Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-10 Hearings Board MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER At 1:35 p.m., Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were Marilyn Briggs and Alex Amarotico. Staff present were Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Brandon Goldman, and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the June 12, 2001 meeting were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2001-065 REQUEST FOR A THREE PARCEL LAND PARTITION WITH THE TWO PARCELS AT THE REAR TAKING ACCESS FROM A FLAG DRIVEWAY. 780 OAK STREET APPLICANT: BILL CHRISTIAN Briggs questioned the location of the flag drive. Knox explained they tried working with the applicant but since he owns both lots, the applicant decided he wanted the flag drive where it is shown. Briggs requested this action be called up for a public hearing. Amarotico, though he agrees with Briggs, said their hands are tied. Gardiner said it is difficult because what Christian is asking for is a legal access. The proposal meets the criteria even though it may not be the best plan. Briggs dropped her request. The action was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2001-063 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR A THREE-PARCEL, THREE-UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 544 B STREET. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO LOCATE ONE DRIVEWAY ON FOURTH STREET APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FROM THE CORNER OF FOURTH AND B STREETS (35 FEET REQUIRED) AND TO LOCATE THE TWO DRIVEWAYS ON FOURTH STREET 30 FEET APART (50 FEET REQUIRED). APPLICANT: RICHARD AND LESLIE LOVETT Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All Commissioners had site visits. STAFF REPORT The proposal is to do a three-lot Performance Standards development that would include the existing home on one lot and the creation of two other lots. This is zoned multi-family. There is no minimum lot size under Performance Standards development. This also includes a Site Review application because it is zoned multi-family and the plan is to construct two modest style one and one-half story Craftsman bungalow units. These are detached units. The orientation of the units are toward Fourth Street. Each unit has a single car garage on the side with a single driveway approach that would enter the garage. The other part of this application involves a Variance request. It was noticed as two Variances, however, the Staff Report states there is only one Variance required. The Variance required is to have spacing between the two driveways at 30 feet rather than 50 feet as required in the Ordinance. Evidence supporting the Variance includes the fact that most of the properties in the Railroad District have some kind of public alley access. Generally, Staff looks at bringing in access from an adjoining alley but in this case, we could not. Staff pointed the applicant in the direction of not having an additional driveway off B Street. As part of the proposal there is an older curb cut on the other side of the house that has not been used that is going to be abandoned and sealed up, therefore, the net increase in driveways remains the same. There are three existing and with this proposal there are still three. Molnar explained that all in all, with the issues surrounding the Variance, there is a benefit of building detached homes using a style that compliment the existing home as well as complimenting that portion of Fourth Street. The Historic Commission reviewed this application. Knox said they asked two Conditions be added: that more detailed plans be submitted at the time of the building permit, and that the single car garage doors swing out rather than roll up. Molnar said there are ten suggested Conditions should the Hearings Board decide to approve this application. If you choose to approve the Variance, Findings could be made for the uniqueness or unusual aspect of the lot. Amarotico asked why they did not have a shared driveway. Molnar suggested they ask the applicant. Staff thought the two narrow driveways with the concrete strips are more reflective of what you would see in the railroad district instead of the hybrid driveway used in newer subdivisions. Knox said the Historic Commission had considerable discussion about the driveway and that expansive amount of asphalt would be a clear, contextual change to the area. PUBLIC HEARING BOB MEISER, contractor for the project, said the Lovett's could have constructed a townhouse with a connected unit and perhaps combine a driveway, however, it would have taken up too much valuable space on that lot to accommodate it and would have become too contemporary. They felt in creating two small, very suitable historic structures, it would be totally compatible. The driveways feel more intimate and more acceptable to have the pavers or concrete strips. The materials to be used on the structure will be all natural wood. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs moved to approve Planning Action 2001-063. Amarotico seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 2001-059 REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED FOUR-FOOT HIGH ROOFTOP CONDENSER UNITS WITH TWO, NINE-FOT ROOFTOP COOLING TOWERS. 