Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-11 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Marilyn Briggs and John Fields. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris, Brandon Goldman, and Sue Yates. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2000-063 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO MULTI-STORY, MIXED-USE ND BUILDINGS (COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND RESIDENTIAL ON THE 2 FLOOR) ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1630 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD (PHASE I). THE PROPOSAL INVOLVES THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE. APPLICANT: DON GREENE This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-071 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 726 IOWA STREET INTO TWO PARCELS. PARCEL 1 WILL CONTAIN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE FRONTING ON IOWA STREET, AND PARCEL 2 WILL CONTAIN THE EXISTING HOUSE WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW PARCEL 2 TO HAVE A LOT WIDTH GREATER THAN THE DEPTH. A SECOND VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PARCEL 2 TO BE REDUCED FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO 6 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE APPLICANT: PAUL AND MARGIE CARLSON Briggs asked that the applicant work to protect the dripline of the tree along the fence line. This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-072 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 499 CHESTNUT INTO A FAMILY PRACTICE MEDICAL OFFICE. APPLICANT: ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL The Commissioners asked that the applicants to consider using something other than T-111 siding. This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-075 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 491 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT LOCATED IN THE REAR OF 624 BEACH STREET. APPLICANT: DOUG AND CATHERINE ROWE This action was approved PLANNING ACTION 2000-076 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A TEN-LOT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF SUNNYVIEW STREET AND EAST OF WESTWOOD STREET. APPLICANT: EVA ARCHERD/HAL DRESNER This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-078 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 449 EUCLID STREET. APPLICANT: SYLVIA MEDEIROS This action was approved. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS (Hearings Board) – 1:30 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 2000-052 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LAND PARTITION FOR A TWO-STORY, TWO-UNIT MOTEL (APPROXIMATELY 1296 SQ. FT. PER UNIT) LOCATED AT 220 FOURTH STREET. APPLICANT: ROBERT LOMBARDI STAFF REPORT Knox reported the building proposed is on the north side and the applicant is asking for a Land Partition. The partition is straightforward. There will be an easement for utilities and public access. With regard to the Site Review, there will be parking to the side of the building with a new sidewalk installed. New trees will be installed. There will be a raised planter bed between the parking and sidewalk. Some of the parking is going to have to be modified because of the size of the spaces. The building is traditional and fits into the context of the 4th Street area. Two floors are symmetrical in appearance. The center is recessed slightly with glass block window and other features of interest. There is a deck in the rear. The materials are stucco with some wood trim. The Historic Commission has reviewed this application in the last three months. It has undergone some changes that the Historic Commission feels comfortable about. Knox added a Condition: “That at the time of the building plan submittal, applicant submit detailed final drawings drawn to scale. Such details to be identified to include proportional dimensions of the belly band trim and casing. Such plans to be reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Staff Advisor”. One of the things Staff has appreciated is that this is the type of building that can be recycled, if necessary, to commercial/retail on the lower floor and residential upstairs. Now it is proposed to be a two-unit hotel. The impact of this use is much less than a restaurant. There is a ten foot gap between buildings because there is a stairwell on one of the buildings. Briggs said what’s drawn does not match with what it is said it is going to be. Knox said it is going to be a hotel. If things don’t work, it is an inexpensive retrofit to make it an apartment. A manager’s unit is not required for a hotel. Quite a few hotels in town that operate this way seem to work well. Briggs thinks that converting a residence to an office is going the wrong way. She would like to see employment use on the bottom floor and upper floor residential. Who needs a three -bedroom hotel room in January? What happens to the building then? Molnar said the Commission should not be reviewing the floorplan. The Historic Commission and Staff have at least tried to design the frontage of the building so over time it is adaptable to retail or professional uses on the ground floor. Knox talked with the applicant and he said a lot of hotel facilities are not currently set up for families. He thinks it is part of the market plan. Fields wondered if he no longer uses this as a day rental, can it be regulated for a residential use? Knox said that would be hard to monitor. If they went the other way to commercial, would it require another site review to make sure 65 percent would be commercial and 35 percent residential. It has been designed to work as a permitted use. PUBLIC HEARING ROBERT LOMBARDI, 1685 Old Siskiyou Hwy, said this building is for a certain market niche. Accommodations for up to eight to ten people at a time are lacking in Ashland. There is an adequate market throughout the year to operate it as a hotel. Briggs said she knows we need office space, so she hates to use residences for office space. Could he make a combination? Lombardi said he could not get as much rent for an office. It would not provide enough income to service the debt on the construction of the building. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 11, 2000 Lombardi said they are considering moving the entry one foot to the right to make the building symmetrical. Fields thought the bathrooms should be handicap accessible. Knox suggested Condition 15 to read: “Ground floor to be handicap adaptable for doors and bathroom access with requirements identified at the time of the building permit per the Uniform Building Code.” COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs will be voting “no” because it misses the mark for E-1. She is concerned it will set a precedent. Gardiner does not have a problem with this building in this location and if it is built to meet E-1 standards at a future time, he can go along with it. Fields acknowledged that hotels are just one of the businesses in Ashland. It is a Conditional Use Permit, not a Variance. If it converts into a true residence, they would need a Variance and they would be forced to have office space. Fields moved to approve PA2000-052 with the 15 attached Conditions. Gardiner seconded the motion and it carried with Briggs voting “no”. PLANNING ACTION 2000-067 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AT THE CORNER OF MAPLE STREET AND SCENIC DRIVE. THE REQUEST INVOLVES USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A PARKING AREA FOR TWO YEARS. APPLICANT: ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts - Gardiner and Briggs had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Molnar said there was a previously approved plan for an office building in 1998. The request for a hearing was withdrawn based on the sole access being off Catalina. The lot is currently being used as a de facto parking lot with an entrance off Maple. It was brought to the City’s attention and the hospital applied for a Conditional Use Permit for temporary use as a parking lot for approximately two years. In that time, they may have a building design for a new office. They have hired a landscape architect to do some landscaping around the perimeter. They have provided some parking demand information. When they approved the CUP for a two year temporary use, Staff added a condition that they close off the existing Maple driveway approach and just have access off Scenic. The reason for this initially is that it is Staff’s understanding that interim use was for certain staff employees. They did not believe there would be intense use of the access from Scenic and were more concerned about establishing a precedent for the hospital staff to getting used to using the Maple driveway approach. The generation of traffic on Maple is higher than Scenic. The Commission has some leeway. Because it is a temporary use, there are no real strong issues of allowing for the Maple driveway approach to be used on an interim basis. It is possible to evaluate it in one year to see the intensity of the use. Staff didn’t really want to put in a new driveway approach on Catalina based on the grade change. Based on Staff’s projections of traffic along Maple, they have real reservations about the traffic accessing off Maple permanently. In the long run, the Catalina driveway would be the best solution. The Staff Report mentions there will be a sidewalk constructed at the expense of the hospital form North Main to Scenic. PUBLIC HEARING JIM MCNAMARA, 1007 Ashland Street, is the Consulting Engineer for the hospital. PAT FLANNERY, 280 Maple Street, Director of Development, Ashland Community Hospital, said all the plans have been drawn for the building on the site. They have filled the site with shale. Parking in the area around the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 11, 2000 hospital is a problem. Primarily the doctor’s staff parks on the street. This lot has turned out to be an ideal substitute to parking on the street. Ninety percent of the cars that enter and exit the temporary lot, enter and exit off Maple Street. His feeling is that the curb cut exists on Maple, so why not continue to use the Maple entrance and keep the cars off Scenic? McNamara said the curb cut was already there on Maple and that’s why they used it. Flannery noted that they enforce staff parking off-site. LINDA CHAMBERS, P. O. Box 1085, Ashland, lives at 543 Scenic which is right next door to the proposed parking lot. She objects to exiting and entering on Scenic. That would put a great deal of traffic right next to her bedroom windows. She is concerned with the amount of dust created from driving on crushed rock and the noise of driving on crushed rock. She was assured when talking to a person from the hospital that they were not intending to put in lighting which would be another concern for her. She can’t help but think as soon as winter comes that people will want lights for safety. Lighting would certainly impact her. There is a light on the side of the occupational therapy building that puts light in her bedroom now. She believes there should be fencing, planting, and screening along the south perimeter of the property. There are some bushes and a chain link fence but they don’t’ do anything to cut down light and noise from the cars. She would like to see the Scenic access discontinued. She would not like to see it become a precedent when the building gets built. She felt entering on