Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-08 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wi4hAing to 4peuk at any Harming CommL4 -.on Meeting Ls encoutcaged to do 4o. 16 you do wL h to 4peah., p!ea4e nose and ante& you have been necognLzed by the Chain, give you& name and comp.2ete addnem you wilt then be attowed to 4peaf P.2eaze note that pub.eLc testimony may be tim-ited by the Chain and nomna.22y a not attowed age& the pub.eie heaning hays been cto4ed. I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular Meeting of November 10, 1982 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 8, 1982 A. PLANNING ACTION #82 -77 is a request for amendments to prior Planning Commission approval (PA #80 -74) of a Conditional Use Permit for the Ashland Youth Hostel located at 150 N. Main St. The request involves reclassification of the Hostel in a separate category from Travelers accommodations with revised conditions. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, Multi- family). Assessor's map 9BB. Tax lot: 1400 APPLICANTS: Mark /Nena Ahalt B. PLANNING ACTION #82 -78 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Re- view to convert the existing dwelling at 41 Fifth Street into a Christian kin- dergarten. Maximum enrollment would be 15 students, five days per week from 8:30 -11:30 AM. Additionally, the structure is proposed to be used for Sunday school classes. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, multi family). Assessor's map #9AC. Tax lot: 6600. APPLICANT: Aslan's Christian School /4- Square Church C. PLANNING ACTION #82 -79 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence at 326 North Main St. into medical offices. A deck addition is proposed on the north. Access to the parking on the north and east sides of thestructure is via Van Ness St. Comprehensive Plan designation; Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density Multi- family). Assessor's map 5DD. Tax lot 100, 101, 200, 300. APPLICANT: David Fadden D. PLANNING ACTION #82 -80 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a 6 -unit owner occupied travelers accommodations at 451 N. Main St. The owner's living quarters are proposed for the existing single family residence on the rear of the lot with the guest rooms in the larger existing dwelling. Eight parking spaces will be provided between the two structures with access via Nursery St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, multi family). Assessor's map 5DA. Tax lot 7200. APPLICANTS: John Wren /Karen Lundgren IV. TYPE I PLANKING ACTIONS: A. PA #82 -74, request for 12 mos. extension (until 2 -84) for 2 -story office building located behind 300 E. Main St. Applicant: Allen Drescher. B. PA #82 -75, request for Site Review for public warehouse facility at City of Ashland's Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St. Applicant: City of Ashland C. PA #82 -76 is a request for a Site Review Ordinance Variance to construct a maintenance shop in Lithia Park in the old deer pen area on the NE corner of Granite Pioneer St. The variance is necessary to construct the shop within 13' of the front property line in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance. Applicant: City of Ashland Parks Department. D. PA #82 -81, request for a 1 -yr. extension of prior Planning Commission approval to create a private way as access to a landlocked parcel at 260 W. Hersey St. Applicant: Michael Rarity. E. PA #82 -82, request for a Site Review for a swimming pool /bath house and separate storage building in Hunter Park. Applicant: Ashland Parks Dept. F. :PA #82 -83, request for a 24 mos. extension (until 12 -84) to install the re- quired improvements at Sunnyview Heights Subdivision Unit #2. Applicant: Wm. H. Kneebone. G. PA #82 -84, request for a Minor Land Partition and Site Review for a cabinet shop at 868 A. St. Applicants: Munroe /Clear. V. STAFF BUSINESS: A. Billings Ranch Golf Course (Jackson Road Golf, Inc.) VI. LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Letter from Lance Pugh re: Sidewalk vendors VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 8, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Chairman Lance Pugh, at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Ethel Hansen, Neil Benson, Lance Pugh, Don Greene, Tom Owens, Barry Warr, Christian Apenes, John Billings and Jacqueline Reid. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of November 10, 1982, were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -77 AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MARK NENA AHALT /ASHLAND YOUTH HOSTEL DESCRIPTION APC, 12/8/82 Page 1 Planning Action #82 -77 is a request for amendments to prior Planning Commission approval (PA #80 -74) of a Conditional Use Permit for the Ashland Youth Hostel located at 150 N. Main St. The request involves reclassification of the Hostel in a separate category from Traveler's Accommodations with revised conditions. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, Multi family). Assessor's map 9BB. Tax lot 1400 APPLICANTS: Mark Nena Ahalt STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the staff report outlining the City's position. Since the primary objection raised involved the Jackson County Health Department, Fregonese then asked Gary Stevens, Sanitarian Supervisor for the County to express the County's position in this case. 2) Stevens began by stating that philosophically, he is in support of the hostel. He noted that the Health Department's concern evolves around the definition of the hostel stating that hostels are not organizational camps where lodging is incidental to the activities. In the Health Department's opinion, the primary function of the hostel was as a Traveler's Accommodation. He continued by noting that the County has attempted to reach compromises with the applicant whereby both parties could be satisfied. Variances have been pro- posed and have been granted in some cases. The key problems facing the hostel in terms of the Health Department involve three basic issues: That there is only one restroom on the top floor and that the applicant needs to provide a latch on the door to the restroom and a sign noting occupancy of the restroom for both sexes. Either this or install a second restroom on this floor. Relative to the occupancy of the second floor, the State requires that no more than ten individuals be lodged in this area. The second issue involves adequate room between the beds both vertically and horizontally with which the hostel has failed to comply with. The third issue is that the applicant is required to supply a detailed plan of the basement area indicating the lodging available in this area. Stevens conti- nued noting that Mr. Ahalt has not opted to comply with these requi- rements and thus is in violation. Ahalt had been aware, of these requirements prior to the opening of the business. Since this time, detailed plans have not been submitted only a rough drawing of the lodging area. Mr. Ahalt has exercised all his options administra- tively including variance requests,and formal hearings by the State Board as an appeal to the denial of the Variance requests. The ruling in the formal hearing is to be issued this Friday, December 10, 1982. If the denial is upheld, Stevens stated he would have no option but to take enforcement action against Mr. Ahalt. He con- tinued by stating that this had been a two year process and that during this time, Mr. Ahalt has been operating without a license of approval. He did not feel that the philosophical appeal nor the method of management of the hostel is relevant, only that as a Trave- ler's Accommodations, the applicant is required to meet certain criteria. 3) Owens asked Mr. Stevens to clarify the issues basic to the hea- ring held for Mr. Ahalt for which the results are currently pending. 4) Stevens outlined the Health Department's stand noting that particularly with the spacing between the bunks and the ceiling some compromises have been made. 5) Owens asked Mr. Stevens whether Mr. Ahalt had requested the hearing to which Stevens replied that he had. The hearing ruling would answer the questions relative to the restroom facility and the spacing of the beds. Stevens further noted that Mr. Ahalt is requesting that he be given a variance from the Health Department statutes in toto for full occupancy as it is being operated currently. 6) Warr asked Stevens whether there were any other health violations to which Stevens replied that the resolution of the three issues APC, 12/8/82 Page 2 mentioned would satisfy the Health Department requirements. 7) Pugh asked Stevens who had issued the legal opinion. Stevens replied that it had been issued by the Deputy Attorney General assigned to the Oregon State Health Division who he believed was Glen Pearlman. He noted that he would be willing to research this to verify whether Mr. Pearlman had in fact been the individual issuing this opinion. 8) Fregonese asked again for a recap of the issues that stood between Mr. Ahalt and the licensing. Stevens explained the bathroom issue, the bed spacing issue and the detailed plans required for the building showing occupancy. 9) Pugh asked who Mr. Stevens was employed by. Stevens replied that Jackson County is the delegated agent for the Oregon State Health Division and he in fact works for Jackson County. Pugh then inquired whether is was possible that his statements could be in conflict with the State regulations to which Stevens replied that he was carrying the enforcement of the rulings handed down from the State level. Any variance which would be granted would have to be granted by the State. 10) Owens asked for a clarification of a legal point, this being whether the County could or could not approve Ahalt's application. Stevens replied that the County can approve the application if the standards established by the State are met. He added further that, however, the County cannot grant a variance that this is only done at the State level. 11) Commissioner Hansen asked when the first contact had been made with Mr. Ahalt. Stevens noted that this had taken place in April of 1980 and at this time, Mr. Ahalt had agreed to the conditions established. He then reviewed the additional contact dates with Mr. Ahalt noting that during these times, some compromises had been offered. 12) Fregonese then read letters into the record received from individuals since the Planning Commission packets had been sent out. These letters were from Mr. Gary Parker, Assistant Manager of the Hostel; Mr. Jack Held, Manager of the Hostel in Cave Junction; Roanne Lyall and Mrs. Dorothy Walker adjacent property owners. Fregonese then summarized staff's opinion of what the options were that the Planning Commission could deal with at this point. These would be to: a. Reverse their stand relative to requiring a Health Permit from the County Health Department. b. Retain the condition as it stands and require the Permit prior to the operation as a hostel. APC, 12/8/82 Page 3 c. To allow Mr. Ahalt to operate until such time as he is convicted of illegally operating a hostel prior to receiving the Health License by the County and State. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Marlis Gaboury of 2080 Siskiyou Blvd. spoke in support of the hostel explaining her experiences as a teacher who has traveled extensively in Europe individually and with a group of students staying in hostel facilities. She noted that she had never met Mr. Ahalt, but she implored the Planning Commission to allow the continued operation of the hostel. 2) Mr. Al Wilstatter of 128 Central, noted that as an interested neighbor, he was concerned about the parking problem when the original application was reviewed in 1980. He continued by stating that this problem has since been resolved. He noted in addition, he recognizes that the City and the County have bent over backwards to keep the Youth Hostel in operation and he appreciated these efforts. He concluded by expressing his support for the continued operation of the Hostel. 3) Mr. Elliott Reinert, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber has endorsed the concept and the continued operation of the hostel here in Ashland. A letter drafted by the Chamber board had been addressed to the City Planning Commission with copies sent to the City Council as well as to the State Legislature. He felt that the issue here was beyond a local problem and that State legislation was really necessary to resolve the problem. He concluded by further endorsing the Hostel, noting that it is better to be managed by a private individual rather than by a government agency which had been attempted in previous years. 4) Mr. Fred Wilken of 93 California St., stated he felt there is no argument that all the entities involved want the Hostel. He stated there was no argument in his mind that the Hostel should be defined as a Traveler's Accommodation but that the question of the legality of its operation should be determined at the State Legislature level. He then stated that he felt that the requirements established by the State Health Department relative to the toilet facilities were unfair and that the code should be changed noting that there are numerous commercial endeavors which permit a greater density of individuals to use toilets such as the airline industry. He concluded by stating that as a clergyman, he feels that the philosophy and the statutes established are too puritanical relative to co- educational use of toilets. 5) Mr. Stephan Fisher of 443 Allison, stated that when he and his APC, 12/8/82 Page 4 family had arrived in Ashland a year ago, the Hostel provided inexpensive lodging for them prior to his receiving employment with the Oregon Shakespearean Festival. He concluded by stating that he felt the Hostel should be allowed to remain until the laws are changed and that the last time he had been accommodated in a bunk situation prior to staying in the Hostel had been in the Army noting that no conflicts had arisen at that point relative to cramped quarters. 6) Mr. David Rogers of 143 Gresham, stated that he was a member of the American Youth Hostel organization and further expressed his support for it. 7) Mrs. Barbara Burnett read a letter which she had mailed to the Medford Mail Tribune noting her experiences with hostels. She felt that the closure of the Hostel would be a sad setback to the hostel movement in Oregon. 8) Mr. Mark Ahalt then spoke on behalf of his operation. He began by stating that he was not here to discuss the toilets or the bed spacing issues. He felt that he had been forced to accept the Traveler's Accommodation definition as a Youth Hostel and that no appropriate category currently exists relative to the methods employed in hostels. He continued by stating that the National Director of Youth Hostels Organization has pointed out that if all hostels in the world were required to conform to the licensing cri- teria of the State of Oregon, 90% of the system would be obliterated. He then stated that the Hostel here is more of a project for him rather than a business. He felt that it was important to focus on the basic issues, these being the ramifications of his complying with the State requirements and the impact this would have on the remain- ing hostels in the State. He then passed out a brochure citing other hostels circumstances within the State of Oregon noting that some hostels could be defined in Oregon as Traveler's Accommodations but some could not. He felt that if the Hostel were the YMCA, these problems would not be an issue. He then gave an historic overview of the hostel movement in the United States which began in 1934, noting the hostel philosophy as one of providing an opportunity to travel inexpensively and providing a good education for those involved. He then explained what he felt were discrepancies in the State's admini- stration of health permits for hostels. Next he showed a slide show developed by the Hostel Organization. He concluded by stating that if the City would agree with the concept that he would like to see the City take a strong stand to help the movement grow by encouraging appropriate legislation at the State level. 