Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-11 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wahing to 'peak at any naming Commas-,on Meeting a encou&aged to do 40. 4 you do wizh to 4peaa, p1ea3e 'Lae and Wen you have been necognLzed by the Cha-i&, give you& name and comp.eete addne& you wee then be Wowed to 4peak. P2ea4e note 'that pubVc te4timony may be .Umi ted by the Chain_ and no /matey a not a2eowed Wen the pubt i..c heating ha4 been c,2.o4 ed. I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of July 21, 1982 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PLANNING ACTION #82 -44 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence at 514 Siskiyou Blvd. into travel- ers' accommodations consisting of 2 guest suites. Comprehensive Plan desig- nation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, low density). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lot: 7600. APPLICANT: A.L. M.R. Gieleghem C. PLANNING ACTION #82 -58 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing duplex at 985 Siskiyou Blvd. into a chiro- practic clinic. Parking will be to the rear of the lot and access is via the alley abutting the adjacent offices to the east. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low- density, multi- family). Assessor's map 10CB. Tax lot: 6600. APPLICANTS: Marc Heller John Harpster B. PLANNING ACTION #82 -57 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to use a portion of the existing residence at 888 Cambridge for a preschool. Maximum enrollment would be 16, and the preschool would be open 9AM to 12 PM on weekdays. Comprehensive Plan designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 (Single family residential). Assessor's map 5AA. Tax lot: 7700. APPLICANTS: Judy Combs and Cindy Morris IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 11, 1982 A. PA #82 -55, request for amended Site Review for the bed and breakfast located at 668 N. Main St. Applicants: Joe /Phyllis Morical. B. PA #82 -56, request for a time extension until 7 -83 for the 33 -unit condominium development west of the intersection of Scenic Dr. and Grandview Dr. Applicant: Wm. Wiley V. STAFF BUSINESS: A. Guanajuato Way revitalization B. Study Session August 25, 1982 VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 11, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Lance Pugh at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Christian Apenes, John Billings, Barry Warr, Neil Benson, and Don Greene. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. At this point, Al Gieleghem ordered a tape of the entire proceedings. Fregonese replied that staff had no way of re- recording a copy of the tape. Gieleghem asked for a clarification as to the status of the chairmanship of the Planning Commission. Pugh responded that he is the permanent chairman of the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of July 21, 1982, were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -44 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW GIELEGHEM DESCRIPTION: PIanning Action #82 -44 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence at 514 Siskiyou Blvd. into travelers' accommodations consisting of 2 guest suites. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi Family, Low Density). Assessor's Map 9BD. Tax Lot: 7600. APPLICANT: A.L. M.R. Gieleghem STAFF REPORT: 1) Fregonese presented the staff report and noted that the Conditional Use Permit should be applied to the property only. He noted the applicant's activities on the site. In noting the addendum to the original staff report, he informed the Planning Commission that conviction for any of the, citations issued would be grounds for revocation of the permit if it were granted. He further stated that APC, 8/11/82, Page 1 the Commission could continue the public hearing for the application until the September 8, 1982, meeting which would be following the trial on August 24, 1982, for the pending citations. 2) Al Gieleghem, applicant, interjected that Fregonese was lying. 3) Fregonese continued in the review of the existing, pending citations. He stated it would be staff's recommendation to postpone the proceedings pending the trial. He noted that the ordinance states that a decision must be rendered within 90 days after an application is received. He stated that if the applicant is guilty of the citations, staff would recommend denial of the request, based upon the applicant's activities on the site and their relevance to the application to the Planning Commission. He felt that the first decision to be made would be for the Planning Commission to determine whether the application should be reviewed this evening or to wait until after the trial. Since Gieleghem had withdrawn his application on July 12, and then reapplied on July 14, the 90 -day period would start from July 14. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) AI Gieleghem, applicant, 514 Siskiyou, spoke on behalf of his application. He clarified the presence of the City Attorney, Ron Salter. He asked if Bruce Smith was in attendance. He was not. He then asked that the full staff report be given for his and the Commission's benefit. He noted that a continuance of 90 days would end the tourist season and create a financial loss for him. He stated that Fregonese and Jannusch had precluded him from commencing business since May 16 and noted that litigation would follow relative to these allegations. He stated that he had presented his application on May 18. He stated that Fregonese had told him that no pre -app would be necessary at that time. He then took issue with Fregonese relative to the sign ordinance, stating again that both Fregonese and Jannusch had intentionally blocked his application. Gieleghem stated that Fregonese was neither civil nor a servant of the public. He then objected to Fregonese's motion to continue the application until after the trial and stated that Fregonese should read his own sign ordinance. 