Catalina and exiting off Scenic would be dangerous. CHUCK OLINGHOUSE, 548 Scenic Drive, stated he is not against the parking lot. He is against the access off Scenic. A couple of things not mentioned in his earlier letter, is the lack of parking on Scenic. The parking is so bad that they park in front of their mailboxes. He doesn’t receive his mail if cars are in front of it. By eliminating the Scenic parking access, it would add two to three more spaces on the street. It might help to have marked parking spaces. Lights would be a concern to him. The lights now come in his window. In the wintertime, there will be a lot more light and noise from cars and gravel. The entrance from Maple is right on top or at a slope change, so it is safer than Scenic Drive. Scenic is blind for vehicles coming down the road. He would like landscaping along the south side of the property so it will still be there when they build the new building to help block light and noise. J ELLEN AUSTIN, P. O. Box 851, said she has property at 546 Scenic Drive, and that safety is her main concern. There are quite a few children who ride their bikes on Scenic and she is concerned with their safety. She supports the parking lot and the new medical building but not with access on Scenic. She agrees with Mr. Olinghouse that the Scenic access be closed off with the landscaping installed before the new building is built. JOHN KING, 289 Palm, spoke against the proposal because he does not want to throw good money down a hole. King feels the hospital should be relocated across from the Forensics Lab on 55 acres. Rebuttal Flannery said it is their goal to try and make this compatible with the neighborhood and landscape it. Probably any landscaping will have to be removed and redone with a new building anyway. The building at 559 Scenic will come down when the new building is built. McNamara said the parking lot at 559 Scenic is paved all the way up to the west end. He is not sure what else could be done to mitigate the problem. They did not have any plans to do any lighting. A security guard does patrol the lot and building. They have tried to make sure the cleaning crew arrive in the early evening. They will work with trying to get the lights off the building at 559 Scenic. Molnar said they could put a temporary barrier between the asphalt and gravel area. That way cars could not pass through to the other lot. Gardiner agreed that would effectively keep the level of traffic on Scenic that is there now. Molnar said they could modify a Condition to maintain the Maple Street driveway approach for access to the temporary parking lot but that barrier installed along the north/south access between the asphalt area and the temporary parking lot. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 11, 2000 COMMISSIONERS’ MOTION AND DECISION Gardiner proposed changing Condition 4: That the Maple Street curb cut would remain and would be the sole access to the temporary parking facility with no direct auto access available off Scenic into the proposed temporary facility. Further, a barrier of some sort would be constructed between the existing parking facility and the temporary facility. This to be evaluated in two years. Briggs asked for a Condition 7 reminder that when the new building goes up, the Scenic entrance should be closed. Gardiner moved to approve PA2000-067 with the modifications to Condition 4, and Condition 7 that will review the Scenic Drive access in two years. Fields seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 200-065 REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION FOR A BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR ONE LOT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION (18.88) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON IVY LANE. APPLICANT: SCOTT RESCH STAFF REPORT Knox reported there has been a lot of history on this property. The request is to modify Lot 1 at the end of Ivy Lane. This was originally approved as a Staff Permit. The proposal was to extend the side yard to six feet. It was appealed by the neighbors. The applicants said they would go back to the original 22 feet. The front yard is to be sited about eight feet over an embankment. This happens with the envelopes because it changes at the time of construction drawings. Construction occurs and envelopes get adjusted. The street went about eight feet further to the south. Staff was originally concerned with the rear envelope expansion. They are comfortable with it now because the Hillside Ordinance will come into play and there will be a lot more site analysis than there was when the development was approved. The envelope is somewhat “antiquated”. The Hillside Ordinance is a much better mechanism for working these things out. The size of the envelope gives the applicant more wiggle room to design the house. There are four Conditions attached to this application. Briggs wondered if the envelope was too close to the steep bank. Knox understood what she meant, but he feels comfortable with it being set back. He is not sure why it has to cantilever over. He will note it under hillside review. Knox believes the concerns of the neighbors were mostly with regard to firebreaks. They’ve talked to the Code Enforcement Officer to get this taken care of. PUBLIC HEARING SCOTT RESCH, 811 Twin Pines Circle, said he would have liked the envelope a little wider, but due to the neighbors’ concerns, he was willing to give it up. He understood the neighbors had concerns about fire. Resch showed the Commissioners a preliminary drawing of the house. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs moved approval, Fields seconded and it was approved. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 11, 2000