9) Owens asked Ahalt whether he realized the weight of what he was saying, that if in fact, nothing presently applies to the Ashland Youth Hostel, then technically he is operating as a non permitted use given his contention that it is not a Traveler's Accommodation. Owens continued by asking why Ahalt had not chosen to comply with the APC, 12/8/82 Page 5 County standards since he had conceded that he could get a permit immediately if he chose to. Ahalt responded by stating that with the reduced density, it would be economically unfeasible to continue operation. In addition, some school groups which typically have been using the Hostel for accommodations could not continue its usage with the reduced density. Additionally, though, he would be accepting the State category specified as a Traveler's Accommodation and given the constraints established by the State which he philosophically op- poses. Owens then asked why the applicant could not comply at this point with the licensing requirements and then try to get the appro- priate legislation through at the state level. Ahalt responded that this would be setting a precedent for the State jeopordizing the status of the other youth hostels located statewide._ Owens did't understand the correlation. Ahalt continued by expressing that the application had to be uniform statewide and his acceptance of the State standards would be opening a can of worms for the other hostels in the State. 10) Benson asked what legislative avenues had been explored by the applicant and whether he had had personal contact with the legislature. Ahalt responded that he had been in contact and that in fact, State Senators Hannon and Potts and State Respresentative Lombard had been supportive of the organization. He then noted that Senators Packwood and Hatfield were sponsors of a Hostel Bill at the National level. 11) Warr asked the applicant whether he was aware when he opened, that the operation would be in violation without the appropriate permits. Ahalt replied that originally they had applied to the Health Department as an organizational camp. Other hostels in the State had been approved as organizational camps. But when Jackson County reviewed his application that they had denied it based on the Traveler's Accommodation statute. After considering the County's recommendations, the State had reversed their decision and decided to deny the application. Warr then noted that he was sympathetic to Ahalt's situation noting the reams of letters that have been submitted and included as a part of the packet. He did ask, however, why the applicant had not started to change the legislation back in November of 1980 when the issue was first raised. Ahalt responded that there had been hostels on the coast for seven years and they had been treated as organizational camps. To date, no hostel had been treated as a Traveler's Accommodation. Based on the pattern established at the State level, he had no way of anticipating that the Jackson County Health Department would interpret his particular application as a Traveler's Accommodation, not an organizational camp. 12) Reid asked Fregonese why, in the City's eyes, the Hostel had been determined to be a Traveler's Accommodations and not a boarding house. She felt that as a boarding house, he would not be subject to as strict controls as the Traveler's Accommodation ordinance APC, 12/8/82 Page 6 mandates. She continued by stating that without the Hostel, there would be a lack of inexpensive lodging in Ashland. Fregonese responded that the City ordinance classifies any stay less than 30 days as the breaking point for a Traveler's Accommodations vis a vis a boarding house. Based on this response, Reid felt that there should be an amendment to the Traveler's Accommodations ordinance since this case is a prime example of a misclassification in the City codes. 13) Fregonese pointed out that the definition is found in the Reve- nue Section of the City of Ashland Code and not in the Land Use Ordinance and that under this definition, the 30 day period is ex- pressed. 14) Owens asked Stevens to clarify the different treatment that apparently had been given to this operation than to similar opera- tions in the State. Stevens responded by noting that he had had discussions with Mr. Joe Petrovich who is the Manager of the Environ- mental Health Systems for the State of Oregon relative to this very question. Mr. Petrovich had told Stevens that the coast licensing of the Bandon Youth Hostel was issued incorrectly that the County's categorization is being adequately addressed at the State Administra- tive level. These are the mandates which the County cannot ignore. 15) Warr asked Stevens why the ratio of 10 individuals to one restroom was such a critical figure. Stevens responded that this is a standard established by numerous codes specifically the State Building Code and applies also to organizational camps. 16) Pugh asked whether the Fire Life Safety of the building is an issue or is it primarily a Health Division issue. Stevens responded that the ingress and egress guarantees as well as adequate ventilation of the facililty are life safety standards pertinent to the Health Department and not to the Fire Division at the State level. 