Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-13 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wishing to speak at any P.2ann-ing Commission Meeting ,us encouraged to do 4o. I4 you do w-h to speak, pteaoe muse and a4tek you have been n.ecognized by the Chain, give your name and compeete addnei. s you wi t then be Wowed to speak. PteaLe note that public testimony may be timited by the Chavc and non.maPey .vs not Wowed ag en. the pubtLc hearing has been ceozed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 13, 1982 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 September 8, 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 travelers' accommo- dations 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: Al Gieleghem B. PLANNING ACTION #82 -56 is a request for a Planning Approval Extension until July 1983, for Phase I of Pine Meadow Planned Unit Development, a 33 -unit condominium development approved in April 1979. The first phase involves construction of 10 units. The property is located west of the intersection of Scenic Dr. and Grandview Dr. Comprehensive Plan designation: Rural Residential and Suburban Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 (Single- family residential) and RR -.5 (Rural Residential). Assessor's map 8AA, tax lot: 6900; 8AB, part of tax lot 200. APPLICANT: William S. Wiley C. PLANNING ACTION #82 -63 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit Site Review to convert the existing residnece at 59 Manzanita into a Bed Breakfast consisting of 3 guest rooms and an owner's apartment. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, Multi- Family). Assessor's map 5DD. Tax lot: 2600 APPLICANTS: Vicki Robinson John Lamb IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: A. PA #82 -66, request for a 4 mos. extension (until 1 -83) of the CUP for a temporary YMCA office in the existing residence located at 1746 Hwy 66. Applicant: Ash- land YMCA. B. PA #82 -67, request for, an amended Minor Land Partition on Alnut off Strawberry Lane. Applicant: Judith Clark V. LETTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Letter from Duane Smith re: Bruce Hornak VI. STAFF BUSINESS: A. Study Session, Area #4, October 27, 1982 VI. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Lance Pugh at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Barry Warr, Neil Benson, Chris Apenes, and Tom Owens. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secre- tary Ann Baker were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Regular Meeting of September 8, 1982, were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING PA *82 -44 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW GIELEGHEM DESCRIPTION: STAFF REPORT MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 13, 1982 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 travelers accommodations consisting of 2 guest suites. Comprehen- sive Plan designation: Urban low residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family, low density). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lot: 7600. APPLICANT: AI Gieleghem 1) Fregonese reviewed the applicant's request to extend review of the proposal until spring 1983. He also read excerpts from Gieleghem's letter requesting the extension and attacking the Planning Staff. 2) Pugh asked the Commission whether they wished to continue the application to this later date or to hear it tonight. 3) Apenes moved to continue the item until March 1983. Owens seconded the motion. 4) Discussion continued on the motion when Warr asked why they were APC, 10/13/82, Page 1 being asked once more to postpone the action on this particular appli- cation since it had already been on the agenda three times. Pugh noted that the final hearing for the project would probably be relatively lengthy and it was within the province of the Planning Commission to extend this again. Warr asked how many extensions an application can receive; to which Fregonese replied there are no limits to the number of extensions that can be granted. That the only stipulation in the Ordinance is that a decision must be rendered within 60 days of the initial application unless both parties agree to an extension of the application. Warr then agreed that it should be continued one more time. The vote was unanimous, in favor of the extension. PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -56 TIME EXTENSION WM. 5. WILEY DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -56 is a request for a Planning Approval Extension until July 1983, for Phase I of Pine Meadow Planned Unit Development, a 33 -unit condominium development approved in April 1979. The first phase involves construction of 10 units. The property is located west of the intersection of Scenic Dr. and Grandview Dr. Comprehensive Plan designation: Rural Residential and Suburban Residential. Zoning: R- 1:7.5 (Single family residential) and RR -.5 (Rural Residential). Assessor's map BAA, tax lot: 6900; 8AB, part of tax lot 200. APPLICANT: Wm. S. Wiley STAFF REPORT: 1) Fregonese read the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Mr. William S. Wiley, applicant, spoke on behalf of his proposal to extend the application to July 1983. 2) Since the party who had requested the call -up on the initial Type I planning action was not in attendance at the meeting the public hearing was closed after the applicant had spoken. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ana MOTION: I) Owens moved to approve the request with Warr seconding the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor of the applicant's request. APC, 10/13/82, Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING PA #82 -63 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW ROBINSON /LAMB DESCRIPTION: Planning Action #82 -63 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit Site Review to convert the existing residence at 59 Manzanita into a Bed Breakfast consisting of 3 guest rooms and an owner's apartment. Comprehensive Plan designation: Urban Low Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, multi- family). Assesor's map 5DD. Tax lot: 2600. APPLICANT: Vicki Robinson John Lamb. STAFF REPORT: 1) Jannusch presented the staff report, noting that since the initial application the applicants had requested that an additional fourth room be permitted for the proposed travelers accommodations. Also that any proposed sign for the project be subject to review by the Historic Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Applicant John Lamb spoke on behalf of his proposal, noting that he and his partner had only recently moved from the Bay area into the home and were enthusiastic about the development of their bed and breakfast inn. He confirmed Staff's comments relative to his request that an additional room be permitted noting that the ground floor of the struc- ture would provide living quarters for he and his partner as owners of the business. He continued by stating that the Historic Commission had approved the change for the bathroom window which was required by the Building Codes Division. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION: 1) Apenes asked whether there was enough room for the additional parking stall required given the request for the fourth unit at the project. Jannusch replied that yes, there was adequate room at the site to provide this additional parking. 2) Warr reiterated his concern relative to the travelers accommo- dations glut within the City of Ashland which he feels applicants should be aware of. He hoped that the applicants had considered the risks of opening their operation based on the influx of such units in the past few months. In response to this Fregonese noted that there were another 90 units which are presently at the preliminary planning stage, which the Planning Commission will probably be reviewing in the not too distant future. APC, 10/13/82, Page 3 3) After further discussion Warr moved to approve the Planning Action with Benson seconding the motion. The vote again was unanimous, in favor of the application. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: 1) Planning Action #82 -66 for the YMCA. It was noted to the Commis- sion that this proposal had been called up by the neighbors and will require a public hearing at the November meeting. 2) Planning Action #82 -67, request for an amended Minor Land Partition on Alnut off Strawberry Lane. Applicant: Judith Clark. Apenes asked the staff whether the easement location for the driveway accessing the parcel would be still located at the same side of the lot that had been approved at the initial review of the proposal. Staff informed him that it was in fact on the same side and that no change was proposed for the parcel, except for the reduction in size. All conditions directly applying to the previous approval of the project would still require compliance. The Commission approved the Planning Action. LETTER FROM DUANE SMITH RE: BRUCE HORNAK 1) Fregonese asked the Commission whether they had a chance to read Smith's Letter. Members replied that they had. He then read Hornak's letter into the record, which was an addressed response to Mr. Smith, refuting the allegations Smith had made. He continued by reading the nonconforming use clause from the Land Use Ordinance, noting that it was in Hornak's favor, since the outside of the structure was not changing. 2) Commissioner Warr commented that the structure looks like a ware- house and noted that it is currently being converted to a residence in the rear and wondered whether this was okay by the Code. Fregonese replied that yes, it was encouraged by the Code for nonconforming uses to be brought into conformance. He further noted that maintained as a retail cabinet shop the use would be illegal, but as a home occupation and under certain guidelines, the use would be okay. Hornak had been operating before for a number of years and no one had complained. During staff's investigation of the site it had appeared that all the on -site work was being conducted specifically for the improvement of that residence. 3) Pugh asked where does the hobby vs. home occupation line fall in situations such as this? Fregonese read the home occupation definition from the Ordinance, noting again, that as a cabinet shop on a retail level the operation would be illegal. Some of those home occupation requirements cited were that all sales be conducted off premises, and APC, 10/13/82, Page 4 The burden of proof for determining the day an employee was hired for employment at the cabinet shop would be on the City. 4) Owens noted that this was an interesting case, but he did not feel that review was under the Planning Commission jurisdiction since in his estimation the Planning Commission was not an enforcing body; this situation should be ruled upon either by the City Council or the City Attorney. 5) Fregonese noted that the PIanning Staff is in charge of enforcement of violations, but that staff does not conduct surveillances and typi- cally can only act upon complaints and personal visitations to the sites of the alleged violations. Owens continued by noting that in his estimation it was not appropriate to get into the merits of the opera- tion at this point since the Planning Commission could not rule in either way. 6) Pugh suggested that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to hear testimony from Mr. Hornak at this point since Mr. Smith was not available to respond. He felt that it should be left in the hands of the staff to keep tabs on this situation and use their judgment in pursuing the City's responsibility in this case. The other Commissioners agreed. STAFF BUSINESS: 1) Fregonese noted the Study Session on Area #4 rezoning to be held on October 27th. This is around the Strawberry Lane area. He further noted that the Commission would be receiving an opinion on the quarry issue from an outside attorney, Mike Jewett, to help them render a policy for the future expansion of quarry sites in the City of Ashland. 2) Warr then asked whether the slope question above Long Way had been determined by staff investigation. Fregonese responded that this issue would be clarified at the time when the whole area was reviewed at the public hearings to be held in November. He further noted that the field trip for area #4 will be held on October 26th. Commission and CPAC members are invited to meet at 9:30 AM at the downtown Council Chambers to review the maps of the area prior to embarking on the field trip. