Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-09 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMISSION HEARNGS BOARD MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Russ Chapman and John Fields. Staff present were Mark Knox, Brandon Goldman and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Fields moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the March 12, 2002 meeting. Gardiner seconded the motion and the Minutes and Findings were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2002-032 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL TO CONVERT AN EXISTING EIGHT-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX INTO AN EIGHT-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION (I.E. TOWN HOMES) FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 655, 657, 659,661, 663, 665, 667 AND 671 PARK STREET. APPLICANT: STEVE SHAPIRO This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2002-035 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RESULTING IN THE CREATION OF ONE ADDITIONAL PARCEL UPON THE PROPERTY LOCATED 1250 ASHLAND MINE ROAD APPLICANT: DON GREENE This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 2002-037 REQUEST FOR A TWO-LOT LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT INTO TWO PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY ADJOINING EAST MAIN STREET AND WEST OF WIGHTMAN STREET. APPLICANT: TOM FRANTZ This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 2002-041 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP INVOLVING THE EXISTING FIVE-UNIT TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 34 UNION STREET. APPLICANT: NANCY MORGAN This action was called up for a public hearing. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2002-023 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE (I.E. GARAGE AND TOOL SHED) AT THE PROPERTY LOCTAED AT 660 B STREET. APPLICANT: SUSAN DEMPSAY Site Visit and Ex Parte Contacts - Gardiner and Chapman had site visits. STAFF REPORT Knox reported that this action was approved by Staff last month but called up for a hearing last month by an adjacent neighbor. The structure, presently a garage, is located at the rear of the property with access from B Street. The expansion is proposed to the back of the garage. There is a small utility space with a shower. The property at 660 B Street is a 1925 two-story bungalow and there is an outside stairway leading to a second unit. There is evidence there was approval for a second unit after it was constructed. It is considered a legal unit. The applicant is proposing to add eight feet to the rear accessory garage building which will total 144 square feet. The floor plan shows it to be a studio space with no kitchen proposed. The applicant clearly understands this cannot be used for a rental unit. There are two legal units at this time and there is not adequate lot square footage for a third unit. It can be used as a guesthouse or hobby room, but NOT a rental space. There are added Conditions requiring the applicant sign an agreement stating the unit cannot be an added living unit. A Condition has also been added stating any utilities associated with that space have to be in the same name as the main house or property owner. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The building is now 18 inches from the property line. The code requires a six-foot setback. Staff agrees with the applicant that there is very little impact to extend the wall line and retaining the footprint. The roofline is relatively shallow. There is a parking lot next to the proposed expansion that is owned and used by the neighboring property owner. Staff is recommending approval of the application. Knox noted that during the pre-application conference, there was a kitchen shown on the floor plan. He told the applicant she could not have a kitchen, and Dempsay withdrew it. The applicant has stated to Knox that she does not intend to rent the unit. PUBLIC HEARING SUSAN DEMPSAY, owner of 660 B Street, showed photos of the property. When she bought the property, the accessory building was in disrepair. It is plumbed for a shower. She does not see a point in leaving it in disrepair. If she is going to upgrade it, she wants to make it slightly larger for guests. She does not see a parking problem. Knox said Dempsay could bump the structure in from the property line or build up. He believes she is trying to maintain the roofline and the building lines. Dempsay said she understands the structure is not rentable and she is under agreement not to rent it. FRED AND LAURA PERLOFF, 164 Fifth Street Laura Perloff said they have three units on their own property. They have off-street parking along Dempsay’s property line. In recent history, many times there have been more people living there and a lot more cars. The Perloff’s driveway has been blocked many times. There have been variances granted in the neighborhood that have increased the parking problem on the street. When a second unit was created at Dempsay’s, there was no off-street parking provided. Fred Perloff stated he is concerned that the structure be brought up to code. He understands Dempsay has the right to create a guesthouse as long as she doesn’t rent it out. He is concerned that someone might rent it and that would cause noise and increased density. Off-street parking is an issue. They have to rely on B and Fifth Streets. Parking is at a premium. He would like to see Dempsay building inward. Knox felt if Dempsay wants to install parking spaces, that would make it that much more palatable to convert the space to a third unit. There will be a signed agreement that is recorded, making it difficult to have a third unit. Rebuttal Dempsay said she has repainted the upstairs and she was careful in choosing a tenant. She lives downstairs and is not interested in impacting herself by having someone full-time on her property. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Gardiner asked what parking requirements would be. Knox said two are required for the main unit and one for the upstairs. There is a garage and one credit for off-street parking. Fields said it seems like a minimal addition to expand the habitable space. He cannot accept the argument of excessive impact. Chapman said his experience with living in that area was that the degree of impact was in direct relation to who owned the property. This will be a significant upgrade to the building and he cannot accept the argument there will be excessive impact. Gardiner said the CUP criteria seem to be fairly well met. He also believes the conditions limit what can be done with the space. It appears the impact would be minimal. Chapman moved to approve PA2002-023 with the attached Conditions. Fields seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 2002-033 REQUEST FOR A TWO-LOT LAND PARTITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 432 RAY LANE. APPLICANT: TOM LOWEL Site Visit and Ex Parte Contacts - Site Visits were made by Gardiner and Chapman. STAFF REPORT Goldman reported the 12,000 square foot lot has a house and