17) Ahalt submitted that he has adequate toilets and shower facilities at the building, but that this particular issue addresses the specific location of those facilities. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Billings asked Ms. Gaboury is she had anything else to say. She questioned whether there was any existing ruling against co- educa- tional usage of the bathrooms. Ahalt stated that he encourages men and women to use separate toilet facililties in the building. Gaboury then discussed some further experiences that she had had in hostels in Europe. APC, 12/8/82 Page 7 2) Pugh noted that several years ago the City had attempted to run a similar operation but that this proposal had been shot down by a neighborhood group. With the City's interest in such an operation a mandate had been established that someone fill this need. He noted that he had traveled extensively using the hostel systems in his travels. He felt that hostels don't really fit into our classification of a Traveler's Accommodations. If no Fire Life safety issues were in question, then our responsibility would be to create a subcategory specifically for the Youth Hostel. Billings and Reid agreed with Pugh. 3) Owens stated that it was time to make a decision on the proposal. He moved that the condition requiring licensing by the Oregon State Health Division be deleted as a condition of approval for the Condi- tional Use Permit. Billings seconded. Discussion followed with Pugh asking Owens whether he would agree to amend his motion by making a statement to the Council for further action to reclassify such a use under the City codes. Owens responded by noting that he felt he wanted to leave his motion as stated, however, he was in agreement with the concept Pugh was suggesting. He wished to keep this action on a simple level. 4) Reid asked what the ramifications would be by commissioning an endorsement for a change in the City code. Fregonese responded by noting that there is nothing the City can do with the County or the State proceedings, but that recommendations could be made at a City level to encourage a change to the ORS. He concluded by stating that the City's definition of a Traveler's Accommodations would not make any difference at the State level. Bearing this in mind, question was called for and the vote was unanimous to drop the condition that the Hostel receive a Health Permit from the County Health Department. 5) Benson suggested that the Commission draft a resolution to the State legislature expressing support for the hostel reclassification. Greene pointed out to Benson that it is not the Commission's place to make a recommendation to the State legislature, that this must come from the City Council. Benson then proposed a motion to recommend to the City Council a resolution to support the change in the State Health Code relative to youth hostels. Reid seconded. The vote on this was again unanimous. 6) A five minute recess was taken at this point, at which time Commissioner Greene left for the evening. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -78 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ASLAN'S CHRISTIAN SCHOOL APC, 12/8/82 Page 8 DESCRIPTION Planning Action #82 -78 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing dwelling at 41 Fifth Street into a Christian kindergarten. The maximum enrollment would be 15 students, five days per week from 8:30 to 11:30 AM. Additionally, the structure is proposed to be used for Sunday school classes. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban low residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low density, multi- family). Assessor's map 9AC. Tax lot 6600. APPLICANT: Aslan's Christian School /4 Square Church. STAFF REPORT Jannusch gave the staff report. Reading a letter into the record from Frith and Lucille Turner 70 Fourth Street. It was determined that these property owners abut the property to the north of the alley. He concluded in the staff report, that the Historic Commis- sion had recommended approval of the project. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Mr. Ken Wallace of 167 Ohio Street, spoke on behalf of both the applicants. He noted an additional utilization of the building for the youth group meetings on Wednesday nights between the hours of 7:00 and 8:30 PM. This group of between 15 and 30 individuals would be well supervised. 2) Hansen asked how many children were anticipated at the pre- school. Wallace responded by stating that there would be a maximum of 15 students and current enrollment is 7. Benson asked whether the kindergarten was now operating across the street to which Wallace replied, "I guess it was." Benson asked whether any neighbors had objected at this time to this operation. "No was the reply. 3) Warr asked the applicants whether there was a play area provided for inclement weather. Wallace stated that there was none. 4) Commissioner Reid stated that she teaches kindergarten in a much smaller area that she is envious of this sort of operation since this type of facility is superior in her estimation. Hansen asked whether the youth group would ever exceed 30 individuals, the applicants responded by stating that this was the highest involvement that had ever been and they do not anticipate any increase in this number. This group organized for study and fellowship also uses the facility across the street. 