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