2) Hal Offel, 590 Siskiyou Blvd., spoke on behalf of the the applicant. He stated he knows the owner directly who had approached him to correct the condition that exists on the alley. He then asked if the City had responded to the alley problem. Fregonese responded that the City was dealing directly with the property owner and, because of this, it should not involve Gieleghem. OffeI stated that the alley had been raised to an elevated condition, damaging the carriage house, which led to the removal of the fence and the citation which had been issued. He stated that the condition does indeed have a bearing on the case. Fregonese stated that the alley issue is not relevant at this time. 3) Gieleghem stated that he had a contrary opinion to this statement. 4) Offel asked if the alley decision would have a bearing on this request. Fregonese replied that the question before the Planning Commission at this point was whether to review the project at all, and any discussion about the alley or parking was irrelevant at this time in the meeting. Offel asked if parking APC, 8/11/82, Page 2 requirements would be a part of the approval. Fregonese replied yes, they would be, but only at the point when the application was reviewed and approved. He again noted that the alley situation was being worked out with the owner, Mr. Levy. 5) Pugh concurred and stated that the alley question was a technical matter under the auspices of the Public Works Dept., since they have jurisdiction over public rights -of -way. 6) Offel stated Gieleghem would do the work at the site satisfactorily, and, in order to do it satisfactorily, the alley question ties in. 7) Again noting that the question under discussion at this time was to determine whether the Planning Commission would review the project at all this evening, Pugh noted that the alley question was not pertinent at this point. 8) Gieleghem asked what additional information could be provided by a 90 -day delay. Fregonese responded by noting that staff is not proposing a 90 -day delay, but the 90 -day period would have started back on July 14 when the application was renewed, essentially starting the clock over again. Fregonese noted that a guilty conviction would be basis for denial of the project. A verdict of innocence would virtually clean the slate and allow the Planning Commission to review the project based on its merits alone. 9) Gieleghem stated that the only thing Fregonese was waiting for was his hope for a conviction. He then asked if he had failed to supply the Planning Dept. with any information relative to his financial background, moral character, or proposal description. Fregonese noted that the application itself meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. He stated, however, that the present actions pending on the property were an additional issue which have bearing on the application, and the Planning Commission needs to have the knowledge of the citations, the current status of the citations, and that the conditions at the site should be made known to the Commission. 10) Gieleghem noted his citations, one being a parking citation, the second an attractive nuisance which he stated was the only crime involved, where 7 policemen and 4 squad cars were called upon to issue the citation for a small gap in the fence which surrounded the pool which had 14 inches of water standing in it. His only crime was his absence from court when he was helping an 85- year -old lady in distress. The next citation he noted was for a sign violation which he disputed. He then noted Section 18.96.050(A), which defines a ground sign. Fregonese responded to this by stating that it was a temporary removable sign. Gieleghem then stated that Fregonese and Jannusch had approved the sign. Before staff could respond to this claim, Pugh called the meeting back to order again, and stated that at this point he didn't care what staff had said about the sign. He wanted the Commission to decide the question at hand. Gieleghem stated he wanted it to be a matter of record that Pugh did not care. He reiterated his economic Ioss due to the lack of approval of this project. He noted that Fregonese and the rest of staff have fixed salaries coming in every month. He appealed to the businessmen on the Commission for some consideration relative to the risks of conducting business in the private sector as opposed to being a public employee. APC, 8/11/82, Page 3 11) W.D. Jennings, 477 Allison, across the alley from the subject parcel, noted when the alley was originally put in, and stated there was a danger created by the construction of the fence. He noted that the neighbors surrounding the parcel were pleased with what Gieleghem had done. He stated that the same type of place exists on Allison St., providing two rooms for travelers' accommodations and no off street parking had been provided at that site. He stated that there were all kinds of apartments on Allison without off- street parking. He then asked why did Gieleghem have to put in parking. He noted that, with the alley improvements, it is now practically a street. Pugh reiterated that the parking and alley issues would be looked into later. 