5) Wallace then noted that approximately six men anticipate using the facility intermittently during the early morning hours once per week on Thursdays. APC, 12/8/82 Page 9 6) Fregonese asked whether the building was used as a residence also. The response was "no 7) Jannusch stated that the staff's primary concern would be the impact of parking on the surrounding neighborhood for use of on- street vehicle parking. Wallace stated that there was a regular church meeting held on Wednesday nights, but the youths come with their parents primarily, thus creating negligible additional impact on the parking for the facility. 8) Apenes asked where the toilet facilities were located since the submitted floor plan indicated none. Wallace corrected this mistake by noting that the house does have toilet facilities. Reid asked whether the shed and the sandbox indicated on the site plan would be permitted to continue existing on the property line to which Frego- nese responded that the shed was a pre- existing non conforming use and the sandbox is not considered a structure. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Apenes asked what the distance was to that property owned by the individuals objecting to the proposal. Staff responded by stating that the property was across the alley and kitty corner to the propo- sal. 2) Billings asked whether the applicants would agree with the staff recommendations. Wallace questioned the item relative to signing an agreement for future alley improvements. He was curious what the costs would be. Fregonese noted that such a local improvement district would require 51% of those property owners affected to sign in favor and such cost (approximately $18.00 /ft). would be shared by abutting property owners. Wallace then stated that the applicants would have no problems in meeting these conditions. Billings then moved to approve the project with the recommended conditions with Owens seconding it. The vote again was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -79 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW DAVID FADDEN DESCRIPTION Planning Action #82 -79 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence at 326 North Main St. into medical offices. A deck addition is proposed on the north. Access to the parking on the north and east sides of the structure is via Van Ness St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban Low Residen- tial. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density Multi Family). Assessor's map APC, 12/8/82 Page 10 5DD. Tax lot 100, 101, 200, 300. APPLICANT: David Fadden. STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch presented the staff report explaining the proposal and noting that the Historic Commission had raised an objection to the present siding on the structure is not in keeping with the historical character of the area. Billings questioned the screening along Van Ness which Jannusch clarified for him. John Fregonese then recommended that an additional condition be imposed to require a full species specific landscaping plan for review by the Planning Department. 2) Hansen asked what relevance the building material and the Histo- ric Commission's objection to it would create on this proceeding. Fregonese pointed out that the structure had originally been Crafts- man style in horizontal siding. He further noted that authority to change the siding would be appropriate if the structure were being altered but to require the applicant to rip off the existing siding would not be relevant at this time. At this point, the public hear- ing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Mr. David Fadden of 326 North Main St. spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that he likes the siding and that was the primary reason for buying the house. He said he was interested in primarily achieving the highest potential use for the facility and this would be best met by proposing offices as a change of occupancy. He explained further that the addition of the porch was necessary for safety standards since the only current access to the upstairs was through the existing kitchen which provides at best a cumbersome access to the upstairs. Pugh asked the applicant whether he has met with the Historic Commission to which Fadden replied that he had. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DICUSSION AND MOTION 1) Owens moved to approve the project with the amended conditions with Reid seconding. The vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -80 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW John Wren /Karen Lundgren DESCRIPTION Planning Action #82 -80 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and APC, 12/8/82 Page 11 Site Review for a 6 -unit owner occupied traveler's accommodations at 451 N. Main St. The owner's living quarters are proposed for the existing single- family residence on the rear of the lot with the guest rooms in the larger existing dwelling. Eight parking spaces will be provided between the two structures with access via Nursery St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, multi- family). Assessor's map 5DA. Tax lot 7200. APPLICANTS: John Wren /Karen Lundgren STAFF REPORT Jannusch gave the staff report. Adding that the size and species specific landscaping plan should be submitted as a condition for approval. The public hearing was then opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Mr. John Wren stated that he was the applicant and he was present for any questions. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Reid asked staff whether this was the first such traveler's accommodations where people don't live in the house in question. Fregonese replied that there was another one on "B" Street where the business owners lived off the site. This particular bed breakfast had been approved prior to the enactment of the present ordinance requiring owners to live on site. Reid then asked what would the requirements be if the applicants lived next door on a separate tax lot. Fregonese replied that this would not be appropriate. She then asked wouldn't the small house face the alley, the response was that it faced Nursery Street. 2) Hansen raised the question about how many bed breakfasts could the City support and whether the Planning Commission had the respon- sibility in limiting these numbers. Warr concurred with Hansen's concerns. He noted, however, that it was not the Planning Commis- sion's province to put limmitations on the free enterprise system, thus placing restrictions on those numbers of bed breakfasts would be inappropriate. After further discussion, Apenes proposed to approve the proposal based on the staff's recommendations. Warr seconded. The amended conditions would include that if the parking layout created a problem that it would require additional review and approval by the Planning Commission over and above the original recommendations established by staff. The vote was unanimous to approve the proposal. TYPE 1 PLANNING ACTION APC, 12/8/82 Page 12 Planning Action #82 -74 is a request for a 12 months extension (until 2 -84) for a 2 -story office building located behind 300 East Main St. Applicant: Allen Drescher. This Planning Action was approved. Planning Action #82 -75 is a request for a Site Review for a public warehouse facility at City of Ashland's Civic Center, 1175 East Main St. Applicant: City of Ashland. 1) Mr. Zane Hoffman who resides on Mountain Street, expressed his concern about the proposal. It was noted by staff at this time that Type 1 hearings do not typically involve public testimony but that notification had been inadvertantly given to surrounding neighbors that they would have an opportunity to speak at this point. Based on this, Mr. Hoffman and other neighbors were given the opportunity to express their opinions about the proposal. Mr. Hoffman stated that the alley empties onto Mountain Street and creates problems for his livingroom and bedroom with lights from police cars and other vehicles reflecting into these rooms. He stated that he had been previously assured that the alley would be closed. Fregonese then reviewed the conditions of approval expressing the screening require- ment relative to the adjacent residential properties. 2) Brian Almquist then spoke on behalf of the proposal. He stated that attempts had been made to keep the neighbors advised of this proposal, that area residents had been notified of a meeting to be held to review this proposal in attempts to receive input from the affected neighbors. He noted that at this particular meeting, only two individuals had shown up to express their concerns. He continued by stating that the access would not be used for heavy equipment. He further noted that this area would not be utilized for heavy equipment work and would only be utilized for employee parking. He continued by stating that the gate would be locked at 5:00 PM and that the police would be using the facility only after these hours. He stated that, however, some heavy equipment would be moving up and down Mountain Street beginning at 7:00 AM. Hoffman suggested that this access be closed and that exits be provided onto East Main Street eliminating the access off of Mountain St. Almquist' noted that this access was necessary since it was difficult to maneuver large vehicles to exit off onto East Main. He noted further that crews would be staggered in the summertime creating a lesser concentrated impact at any given time. 3) Mr. John Welch, 78 North Mountain St., stated that he has been fighting dust in his house which abuts one of the access roads since the existing facility had been constructed. He felt that the road abutting his house should be paved. He continued by stating that his property is approximately three feet higher than this access road and that it would take a screening hedge of from 6 to 7 feet in height before it would block his view. He stated he would like to see the road closed. APC, 12/8/82 Page 13 4) Almquist stated that this road will be paved. Fregonese noted that most of the landscaping proposed for the project will be orien- ted towards East Main St. and Mountain Street, not towards the tracks. The project was then approved. Planning Action #82 -76 is a request for a Site Review and Ordinance Variance to construct a maintenance shop in Lithia Park in the old deer pen area on the northeast corner of Granite Pioneer Sts. The variance is necessary to construct the shop within 13' of the front property line in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance. Applicant: City of Ashland Parks Department. 