Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-12 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Chris Hearn called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mike Morris and Ray Kistler. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Maria Harris and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes and Findings of the November 14, 2000 meeting were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2000-113 is a request for a Land Partition to divide two parcels into four for the property located at 1165 and 1167 North Main Street. Parcels 2 and 3 are served by a flag drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05 BA; Tax Lot: 100 and 400. APPLICANT: Bruce and Jerri Barton This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-111 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership of a five-unit traveler’s accommodation located at 639 N. Main Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05 AC; Tax Lot: 3503. APPLICANT:Vivienne M. Grant and Peter Grant This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-118 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Solar Waiver for the re-construction and expansion of the existing accessory structure located at the rear of the property at 63 Bush Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BD; Tax Lot: 3000. APPLICANT: Robbin Foster & Colleen Curran They will be required to have one off street parking space and need to leave the space in its present form or lease a space from an adjacent property owner. This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-119 is a request for a Physicals Constraints Permit for development on Hillside Land for the property located at 180 Logan Drive. An Administrative Variance to the Building Standards for Hillside Lands is also requested for building design. A Variance for the finished driveway slope to be at the maximum of 18% and a Variance for to the Solar Setback requirement are also requested. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-10; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 08 AA; Tax Lot: 6902. APPLICANT: Ken & Priscilla Laws This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-122 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for an accessory residential unit to be constructed at 925 Oak Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 04 BD; Tax Lot: 1300. APPLICANT: Jeff Golden This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2000-123 is a request for a Land Partition to divide a parcel into three lots for the property located at 408 N. Laurel. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 04 CB; Tax Lot: 707. APPLICANT: Phil Linsday This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 2000-125 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for an accessory residential unit located at 651 Beach Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 16AA; Tax Lot: 5700. APPLICANT: Jennifer & Karl Carstensen This action was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2000-105 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN 8,290 SQURE FOOT GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOSPITAL LOCATED AT 559 SCENIC DRIVE. THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA WILL BE ACCESSED FROM A DRIVEWAY APPROACH FROM CATALINA DRIVE WHILE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRONS ON MAPLE STREET AND SCENIC DRIVE WILL BE PERMANENTLY CLOSED OFF. APPLICANT: ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Harris said this is a proposal for a two-story general office building for Ashland Community Hospital. The building fronts Maple with access off Catalina. The office will have three street frontages. This was a Type I in October but it was called up for a public hearing. The hospital administrative offices will be located in this building. The building plan was approved for medical offices in 1998. The design has stayed the same but the use is different. Part of the proposal is to demolish a small office on the lot. The main entrance is on Maple Street. Twenty-five parking spaces are proposed with five parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to put in sidewalks on all three frontages. One concern is the visibility at Maple and Scenic. There is artificial fill at the corner and junipers have been planted on top of that. Harris understands the applicant will bring that corner down to street grade and remove the fill. Vehicular access is off Catalina. PUBLIC HEARING KEN OGDEN, Ogden Schmitz Architects, 2950 E. Barnett Road, Medford, said this will afford the hospital more elbow room. He showed a color rendition of the building. They tried to utilize materials consistent with the neighborhood and still try to retain the historic characteristics in the area. Hearn noted there would not be a gain in vehicle trips per day. Ogden said the departments moving into this building have overflowed their spaces within the hospital. Amarotico asked what will happen to the space in the hospital. PAT FLANNERY responded that it will be converted to patient rooms. They need space for more in-patient rooms. This move will help add parking spaces. Flannery said they will improve the landscaping on Scenic and directly behind the property. He doubts there would be many people there past 5:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2000 COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Morris moved to approve 2000-105, Amarotico seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 2000-117 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 350 PHELPS STREET. AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS IS ALSO REQUESTED ASKING THAT THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK ON THE PATTERSON STREET FRONTAGE NOT HAVE TO BE INSTALLED. APPLICANT: DOYLE BRIGHTENBURG/DAMI ROELSE Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT One part of the application is for a Land Partition to divide a parcel into two lots, Lot A and Lot B. Lot A has an existing house on it. The second part of the proposal is to convert an existing floor space in the existing residence into an accessory residential unit. The proposed lots are 8,000 square feet and 5,000+ in size. The accessory residential unit is 488 square feet. Proposed Lot A is gently sloped with proposed Lot B at about 20% slope. There are some trees on the property. There is a large Siberian Elm tree on the property. City services are available. The parking and access for the proposed Lot B is off a flag drive which is part of Lot A but Lot B would have a mutual access easement. The parking for Lot A is one space in front off the flag drive and one in the rear and the use of one on-street credit on the south street frontage. The Conditional Use Permit and Land Partition would be a staff approval and administrative decision but the applicant as part of the proposal has agreed to put on a five foot curbside sidewalk along the Phelps Street frontage. As it is a corner lot, they are also required to put a sidewalk on the Patterson Street frontage. They have requested an exception to the Street Standards. Normally, for a neighborhood street, sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. There are three main issues that need further information to see if they meet the criteria. The first is access and parking. There are some technical problems with the proposal. There is not quite enough back-up space on one lot. Eighteen feet of back-up is required and they have 12 feet. Also, the other space off the driveway needs more back-up room. They are required to have 22 feet and they show only 14 feet. Secondly, there is the request for the exception to