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned at 8:20 PM. APC, 10/13/82, Page 5 John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 10/13/82, Page 6 cY O Phone (503) 482 -3899 P.O. Box 962 Ashland, Oregon 97520 May 27, 1982 Bruce Hornak Bruce Hornak Custom Woodworking 627 Walnut Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Bruce: This letter is in response to our conversation that we had the other evening. I thought perhaps it would be wise if we put on paper exactly what we were talking about. You indicated a willingness to make some changes in your structure if we would allow you to continue your operation and it was my understanding that you proposed to cut part of the rear building off or remove part of the rear building, how much was not indicated, and to cut the front building back to meet the normal R setbacks. In addition to that, you agreed to paint it and put eaves on and make as much of a residential character out of the building as possible. I agreed that if these particular points were met, that we would not resist your continued operation in that location. I would suggest that Jeff Barnes, your architect, finishes the sketches as quickly as possible and that we enter into a contract with you about the time and order in which this is to proceed using the drawings to back up our understanding of what you are to do. However, we do not feel that we can allow you to move in or receive an occupancy permit until this agreement has been reached and put in writing. It is our sincere hope that this will take care of the matter. S4ncerely, Duane Smith DS :im k.L;EiVEci OCT 1M2 #44 Duane F. Smith CUSTOM WOODWORKING 437 Wiley St. Ashland, Ore. 97520 482 -9275 July 13, 1982 Duane Smith Siskiyou Properties P. O. Box 962 Ashland, Ore. 97520 RECEIVED OCT 121982 Dear In responce to your letter of July 7th (post dated May 27th), I would like to clarify the history of our previous conversation, and my current position. Late in May, in response to a formal complaint you filed with the city about the noise coming from my buildings, we meet and I affirmed my intention to resolve this noise problem. At that meeting you indicated that the noise was not as big an issue as the outside appearance of my buildings, and how they negetivily effect the real estate values of the neighborhood. I expressed having plans of upgradeing the appearance of the buildings, to conform with the residential charactor of the neighborhood, and offered to give you a copy of the design conception when it became avalable. The- drawings are not yet avalable, but they should be soon, and I will give you a copy when they are finnished. The investigation the planning department made in response to your complaint revealed three facts. First, that any noise created by improvements made to the buildings do not fall under any noise ordinance, and noise generated by a home occupation is restricted to 45 decibels at the property line. The latter I fully intend to comply with, and the former is a drop in the bucket compared to the noise that will be generated as the result of a 21 unit sub- division you intend to develop directly across the street. The third fact is that I am under no obligation to improve the outside of my buildings- because t intend to live and work their. AS far as my "operation" is concerned, I have received no money from outside contracts since Febuary, and do nests intend to do so until I move in, which will not be for two to three months. That you intend to prevent my moving into my new house unless I ingauge in a performance contract with you, is hardly worthy of a response, The improvements I make try the_Qutside-_of my buildings will proceed as I am financially physically capable, not in response to outside pressure. If you were able to prevent my moving7 in, and working there, I would be forcedto find another location to work, and any incentive to improve those buildings would be gone. The end resuld would be that those buildings would remain in their present condition indefinitely. It is unfortunate that you fail to understand that our objective in this matter is the same, that it is a question of time. To try and inforce any outside scheduleing by coersion, would defeat that objective entirely. Barring any un- forseen obsticales, my desire is to make some progress toward new paint this year, and architecural changes next spring. I would suggest that any further problem you have in this matter, you take before the Planning Commission. After all, that is what they are there for, and if any action is taken in this matter it will probably be taken there anyway. It seems to me that your attempt to usurp control,at this point, is a little premature. Sincerely, Bruce Hornak Custom Woodworking RECEIVED OCT 1 2 1982 A SHLA NO CHRISTIAN FELLO W�H!P October 10,1982 To Whom it may concern; In regards to Bruce Hornak and his shop /residence on Wiley Street: We have been next door neighbors to Bruce for 12 years. All of our dealings with him have been most pleasant, and we appreciate him as a neighbor. As to his carpentry /cabinet shop, we have not been disturbed in the least by the work taking place there. In fact, the sound levels and traffic activities am less than those occurring at an average family residence, including our own. As for the appearance of his building, we are confident that Bruce's plans will be carried out, as he has explained to us. Since we have lived on Wiley, he has worked steadily at landscaping and other improvments on his building. To completely renovate, redecorate and landscape an old building is an enormous undertaking. To expect it to be completed rapidly is unreasonable, particularly considering the expense involved in these times of financial stress. Sincerely Yours, 1 Pastor and Mrs. Andy Green 451 Wiley St. 482 -1261 204 E. Hersey, Ashland, Oregon 97520 (503) 482 -8539 YES NO Apenes I/ Warr Benson Pugh Owens PH TOT Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Reid Owens TOT YES NO PH YES NO Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Reid Greene Owens' TOT PH ?1 YES Owens -ewe +mil Pugh Benson Warr Mown Apenes TOT PH Owens Greene Reid Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Apenes TOT Owens Greene Reid Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes TOT PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD /e l/3 4-7 YES NO NO PH 21.43 YES NO PH Pugh ROST Owens Apenes 1#'r Warr Benson TOT PH Pugh Reid Greene Owens apenes Billings Hansen Benson TOT Pugh Reid Greene Owens Apenes Billings Hansen Warr Benson TOT YES NO PH Benson Warr StitiOmige Apenes Owens Ca Reid Pugh TOT YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Pugh TOT PH YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Billings Apenes Owens Greene Reid Pugh TOT YES NO