50 SIXTH STREET QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Goldman said this is a modification of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit. In October of 2000, the Hearings Board approved a Type I Planning Action to allow for a 2840 square foot expansion. A portion of the addition is to be used to house mechanical equipment that is currently in an exterior location with a ten foot sound block wall around it. The addition is located to the north and east side of the existing building and it is designed to be compatible with the existing structure. Upon review of the construction drawings submitted for plan review, it was evident that some significant changes had occurred to the plan from the approval in October before the Commission today. The addition size and scale will remain the same. The parking configuration was modified slightly but they retained the same number of parking spaces that were approved and allotted for a larger landscape island by reconfiguring the parking lot. There were only minor changes to the landscaping. The ten foot by ten foot "people place" has not changed. The main changes are with the mechanical equipment. The cooling towers were previously approved to be four foot tall condenser units and replaced with nine foot tall cooling towers. It is the applicant's contention that the cooling towers are quieter than condenser units and thus, the change was intended in order to comply with Ashland's noise ordinance. Another change is a combustion air intake shown above an emergency power generator. The air intake is three feet high and five feet wide and it is visible along Sixth Street. The newly installed emergency generator is a point of contention as it was not installed under building permit. At this point, Staff has not received a noise analysis on the generator, however, the City has received complaints from adjacent ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 10, 2001 property owners during testing. They are proposing a replacement air handler on the rooftop. It is seven feet wide along the East Main frontage and 16 feet along the Sixth Street frontage. This is a change from what was there previously. Additional changes concern exterior ductwork not shown on the previous plan. A 12 foot by 12 foot metal louvered wall has been located on the Sixth Street frontage. That is an air intake wall and the applicant has proposed painting it to match the existing wall. New doors have been indicated on the Sixth Street wall facing the addition. Although many of these changes are minor, cumulatively they function to significantly alter the appearance of the building. The Historic Commission reviewed the proposal. They forwarded two separate recommendations to the Planning Commission. The first was a unanimous recommendation for denial of the project. The second was a 4-3 recommendation for a continuance provided the applicant can modify the plan to be historically compatible. It was the general consensus that the previously approved planning action represented the upper limit of what modifications could be made without adversely affecting the surrounding Historic District. The Tree Commission reviewed this application at yesterday's meeting and made a recommendation that the existing trees on the rear property line be pruned and brought up to standards. Also, that the photinia hedge along the rear property line be maintained at a height of eight to ten feet. The generation of noise was central to the previous approval. The applicants have stated that by removing the exterior mechanical equipment there currently and putting it on the interior of the site, this will attenuate a great deal of the noise. The reduction of the equipment to within the addition will function to reduce overall noise on the site. As East Main traffic generates noise in excess of 70 decibels, the addition itself should function to block some noise to adjacent property owners. Should the Hearings Board choose to approve these modifications, Staff has included nine recommendations. In addition, Staff has recommended the following Conditions: That there be no outdoor storage of materials. That a landscape maintenance and irrigation schedule be submitted and approved by the Staff Advisor, prior the issuance of a building permit. PUBLIC HEARING . PHIL GALL, architect for the project, explained when they did the first Site Review, the degree of mechanical engineering was not very complete. They discovered the condenser units are a lot noisier than the ordinance would allow. They were trying to find another solution by using the cooling towers that are the only reasonable option that meets the sound level requirements. They are incorporating acoustical controls to reduce the sound even further. That contributed to raising the height. They moved the entire assembly toward the middle of the building to avoid solar shadowing. It makes sense to match the existing building. The cooling tower units are screened to pretty much eliminate the messy piping. The screening is a simple horizontal louvered system. The closer you get to the building the less likely to see the screen or the cooling tower. As you get further away from the building, it screens the cooling towers. Gall is not sure they could have anticipated the historic renovation would become an issue or otherwise he could have attended the Historic Commission meeting. It is 1960's architecture. Gall said the emergency generator was not originally part of this project. It was done under another permit. The ductwork serves as a sound barrier. All the things proposed for the building will be used to reduce noise. The closer you get to the building, the less likely to see the screen or the cooling tower. As you get further away from the building, it screens the cooling towers. With regard to the emergency generator, it is only started every two to three months just to maintain equipment and then used for emergency purposes only. The generator will be larger and located inside the building. Currently, Gall does not believe it is properly ventilated but that will be corrected. RON BASS, 78 Sixth Street, lives on the north side of the property on the other side of the alley that is a public right-of- way. They are the most directly impacted home from this project. The applicant is a "phantom" applicant. There is not a representative at their building. Even though there is supposed to be minimal employees, there is considerable truck traffic on the site. He resents the fact that the applicant tried to change their application without obtaining new permits. When the emergency generator