installing a sidewalk. The first criteria for an exception is that there is a substantial difficulty in meeting requirements due to unique or unusual circumstances. The applicant has cited that installation of a sidewalk would require removal of a fence, garden area and trees, and because the sidewalk would require up to six feet in width they would need to install a retaining wall behind the sidewalk. The applicant turned in another site plan on Friday. They will have to dedicate more public right-of-way. More information is still needed on what types of trees are there. The applicants are asking to do only half the requirements. With regard to using a retaining wall, there are many places in Ashland that require a retaining wall. There is a sidewalk across the street on Patterson but a portion has not been completed. There is a Staff Exhibit A shows a one-quarter mile radius around the site. One hundred sixty residences in this area could potentially use a sidewalk in this area. That would generate about 200 trips per day and typically, 25% of all trips made are a mile or less. In the big picture, that is why the policy and standard is in the Comprehensive Plan. The Siberian Elm looks like it is in the flag drive area. The proposal seems to indicate it will be removed. It seems there needs to be more information on this. Amarotico wondered if there could be a compromise to take part of the right-of-way since the street is fairly wide. Molnar said the problem is that you might have a storm drain on one side and sometimes it can be more involved ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2000 that pouring a sidewalk. It could get to be costly. Harris said since this is a corner lot it has quite a bit more frontage. Staff was suggesting maybe one way to at least phase the improvement would be to wait and put the sidewalk on the Patterson Street frontage when the actual house was built on the proposed Lot B rather than doing it up front. Staff would recommend the Phelps Street sidewalk be done now before the two lots are created and later the Patterson Street. Staff does not believe the criteria for a Street Standards Exception has been met but they are recommending approval with the attached 15 Conditions which require the sidewalk as just described. PUBLIC HEARING DOYLE BRIGHTENBURG, 350 Phelps, wants to stress this is an Exception to the Street Standards. This is not a Variance. The Exception allows for discretion. The Exception falls under the Performance Standards Options. An option means going one way or the other. A portion of the garden would have to be removed for the accessory residential unit. The landscape plan was generated with the assumption a sidewalk would not have to be installed. He said a five foot sidewalk plus another eight inches to a foot for the retaining wall would place the sidewalk three feet, six inches in back of the property line. That would be another easement. But then, there is an eight foot setback for an open porch. He looked at the sidewalks in the area. There could be circulation by way of foot traffic. Everything seems to be geared to the other side of the street. He is concerned about safety. He is suggesting that he would like to take advantage of the Exception in this instance because it still works with his neighborhood. Brightenburg looked at the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Element and saw where the design is to be safe, easy and convenient to use. ALI TURRELL, 361 Phelps Street, lives across the street. She has the house with the sidewalk. She favors the application. She believes it would be an excellent development for the neighborhood. With regard to Condition 11 concerning the sidewalk on Patterson, she submitted additional written information. She wanted to point out that since this is an Exception, assuming the Planning Commission has discretion in doing what is best for the public interest, that this should be allowed. She believes there should be continuity in the existing portions. It is fairly obvious when looking at her map what should be done. There is good connectivity in the neighborhood. Phelps is a very steep slope and it is difficult for people to park on the street. She does not know that having a sidewalk across the street is necessarily the goal of connectivity. The City would be better served to have the sidewalk extensions moved to an appropriate right-of-way--move it across the street. There is a sight clearance issue at the corner. BILL ANDERSON, 370 Patterson, said if you put a sidewalk on his side, anyone who sees it is going to have to cross the street in the middle. Patterson and Phelps would be dangerous. He does not see a possibility of putting a sidewalk on his property or the property at the corner of Ann. Most people avoid walking up the steep hill (Phelps). The sidewalk should go on the other side where there is a lot of vegetation. DAMI ROESLE, 350 Phelps Street, said visually their proposal will improve this a lot. She believes it is more pleasant to look at vegetation than a retaining wall. Staff Response Harris noted she did not get the revised site plan until mid-day Friday. Staff did not know where the garden was located. She reminded the Hearings Board to look at the larger issue of sidewalks. Maybe it is not an advantage to this immediate block but they need to think of future development to the east, possible links to the park and the bigger mile scope of potential people that could use the sidewalk. They need to step back and look at the larger issue. Harris said Condition 7 requires a parking space behind the existing house be removed. In Staff’s opinion it does not seem that the second parking space is functional. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2000 Harris disagreed with Brightenburg’s assessment of an Exception. There is no more discretion with an Exception than a Variance, because the Commission still has to make a finding for the Exception. Hearn wondered if it is possible that there could be future connectivity to the north. Molnar said the area to the north is not in the North Mountain Neighborhood plan. There are two parcels that have development potential and he does envision those coming off Patterson and Ann and making a connection to North Mountain. Hearn mentioned the area where the sidewalk ends. Is there a City easement or a way to put some pressure on the homeowner there to accept the offer the applicant was proposing? Harris said according to Brightenburg, there is about five or six feet of right-of-way (or three and one-half feet). Harris said they suggested that at the beginning because it seemed like a logical connection but the applicant would have to get that information. RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Hearn asked the applicant if he was interested in further exploring this potential. Brightenburg said in doing the calculations, there is five to six feet of right-of-way on the other side of the street. Hearn asked if Brightenburg would be willing to request a continuance to explore having the sidewalk put on the other side of the street. Brightenburg said he would. Harris suggested the sidewalk be put in before a Certificate of Occupancy. Molnar said it seems there is additional information to gather for the Commissioners to make a decision. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Morris moved to continue the hearing for a month and explore the amount of right-of-way across the street. If that is not feasible, there might be other alternatives. Brightenburg agreed to waive the 120 day rule and agreed to the continuance. The hearing will be continued to January 9, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2000