an existing non-conforming structure on it. The lot is 100 feet wide on the street and 120 feet deep. The original lots were platted as 6,000 square foot lots. The location of the existing house bisects the midline of the original lot line. The applicant is designing the partition around the existing house. Staff looked primarily at minimum lot width and depth as well as street frontage. The applicant is showing a 40 foot minimum street frontage on Ray Lane. The lot line undulates to maintain at least a six-foot setback on the existing house. The line comes back, maintaining a ten-foot setback from the existing house to the new property line. Both lots do meet the exact minimum lot width of 50 feet by averaging the different sections. Both lots meet the minimum lot depth. Goldman said because of the irregularities in the lot design and the potential for neighborhood impact, this application was noticed as a Type II planning action. Goldman said the driveway is shown as 50 feet long. Any driveway 50 long is required to meet the flag drive standard. The application does not meet this standard as there are only two parking spaces (flag drive requires three). However, Staff was assured by the applicant, this requirement could be met by moving the garage forward and thereby not having a driveway that is 50 feet long. All public facilities are available off Ray Lane. The applicant is proposing to use the existing curb cut for access. Goldman explained another irregularity in this proposal relates to the minimum right-of-way on Ray Lane. Ray Lane is 30 feet wide, curb to curb. There are only three feet between the front property line and the curb. The partition standards require a sidewalk be installed as part of the partitioning and will require a two foot dedication in order to allow for a five foot curbside sidewalk. Staff is requiring the sidewalk at the time of the partition as opposed to deferring it to a future date. Should the Commission approve the application, a Condition has been added that prior to issuance of a building permit, that the site plan demonstrate the maximum lot coverage not exceed 50 percent. Another concern addressed with Condition 10 is the installation of the driveway related to the impact of the cedar tree. Hand digging within the dripline of the tree will be required. The applicant is proposing to remove one to two of the trees on-site. There would be a requirement to install street trees along the frontage. Fields questioned the calculations for minimum lot width. Goldman said the Staff Report defines average lot width. TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma, agent for the applicant, said this is a classic infill project. The aerial photos show what they are requesting is not over what is existing in the neighborhood. He has provided a sample plan to show how a house could ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES be built on the parcel. Because of the solar setback on the lot, the house will be in similar scale and bulk to the other houses that are in the neighborhood. There are no sidewalks anywhere in the neighborhood. The applicant would prefer putting the sidewalk in at a later date when a LID is formed. The applicant would, however, be willing to install a sidewalk. It is probable, using the sample plan that a tree would need to be removed. Gardiner wondered if the garage would be detached in order to meet the driveway requirement. Giordano said the garage could elongate by ten feet or have a breezeway. LOWELL, 432 Ray Lane, said to infill or not to infill, that is the question. NANCY UZDAVINIS, 450 Ray Lane, said she has documents from neighbors, Lynelle Stevens, Kathy and David Greer, who are also opposed to the application. The rest of the neighborhood does not have homes in their backyard. It is changing the whole structure of the neighborhood. CHRISTINE VAN PELT, 441 Ray Lane, stated she is opposed to the development. The street is very narrow with cars parking on both sides of the street due to the proximity of Hunter Park. Another residence will only add to the parking problem and street safety. She believes there will be a negative impact in removing two trees. This is a neighborhood of small bungalows and they don’t want the crowded apartment feeling. There are no flag drives on this block. Chapman noted the Planning Commission has to base their decision based on the application meeting the criteria. PAMELA GALUSHA, 458 Ray Lane, opposes this application because it will destroy the beauty of this lot. There is a parking problem. The applicant is squeezing the maximum square footage out of the minimum space available. Knox explained they wanted the neighbors and the Planning Commission to be aware of the unique things that are happening in neighborhoods. The applicants are completely legal. At some point, the Planning Commission could come back to the planning staff saying they need to devise an ordinance that would probably not allow this to happen again. Something good might come from this type of application. Rebuttal Giordano does not believe it will change the livability of the neighborhood. The front of the house is not going to be changed. If there is a question about development patterns, look at the aerial photos and see the houses, garages and sheds scattered everywhere. Lowell applauds the process and believes his project meets the criteria. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman said the criteria is straightforward. The application seems to meet the criteria. Fields believes it is unfortunate we are getting a “snout house”. This breaks the whole pattern of the neighborhood. It says, “I’m a garage’. It meets the minimum lot size. If this were a new subdivision we probably would not allow it to happen. The lot design is self-imposed because the existing house is in the middle of the lot. It meets the lot width but pushes the limits of taking the conventional lot where someone put a house in the middle and someone comes in later to squeeze another house in. It would be much more compatible to have an accessory residential unit. He is thinking about voting for denial to make a point to discuss what we want to do about infill--is this a pattern we want to establish? The applicant had to go through some complicated math to meet the requirements. The new house will not have a friendly streetscape. Gardiner said while he appreciates the oppositions’ testimony, they're fairly subjective. He noted the graphic overlook and approximately nine other homes have developed similarly. From a technical standpoint, the application meets the minimum requirements. Chapman asked if this has happened anyplace else in town. Goldman said it has occurred at 630 Park Street and 685 Siskiyou Boulevard. These are two cases the average lot width has been approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES Chapman moved to approve PA2002-033 with the attached Conditions. Gardiner seconded the motion. Gardiner and Chapman voted “yes” and Fields voted “no”. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD APRIL 9, 2002 MINUTES