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