1) Benson asked whether the slab has already been poured for the structure. Fregonese responded that it had and that miscommunication had been the reason for this occurring. He further noted that the Parks Department has been cooperative in rectifying the situation and encouraged the Commission to approve this, which they did. Planning Action #82 -81 is a request for a 1 year extension of prior Planning Commission approval to create a private way as access to a landlocked parcel at 260 West Hersey St. Applicant: Michael Rarity. This was approved. Planning Action #82 -82 is a request for a Site Review for a swimming pool /bath house and separate storage building in Hunter Park. Applicant: Ashland Parks Department. This action was approved. Planning Action #82 -83 is a request for a 24 months extension (until 12 -84) to install the required improvements at Sunnyview Heights Subdivision Unit #2. Applicant: William Kneebone. Approved subject to the condition that the extension only be for an 18 month period in lieu of the 24 month period requested by the applicant. Planning Action #82 -84 is a request for a Minor Land Partition and Site Review for a cabinet shop at 868 A. St. Applicants: Munroe /Clear. This action was approved. The applicant Robert Munroe asked whether the alley must be paved, or if it could be surfaced in an oil mat surface. Fregonese replied that it would have to be paved to Public Works standards. STAFF BUSINESS The Billings Ranch Golf Course presented by the Jackson Road Golf, Inc. was then discussed. 1) Fregonese gave the staff report noting that the applicants must sign a consent to annexation of those areas within the Urban Growth Boundary. He further noted that a non conforming sign at the Jackson House will be removed. He further expressed concern about the screening for the first hole adjacent to Highway 99. He further APC, 12/8/82 Page 14 stated that provision for the greenway which runs through the development must be met. He further felt that the applicants should supply staff with a Site Review when more details for the plan were available. This pending Site Review would review parking requirements as well as landscaping requirements for the site. He then stated that it was staff's opinion that a chain link fence would have a negative impact on the area, requesting that something more appropriate be used for fencing material for golf course security. 2) Commissioners Pugh and Warr expressed their favor with the proposal. Warr questioned whether the County would look to the City Planning Commission for specific comments when the proposal was presented to them. Fregonese responded by stating that the County is requesting such advice and that the Council would address the Planning Commission's findings in a document submitted to the County. The Commission felt that it was appropriate to use the memorandum submitted by the Planning Director to the Planning Commission. 3) Mr. Gary Jones spoke on behalf of the applicants. He addressed the fencing issue, stating that his insurance company is requiring the fencing to underwrite the proposal in its policy. In addition, he noted six property owners abutting the golf course have expressed their desire to have such fencing included as a part of the project. He then presented a public plan showing the trees and shrubbery which would be planted all along the fencing. He pointed out on the plan that Ponderosa Pines and other conifers would be planted as well as deciduous trees throughout the development. He further stated that there is no fence anticipated be constructed in the flood plain. LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1) Commissioner Pugh then expressed his interest in encouraging side walk vendors in the City of Ashland. Billings noted that there had at one point been concern expressed by the City merchants relative to such a proposal. Pugh then suggested that a date be established for a workshop to review this question. It was determined that the first available time would be some time in March 1983. Pugh then proposed that a subcommittee be appointed to review this proposal and investi- gate its potential and present their findings at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Owens and Warr were volunteered. 2) Commissioner Reid noted that this was her last meeting and wished to express her appreciation to the rest of the Commission for the time she has been involved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM. APC, 12/8/82 Page 15 PH 12.-i 7 YES NO Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Reid Greene 1/ Owens TOT PH 2 YES pets nes Billings Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Reid Owens TOT (S ,--D PH YES NO Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Reid Acme Owens TOT PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD /Z g Cc...2a.ti> PH o DES NO PH a'Z -7 S' YES NO PH 124 9 ES NO Owens Greene Reid Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes PH TOT Owens ammo- Reid Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Apenes TOT Owens Reid Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes TOT YES PH YES NO Pugh Reid 6e- Owens Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson TOT TOT Pugh Reid Owens Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson TOT Warr Hansen Billings Apenes Owens C Reid Pugh TOT Benson NO PH YES NO PH YES NO P Reid Graeae Owens apenes Billings Hansen Benson ate Warr Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Grolsoe Pugh TOT PH YES NO PH YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes Owens c Reid Pugh TOT