12) Nancy Greene, 710 Elkader, stated she was a member of CPAC and her daughter had been working for Gieleghem this summer. She stated she would like to have this question resolved so that more teenagers could be hired, thus creating more jobs for the community. 13) Gieleghem then approached the Commission and asked if he could supply them with an artist's sketch of the proposal. Pugh stated that it would be okay. 14) Pugh asked if there would be any further public comment on the question under discussion. There was none. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) Greene asked when the application was originally filed. Fregonese responded that it was on June 11. Fregonese then noted that the letter withdrawing the project was dated July 9 and received by the Planning Dept. on July 12. Two days after this, the applicant had requested that his application be reinstated. July 14 was the new date from which the 90 -day period commenced. 2) Greene asked the City Attorney, Ron Salter, if he was familiar with the ordinance enforcement section relative to the citations in question. Salter noted that, upon conviction of any of the infractions, the Planning Commission would have grounds to rescind or revoke the Conditional Use Permit, thus giving the Commission the right to deny the application. Greene asked if the citations did have a direct relation upon the proceedings, and Salter replied that operating a travelers' accommodations without a Conditional Use Permit would provide a direct relationship between the question at hand and the pending citations. 3) Benson asked if the application were granted tonight, could the applicant operate immediately? Fregonese responded that there is a 15 -day appeal period that exists on approval by the Planning Commission for an individual to appeal the decision to the City Council. This period would have to pass prior to the issuance of a business Iicense for the operation. 4) Billings asked when the application was originally made. Fregonese replied that it was June 11. 5) Fregonese recapped for the Commission the chain of events that occurred. He APC, 8/11/82, Page 4 stated that Gieleghem had spoken with Baker of the Planning Dept. on May 16. She had given him information relative to the deadline for filing which was May 18 for the June meeting. GieIeghem did not file by the May 18 deadline. Greene asked if this was the reason why the applicant had filed officially in June, due to missing the deadline for the June meeting. Fregonese replied yes. 6) Gieleghem stated that lies were being told. Pugh informed GieIeghem that he was out of order, since the public hearing had already been closed. 7) Warr asked the chair if he could address a question directly to Gieleghem and he was informed that he could. Warr then asked Gieleghem why he had withdrawn his application on July 12. GieIeghem stated it was out of sheer frustration after fighting with the Planning Dept. all this time. He accused Fregonese of being a chameleon of the first order. Warr stated he was not interested in what Gieleghem thought of Fregonese's character; he just wanted the facts. He asked if the withdrawal and subsequent reapplication of his proposal had anything to do with the citation that had been issued on the same date. Gieleghem stated that he had been informed by Fregonese in May that he was well prepared and there would be no need for the pre application conference and he could proceed with the application. Fregonese responded to this by stating that he had never spoken to Gieleghem until some point in June. 8) Pugh stated he personally felt it would be appropriate to continue the decision on the proposal until such time that the outcome of the trial is determined. 9) Greene felt the same, and stated that there was enough reason to withhold approval at this time pending the outcome of the trial. 10) Greene moved to continue the application until the September meeting. Apenes seconded the motion which passed 5 to 1 with Billings voting NO. 11) Gieleghem attempted to respond to the final vote, but was denied the opportunity to speak since the proceedings were closed. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -58 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW HELLER HARPSTER DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -58 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing duplex at 985 Siskiyou Blvd. into a chiropractic clinic. Parking would be to the rear of the lot and access is via the alley abutting the adjacent offices to the east. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, Multi- Family). Assessor's Map 10CB. Tax Lot: 6600. APPLICANTS: Marc Heller and John Harpster. APC, 8/11/82, Page 5 STAFF REPORT: 1) Jannusch read the staff report and explained the proposal, utilizing the plans exhibited. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Marc Heller, applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 2) Benson noted the handicapped access which had been provided off Siskiyou Blvd. He noted this would require a vehicle to back out into the Boulevard. Heller responded that this would be the case. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND NOTION: 1) Pugh addressed the question of backing out into the public right -of -way. He felt it was not a good situation. Fregonese stated the driveway had been in use since the building had been erected. He noted there was clear vision up and down Siskiyou and the driveway would probably be rarely used, although more so at a doctor's office. He felt that most of the clients being served by the doctor's office would be using the parking lot for access. 