the designer of the house for Dr. Johnson. In addressing the solar issue, it was complicated and discussed extensively with the Planning Staff to come up with a fair interpretation to all concerned. With the terrain, as explained by the last two people, the tallest point of the building will not even come up to the curb height on south portion of the lot. The actual shadow length will cast no more shadow than the current terrain of the street. Also, the building does not quite reach a height that would throw 16 foot shadow. He tried to fit it against the contours of the land. He agrees with Planning Staff's intrepretation. He is not aware of a legal lot issue. Jarvis wondered if we can apply our ordinances to a lot line that is not in the City. McLaughlin said the lot is the whole boundary and all lines must be used. The City has jurisdiction over what is in the City limits. Jarvis asked if this was a legal lot (width and depth). McLaughlin said yes, based on the parcel as the parent parcel. McLaughlin said the City's initial thought was to look at the part within the City and apply reasonable standards and follow Criteria B. After the idea of an appeal was brought to Staff's attention, Staff stepped through the solar ordinance word for word before releasing the building permit. After going through that process a clear progression was followed, arriving at what is outlined in the Staff Report. JUDY UHERBELAU, rebuttal, said there are drawings showing the proposed house will shadow the Sullivan's property. DON JOHNSON, 802 Beach Street, noted there is 0.4 of an acre in the City. The house was designed in consideration of solar regulations and was pushed to the west as far as possible so it would not cast a shadow on the neighbors. The shadow will ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD OCTOBER '13, 1993 MINUTES not actually fall on Sullivan's house. The lot was purchased in August of 1989. The title and sales contract was reviewed by a local attorney and determined to be accurate and he has every reason to believe it is a legal lot. Johnson feels the appeal of the permit should not be approved and that the building plans do meet the ordinances as specified. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Medinger thought the intent of the ordinance is to protect the downhill people. It was written for steep northern slopes. However, how difficult would it be to go through an annexation? Jarvis believes Staff made a legal decision, not discretionary. She did see a problem as to the size of the lot and whether or not it is a legal lot. Armitage felt the solar ordinance has been met if the northern most property was used or the secondary northern property line was used. Bingham said that by looking at the site, he did not believe Staff made a land use decision. Jarvis moved to deny the appeal on PA93-128 and find there was not a land use decision made by Staff. Medinger seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 93-125 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REACTIVATION OF A NON- CONFORMING USE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 930 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD (FORMERLY BELLVIEW MOLDING MILL). SPACE TO BE USED FOR MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL APPLICANT: DEAN CROPPER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts -->Bingham had a site visit. A couple of neighbors came by but did not talk about the merits of the case. ->Medinger did not have a site visit but he is familiar with the property. -,Jarvis had a site visit. -,Armitage had no site visit. STAFF REPORT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD OCTOBER 13, 1993 MINUTES The property is divided into two zoning districts: R-1-5 and M-1. There are various structures located on the property. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a substitution of the non-conforming use (Cropper Medical) currently located on Hersey Street. The applicant plans extensive remodeling of the building but will not increase the footprint or building height. There will be general upgrading of the property with landscaping improvements, paving and parking. Comparing this application with the target use of the zone, as described in the Staff Report, it would appear there would be similar traffic impacts. The application does not show how the 19 parking spaces were calculated but states parking will be exceeded by 20 percent. The amended parking ordinance states parking spaces cannot exceed the requirements by more than 10 percent. The Tree Commission reviewed the application and had some questions about the adequacy of the landscaping. Also, with the applicant abutting residential areas on both sides, has screening of the drive been addressed? Normally, a solid wood fence would be required, however, this is a unique application because of the proximity to residential property. The Commission might want to ask what might be the future needs of this business and would they plan to expand? Overall, Staff has taken a neutral stand. Attached are several Conditions, if this application is approved. At the time of noticing, Staff did not know there was still activity at the site, therefore, the reactivation clause would not apply. PUBLIC HEARING DEAN CROPPER, explained that his company manufactures orthopedic equipment and publishes medical books and they have been trying to establish a home base. Looking at the overall proposed site, he felt the integration of the type of facility and business he has would fit, having low impact on the surrounding area. They deal with no chemicals or toxic materials. From a shopping point of view, his employees can support business in the Tolman Creek and Highway 66 area. The breakdown of the proposed utilization of space is 1500 sq. ft. of warehouse, 4200 sq. ft. manufacturing and 3,000 sq. ft. office space. As with the existing building, Cropper would like his building to be of low visibility from the street. He proposes to maintain the pasture area as a garden for his employees as well as thin out what is existing along the creek. He would like to follow the same landscaped look along Tolman Creek. He would propose a 12 foot driveway because of a lower impact. Cropper also said he would prefer a three-rail fence along the drive because it is more compatible with the area. He would add some low shrubs. He plans to put metal siding over the existing walls. As far a future expansion, Cropper said his business is continuing to grow and he might need to ask for a Conditional Use Permit to expand onto the M-1 property in the rear. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD OCTOBER 13, 1993 MINUTES 5 Jarvis asked Cropper about the extra parking and Cropper said he would just not stripe those extra spaces. With regard to deliveries and hours of operation, Cropper said UPS comes twice a day, and a freight truck makes deliveries once a week around mid-day. Hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. DON PAUL said he would accept a 15 foot wide driveway, with a 12 foot paved surface. The neighbor living next door to the proposed site did not want a solid fence. Molnar thought an open rail fence seemed more appropriate with some additional plantings near the neighbor's windows. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Armitage suggested covered bike parking. RE-OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Cropper has approximately 17 employees. McLaughlin thought a 15 foot driveway would adequate for safe passing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Bingham moved to approve PA93-125 for a 15 foot wide driveway. Condition 6 can be changed to a 3-rail (42-44") fence instead of solid wood. Add Condition 10 that four covered bicycle parking spaces be provided. Medinger seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Tree Commission report will be made part of the record. OTHER There will be a Study Session on October 26, 1993. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD OCTOBER 13, 1993 MINUTES 6