went on for its test, Bass could hear it inside his home. He understands the ambient noise generated ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 10, 2001 presently is violating the city ordinance. Bass believes that if this equipment is installed and is noisy, nothing will be done about it. One criteria is that the project has to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The neighborhood is a nationally recognized Historic District. He questions whether the future noise level will be any better. How can the noise testing be done after the facility is built and have any reasonable likelihood of doing anything about it if it violates it? Will the City enforce the noise ordinance and not let them operate? He believes the noise issue affects the livability of the community. This is a non-conforming use. This land is designated for multi-family residential. There is no reason the City has to allow a non-conforming use to get any larger. If this project is approved, there is no reason why the City shouldn't require the entire building to be made compatible with the Historic District. Bass opposes the project as it is proposed now. How large will this operation get? Because of the incompatibility with the Historic District, Bass asked that the action be taken up by the full Planning Commission if it is to go any further. CHARLES MCKEREGHAN, 77 Sixth Street said he seconded Bass' comments. He lives across the street from Qwest in an historic house. On the second floor he is probably above the elevation of the roof of this building. Whatever they put on the roof is not innocuous but a blatant eyesore. As more and more requests are granted, it affects the livability of the area even more. The noise suppression might have an impact on Bass but it is just going to be a higher echoing to the residents on the east side. The requirements introduced by the nine foot towers have never been defined anywhere and are very elastic. The plan that was approved last fall has changed drastically and is still in the process of change. This industry should be moved out of this residential district. The Qwest building is a major transfer or order point for all the maintenance. Workers arrive in the morning and generally park in the street. The parking lot they have had is being further reduced by this plan. The design is unacceptable for the tower. ZELPHA HUTTON, 59 Sixth Street, lives directly across the street from the phone company She read her comments in opposition to this proposal and submitted them to the Hearings Board. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Gardiner asked if this is a non-conforming use. Molnar said it appears to be so. When there is an addition to a non- conforming structure, the applicant has to show the impact is identical to what was there before. The impacts cannot be expanded. Briggs wondered if this action could come before the next Regular Meeting. She feels there are a lot of unknowns. How long will this facility be of a size that can meet the needs of this applicant? If they did move, what would happen to the existing building? Gardiner said it appears that with the additions to this structure, that the noise level could potentially increase from what it is now and perhaps into an unacceptable range. It if did, what would the City's course of action be? Would the City require more acoustical control to where the noise levels can be met? Molnar said that would be the only alternative. Goldman measured the noise levels from three different locations near the site. The ambient noise level without traffic was a low of 46. Rebuttal Gall said underground cable serving the whole Ashland and surrounding area does exit from that building. Relocating the building would be a major event. Briggs asked how far this could go? Gall thinks this may be as far as it will go. Gall knows they will improve the sound level at the site. That is why they changed to cooling towers. COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION Molnar said the Commissioners are charged with judging the conditional use against the target use. The target use for this property is six residential units. The criteria sets forth different factors to consider. Is this Conditional Use comparable in traffic generation for six units.? The testimony is centered on noise. There are questions about current noise levels. Has ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 10, 2001 the applicant exhausted all alternatives for the mechanical equipment? Is it normal for six units to have these types of roof structures or mechanical equipment? The application can be continued if they receive more information. Gardiner would feel more comfortable with more input and would like to move it to the full Commission. He wondered if it would be possible to set cooling towers on the ground. Is there space on the property to do that? Does that mitigate the architecture of the building? Are we sure the noise abatement will work? Gardiner does not feel comfortable approving this application. Gardiner asked the applicant if he would be willing to waive the 120 days and continue the hearing until August 14, 2001. Briggs would like to have a Qwest representative in front of them at the next meeting. Gall believes there is evidence in the packet that this should work with the Conditions. Gardiner felt he would be more comfortable with the full Commission asking questions and coming to a decision. He asked Gall to consider a continuation. Gall will have to present it to the phone company to see if they want to do that. Molnar said it would be scheduled for the August 14th meeting. Gall reluctantly agreed to a continuance. Gardiner mentioned if the Commissioners had additional information given to them before the next meeting, there would be a better chance of approval. Gardiner moved to continue this action to the August 14, 2001 meeting. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 10, 2001