2) Heller stated there was not a high proportion of handicapped users, probably on the average of only one per day. He stated that in his current office on North Main St., which he has occupied for years, there is a series of 5 steps that a handicapped individual would have to traverse. This is why they were providing this ramp on the adjacent driveway. He further noted that backing out into the curb lane onto Siskiyou would not be a difficult condition. 3) Benson asked what the required number of parking spaces would be for the project. Jannusch noted that 10 were required and they had been provided according to the requirements of the code. There were 9 in the back and 1 at the garage. Fregonese noted that the garage would probably be used for employee parking. Benson asked if a car would be parked in the handicapped space while the patient was in the office. Heller answered yes. 4) Jannusch noted that Public Works had no comment relative to backing out into Siskiyou Blvd. 5) Warr asked if there were two driveways currently serving the parcel. Heller replied yes. Warr noted that this proposal would essentially be eliminating one and cutting the potential problem in half. He asked the applicant how he was planning to direct patients to the parking lot to the rear of the parcel. 6) Heller noted that he planned on putting a map on the back of his business cards, showing access to the parking lot off the alley adjacent to the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic. Warr asked if eliminating the garage would provide easier access to the parking lot. Heller stated it would create problems since it would APC, 8/11/82, Page 6 essentially be eliminating two spaces and probably the removal of some existing mature trees at the back of the parcel. 7) Benson offered the suggestion that the applicant include in the phone book a map or at least directions indicating where private parking would be located. 8) After additional discussion, Billings moved to approve PA #82 -58. Greene seconded the motion which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PABB2 -57 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW COMBS MORRIS DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -57 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to use a portion of the existing residence at 888 Cambridge for a preschool. Maximum enrollment would be 16, and the preschool would be open from 9 AM to 12 PM on weekdays. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1 -7.5 (Single- Family Residential). Assessor's Map 5AA. Tax Lot: 7700. APPLICANTS: Judy Combs and Cindy Morris STAFF REPORT: 1) Jannusch read the staff report. 2) Benson noted that, in utilizing the garage as a play area, potential hazards could be created. He questioned whether the fire and Iife safety inspection would cover this. Staff replied that this would be covered in that inspection. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Cindy Morris, applicant, 599E Laurel, stated she was available to answer any questions. The public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) Greene stated he felt it was appropriate to approve the project only for the applicants and not for the land. It would probably be a good idea to review the application within a year's time to determine any potential traffic impact that had been encountered. Fregonese pointed out it would be apppropriate to review it only one time, and it was desirable, according to the Comp Plan, to have this sort of operation within a neighborhood, creating a localized service and reducing the traffic impact on the area. 2) Benson noted the morning times proposed for the project while adjacent APC, 8/11/82, Page 7 property owners were not home. He asked if there would be anything to prevent the applicants from adding an afternoon session at a Iater time. Jannusch responded by stating that the application had requested only morning use, and any extension of this time would require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 3) Billings stated that as a neighbor he was sympathetic to the application, but he felt the construction of a protective fence at the rear of the parcel is important. 4) Greene asked the applicant if she would object to the application being approved only for the applicants, and if they would accept a review within a year's time to review the traffic impact. He noted that the condition applying to applicant approval meant only that they could not sell the business in this Iocation to another individual without Planning Commission approval. The applicant felt alright with this. 5) Warr asked the applicant how she could be sure that the children would be coming from the neighborhoods surrounding the proposal. The applicant responded that there was no sure way of ensuring this, but she based her findings on the Iocation of other preschools and how their clintele was drawn primarily from the immediate neighborhood. 6) Greene moved to approve the proposal, adding the condition that the approval be only for the applicant, and the additional condition that the application be reviewed again in May of 1983 to determine any potential traffic impact. Billings seconded the motion which passed unanimously. TYPE I APPROVALS 1) Fregonese noted that the Fowler request had been called up for a public hearing and would be reviewed at a later date by the Planning Commission. 