Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-14 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Steve Armitage at 1:40 p.m.. Other Commissioners present were Barbara Jarvis and Marilyn Briggs. Staff present were Knox, Harris and Yates. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 97-073 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT (TOTAL OF FIVE) TO THE ALREADY EXISTING FOUR UNIT PLUS OWNER'S QUARTERS TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION. 570 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: LAURA SHREWSBURY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Knox gave the history of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The addition of the fifth unit appears to be minimal when compared to the R-2 target use. The target use would allow four rental units with an average trip generation of about 26 vehicle trips per day. Considering the proposal, the site, and close proximity to downtown, Staff believes the proposal would not be an impact to the neighborhood. Even though Staff does not have a problem with the expansion proposal, Staff does have a problem with the way the applicant intends to operate the facility. Through written and verbal exchanges with the applicant and Knox, Bill Molnar and the Historic Commission, it is Staff's contention the applicant will not meet the standards for on-site residency. This will not be the applicant's primary residence as required by ordinance. The applicant stated that she and her husband put this property up for sale, purchased a residence on North Main Street and has moved her husband and two children into that residence. She has stated she will reside only on the property during nights of guest occupancy and she will be leaving weekday mornings to get her children ready for school and weekday afternoons and evenings to be with her family. The applicant is proposing a situation that not only skirts the ordinance requirements but also diminishes the tangible and intangible qualities of a residence. Staff believes it is imperative for the business owner to reside on-site and the site be the owner's primary residence. A primary residence is one in which the occupant resides/sleeps on-site at all times during the operation of the accommodation regardless if the rental units are occupied on a particular night or not. Staff has met with the City Attorney who confirmed the proposal would not meet the definition of a primary residence and, therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the application. After review, Jarvis said it appears the applicant is already violating the law. She is upset that Shrewsbury has decided to live in another house. Of course she would not live in a house where her kids are not living. This is the worst violation Jarvis has seen of the traveller's accommodation ordinance. Knox agreed a code enforcement issue exists even before the expansion. Briggs thought it was small and she could not see it would be appropriate for a family residence. Armitage is concerned that by making the fifth unit so small that it could become a future problem but it meets the criteria for a fifth unit. He feels issues are being mixed. Why is staff bringing in the issue of conformance? Shrewsbury brought attention to the fact she is in violation. Knox said the impacts associated with a fifth unit (trip generation, noise level) would be comparable to a four-unit rental. The fifth unit does NOT meet the criteria. The application does not meet the standards established or the criteria as outlined under 18.104 (Conditional Use Permit) A. and C.(g). PUBLIC HEARING LAURA SHREWSBURY, 570 Siskiyou Boulevard, referenced Nolte's opinion in the Staff Report and believes it is critical. It contained the chronology of the application. Nolte raised the same issue Armitage did on the Staff denial as he felt Staff was not denying the fifth room just because she is not in conformance. The timelines on her alleged violation on residency is of major concern to Shrewsbury. She told Nolte that Staff's interpretation relative to her is harsher than the real world. She listed all of the innkeepers who have occupations or residences outside of Ashland. Shrewsbury is first and foremost an innkeeper and now functioning somewhat like a baby-sitter with her children. She has worked outside the inn on other jobs similar to what she is doing now. She resides at the inn out of necessity. She first spoke about her intentions on July 18th to Knox (floor plan). Knox said it didn't matter what she intended to do with the family and as long as the inn was for sale it just needed to be explained. She wrote a response on July 22nd. Her children wanted to be near their school. They own six other residences in town at the same time they have owned the inn. The issue was raised after they moved. She cannot put a business owner in the traveller's accommodation. This is an action about a fifth room. If she was in violation it should have been dealt with on July 22nd. Jarvis believes it is very clear in the ordinance (read aloud) that accommodation be business owner occupied and be the primary residence of the owner. She knows Shrewsbury knew that. When one takes up an occupation, one needs to be aware of what the rules are. Shrewsbury has to live on-site. Shrewsbury said she does live there. Jarvis said she could lease it to someone. Shrewsbury said she cannot because she does not have the income. Jarvis said to approve expansion to five units when Shrewsbury is not presently in conformance is something the Hearings Board needs to take into consideration. Shrewsbury said it is not reasonable she has to be there at ALL times. Armitage thought if people feel the ordinance is not written correctly, then those in the bed and breakfast industry need to get together and fine-tune for clarification and for their own protection of the ordinance. Staff Response Knox said there was no evidence Shrewsbury was going to move. If she said she was going to move she should have received her approval, sold the property, transferred ownership and then moved. He believes the applicant was well aware of that condition. He was only aware of one traveller's accommodation referenced by Shrewsbury to Nolte and that was Oak Hill B&B at the time owned by and Tracy Bass. Tracy resided on-site at all times while Ron did do business in Sacramento and other places. He does not see how in Shrewsbury's case, the traveller's accommodation can possibly be her primary residence when her family lives in another residence in town. If the property is leased, the business owner is wholly responsible for the residence and business. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 Rebuttal Shrewsbury thoroughly understands the business owner language in the ordinance. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs thought when she looked at the floor plan that the space left for family living did not meet the criteria for a family owning a traveller's accommodation. On that basis, she would not approve. She felt it violated the spirit of the ordinance. Armitage said the traveller's accommodation could be owned by one person. He does not know how to address this if there is or isn't enough room for someone to live there. Jarvis agreed with Briggs. The Commission has more flexibility in granting a Conditional Use Permit. If there were a different situation that would be another matter, but it is apparent this is not the primary residence. The letters make it clear the primary residence is where Shrewsbury lives with her children. If this standard gets changed, Ashland will end up with small hotels around town; a whole different business. She believes that is not what is desired but instead older houses being used and rehabilitated and lived in by owners and being used as traveller's accommodations. Owners can use that money to pay for any rehabilitation they have done on the house. That is why the rules are so strict. Under the relevant criteria (g) she also finds all the requirements have not been met. Armitage finds this to be a code enforcement issue. He does not have a letter from Nolte saying it is or is not in compliance. The applicant is telling him she is in compliance. Staff is saying the fifth unit is acceptable as per the ordinance and it is an issue that they do not think she is in compliance. He would like an opinion from Nolte or an enforcement officer about whether she is or is not in compliance. Harris, in trying to clarify the issue, said this revolves around the definition of a primary residence. The applicant can say she is in compliance but that may be because she has a different definition of a primary residence. Staff is saying the application does not meet the criteria because it does not meet the definition of a primary residence through information Shrewsbury has shared in her letter. Jarvis moved to deny the PA97-073 based on it not being a primary residence. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried with Armitage voting "no". PLANNING ACTION 97-089 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 374 HELMAN STREET. THE REAR LOT TO BE ACCESSED BY WAY OF A FLAG DRIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT. APPLICANT: RICK LANDT Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 STAFF REPORT Harris reviewed the details of the application as outlined in the Staff Report. The proposal locates the building envelope outside the floodplain. There is a mature walnut tree on the property. The applicant originally agreed to preserving the tree. She was contacted today by the applicant and she understands he has concerns with the Conditions and will discuss an alternative proposal. The lots are long and narrow and further division would be difficult. This action was approved administratively but called up for a public hearing by a neighbor who withdrew their request, but too late to be put on the September agenda. PUBLIC HEARING RICK LANDT, 487 Rock Street, said he agrees with the Staff Report that the criteria for a Minor Land Partition have been met. He agrees with the Conditions of approval with the exception of those relating to the tree. He asked the Commissioners to review the drawing he handed out. If the tree were fenced off before construction begins and the front lot were already developed, there would be no way to access the lot. His alternative would be to provide for fencing around the tree, but allow access to the property but do it in a way to protect the tree by protecting the dripline. The dripline is irregular and in some places it encroaches into the building envelope. He would propose the building envelope supersede the dripline. He provided suggested re-wording for Condition 9. He showed slides of the site. With regard to Condition 11, he does not see any reason to place fill and if the Commissioners would agree to be less restrictive with fencing, he would agree to no fencing in the dripline with the exception of the driveway. Because of "a.", "c." becomes irrelevant because if you cannot put any fill within the dripline, you will not be putting any fill around the trunk. Briggs wondered with cars going back and forth once a residence is there, will they be going across bark? Landt said the bark will be temporary and then prior to driveway construction (Condition 10), the driveway design construction drawings shall be approved by the Staff Advisor to ensure a minimization of the impacts to the walnut from impervious surfaces. Jarvis wondered if Landt was suggesting the turnaround be around the tree. Landt said the idea was to keep parking outside the building envelope and he should have showed it in inside the building envelope. Staff Response The words will be removed regarding going around the tree. Staff would agree with using Landt's wording for Conditions 9 and 11. Armitage suggested adding to 10 that there be no parking spaces or turnaround under the tree canopy. Harris asked to add at the end of Condition 5 "...prior to certificate of occupancy". COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs moved to approve PA97-089 with the changes noted above. Jarvis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997 PLANNING ACTION 97-098 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS (THREE EXISTING) FOR A HOTEL/MOTEL USE. 474 1/2 NORTH MAIN STREET APPLICANT: BRAD ROUPP This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 97-100 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 7800 SQUARE FOOT CITY OFFICE BUILDING 1175 E MAIN STREET APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 97-101 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 2,625 SQUARE FOOT , ONE STORY, METAL STORAGE BUILDING AT THE ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE FACILITY 212 WALKER AVENUE APPLICANT: ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Briggs is concerned this is a metal, throw-away building. She wondered if there were plans for any other buildings. Staff said they did not believe there would be a place for more buildings and the space left is for trucks backing up and turning around. The building is permanent. Briggs is not certain the building is architecturally compatible with the impact area. Armitage disagreed because it is located back off the street, it is a maintenance facility and compatible. This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINTUES OCTOBER 14, 1997