2) Planning Action W82 -55, a request for amended Site Review for the Bed and Breakfast located at 668 N. Main St.; applicants: Joe and Phyllis Morical. A letter was read into the record by Mr. Cowan expressing problems of drainage ditch access. Fregonese then noted that a condition could be added stating that any alteration of the ditch would have to be approved by the Water Master. The Planning Commission agreed to the added condition. Fregonese then showed the plans to the Commission and explained why they were reviewing them again due to the revised site plan. With this added condition, the request was approved. Greene noted that some of these new travelers' accommodations are actually motels, and it is important to make sure that they meet the same standards as motels do. MEMO FROM PUBLIC WORKS RE VACATION OF WOODSON ST. 1) Fregonese reviewed the proposal and noted that the vacation was being APC, 8/11/82, Page 8 proceeded with properly, based on the State law requiring that affected property owners be noticed. 2) Billings felt it was not a good idea to vacate streets, period. 3) Fregonese noted that vacation approvals were common, particularly when a street was not improved, such as the condition that exists in this application. 4) Warr asked why the vacation was initiated. Fregonese replied that it was at the property owners' request. 5) Warr asked what the existing business was at the site. Fregonese replied that it was a custom body shop which was located on N. Main directly to the south of the proposed vacation. He then noted that Scenic Dr. was platted to be 55 ft. in width and Woodson was platted to be 35 ft. in width. 6) Billings stated that the City would be sorry someday if they approved this vacation. 7) Greene noted there was a need for utility easements even though there was already access off Scenic for this. 8) Billings stated this was a big property and the vacation would be creating problems down the line for the City. 9) Greene stated he owns tax lot 3400 and it is fully developed. The subject parcel adjacent to the proposed vacation is currently vacant. He noted again that it would probably be appropriate to reserve the utility easement. 10) Pugh noted that if a utility easement were maintained, it would be appropriate to approve the vacation. 11) Apenes asked if tax lot 3400 was landlocked. It was noted that the property can be accessed from Scenic or N. Main. 12) Warr stated that he had mixed emotions about the vacation. He felt there might be an expansion of the business, but he wished not to comment due to a conflict of interest, since a body shop is located at his place of business. 13) Fregonese noted that any expansion of the business would have to come before the Planning Commission for a Site Review. The parcel is zoned C -1. 14) Billings moved not to vacate Woodson St. The motion died due to the lack of a second. 15) Greene moved to vacate the unopened portion of Woodson St. with the proviso that utility easements be retained and any use expansion would be subject to review by the Planning Commission. Benson seconded the motion, which passed 3 to 2 with Billings and Apenes voting NO, and Warr abstaining. APC, 8/11/82, Page 9 GUANAJUATO WAY REVITALIZATION 1) Pugh explained the proposal to the PIanning Commission and noted how the property had historically lacked care since the area was not defined in terms of who exactly was responsible for its maintenance. 2) Greene asked if this area was one that the Parks Commission did not want to accept. Fregonese replied that this was not the case, and Guanajuato was not an alley. He explained further the Catch -Z2 which exists relative to the maintenance surrounding Guanajuato. 3) Benson noted that, in his opinion, it had always been an alley and would be considered an alley for access to the businesses by freight companies. Fregonese responded to this by stating that controls could be attached to freight access during certain hours, and that those businesses fronting along Guanajuato could utilize the frontage for access to their businesses if the area were cleaned up. He noted the success of such operations in other cities such as Portland. 4) Staff was directed to further investigate the possibilities here, help coordinate the efforts and then report back to the Planning Commission. STUDY SESSION A reminder was given to the Planning Commission relative to the study session for August 25, 1982. This study session will involve the study of areas 1 and 5 in the southwest quadrant of the City to determine the appropriate zoning for them. Staff and the Commission both commented on the field trip which had been taken the Tuesday before into the area and the benefits gained by taking this field trip. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 8/11/82, Page 10 PH g t\0 Apenes Billings llikoRmgb Warr Benson Pugh Greene f/ Owns- TOT PH Apenes Billings AMON— Warr Benson .ugh .mss TOT Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Reid Greene Owens' TOT PH YES NO PH PH 0,3-5 glIES Aims Greene Pugh Benson Warr NADieR Billings Apenes TOT Owens Greene Reid Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes TOT PLANNING COMMISSION. VOTING RECORD r/ NO Pti f 5 7YES NO Pugh Greene ORMIIM Apenes Billings litgagin Warr 1� Benson, t� TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Qiimps Pugh Greene Reid ROW Greene Pugh Owens Benson apenes Warr Billings Ii Hansen Apenes Benson TOT TOT YES NO PH YES NO Pugh Reid Greene Owens. Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson TOT lii /P a PH 1JP (ES NO Benson Warr Billings Apenes Greene i/ Pugh TOT Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Pugh TOT Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Reid Pugh TOT PH YES NO PH YES NO