Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-09 Planning MIN1OTE: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you do wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that public testimony may be limited by the Chair and nor- mally is not allowed after the public hearing has been closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 9, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Special Meeting of January 26, regular meeting of February 11 and special meeting of February 23, 1983. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PLANNING ACTION #83 -04 is a request for a Zone Change from SO (Southern Oregon State College) to R -2 (Multi- family, Low Density Residential) for property located on the west side of the 300 block of South Mountain Avenue. This change is necessary to correct a drafting error in the recently adopted Zoning map of the City. Comprehensive Plan designation: Southern Oregon State College. Assessor's map 9DD. Tax lots: 100, part of 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 900 1000. APPLICANT: City of Ashland B. PLANNING ACTION #83 -06 is a request for a Solar Access Variance of 7 feet for construction of a two -story single- family residence at 230 Hillcrest. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1: 7.5 (Single- family Residential). Assessor's map 9CA. Tax lot 9501. APPLICANT: Terry Lee C. PLANNING ACTION #83 -07 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Re- view and Ordinance Variance for a mini storage warehouse lcoated south of Hersey St. on Williamson Way. Access would be off Hersey Street. The Variance is required for no provision of off street parking. Comprehen- sive Plan designation: Employment. Zoning: E -1 (Employment). Asses- sor's map 4DC. Tax lot #s: 3509, 3512. APPLICANT: Lonnie Fitzpatrick D. PLANNING ACTION #83 -08 is a request for renewal of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Ordinance Variance to construct a two story, 6,000 sq. ft. office building at the southwest corner of Grant St. and North Main Street. The Ordinance Variance is necessary to locate parking in a required setback area abutting a public street (N. Main St.). Prior approval was granted March 1980, as PA #80 -14. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, Residential). Assessor's map 5AC. Tax lot 1700 APPLICANTS: Chuck Butler /Duane Smith E. PLANNING ACTION #83 -09 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a 2 -unit, owner occupied Bed Breakfast in the existing dwelling at 737 Siskiyou Boulevard. Access to the parking will be via the alley abutting on the east. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Resi- dential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, Low density Residential). Assessor's map 9DA. Tax lot 4200. APPLICANT: Carolyn H. Morris F PLANNING ACTION #83 -10 is a request for a Boundary Line Adjustment, Condi- tional Use Permit and Site Review for the addition of a vehicle parking lot at the existing mini storage facility located at 2315 Siskiyou Blvd. Compre- hensive Plan designation: Employment and Single family Residential. Zoning: E -1 R -1:5P. Assessor's map 14C. Tax lot 1600 APPLICANT: Don Ballew G. PLANNING ACTION #83 -11 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Ordi- nance Variance for a small neighborhood take -out deli in a portion of the existing dwelling at 661 "B" St. The Variance is for no off street parking. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, multi family residential.) Comprehensive Plan designation; Multi- family residential. Assessor's map 9AB. Tax lot 3700. APPLICANT: Dorathy Anderson H. PLANNING ACTION #83 -12 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed addition of a sundeck to the roof of the existing garage at 61 Nutley St. The Conditional Use Permit is necessary for alteration of a non- conforming structure. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single- family Residential. Zoning: R -1:7.5 APPLICANT: Bill Cowger IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTION: A. PA #83 -14, request for a Variance for placement of a business sign on a frontage other than the legal business frontage of the gallery located at 25 Third St. Applicants: Candy Cardin /George McMahan V. STAFF BUSINESS: Set date for joint Study Session with CPAC, re: Air Quality. March 23, 1983 VI. ADJ R E CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Don Greene at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Mary Ann Alston, Ethel Hansen, Neil Benson, Larry Helms, Don Greene, Mike Slattery and Tom Owens. Also present were Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Admin- istrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the special meeting of January 26, 1983 and the regular meeting of February 9, 1983 and February 23, 1983, were approved as written. Planning Action #83 -12, the applicant requested a continuance to the April 13, 1983, meeting so an individual he requested to testify on his behalf could attend. Helms moved that the applicant be permitted the continuance with Hansen seconding. The vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -04 ZONE CHANGE CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION #83 -04 is a request for a Zone Change from SO (South- ern Oregon State College) to R -2 (Multi- family, Low Density Residen- tial) for property Located on the west side of the 300 block of South Mountain Avenue. This change is necessary to correct a drafting error in the recently adopted Zoning map of the City. Comprehensive Plan designation: Southern Oregon State College. Assessor's map 9DD. Tax lots: 100, part of 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 900 1000. APPLICANT: City of Ashland STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report. He noted that the Southern Oregon State College plan map shows a great degree of space provided for married student housing. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Bob Wright, 11 N. First St., spoke in behalf of the zone change. APC, 3/9/83 Page 1 He stated that he owns three of the five properties affected by the change. He indicated on the map for the Commissioners that the properties are surrounded by the college and Lincoln School. He further noted that prior to the SO zoning, the properties were zoned R -3. He continued by pointing out that the drafting errors had been addressed in similar requests he had made to the Planning Commission in 1977 and 1979. Wright continued by stating that he had bought the properties 10 years before as an investment. It is his conten- tion that changing the zoning to R -2 rather than to R -3 would de- crease the values of his properties. He further stated that the uses in the neighborhood are more typical of a commercial use such as theaters, offices and parking lots, noting that Mountain Avenue provides access as a collector according to the Southern Oregon Plan and the City and provides access to parking for students commuting to the college. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Helms wondered if the Council had approved the map as drafted in 1977. Fregonese stated that the surrounding areas had been zoned R -3 until the recent zone changes in 1982. Wright stated that he had copies of the Minutes from the meeting of 1977 and he showed them to Helms. 2) Slattery then asked whether the college had any expansion plans in the area. Fregonese replied that the plans were long -term and that the college would have to come to the City for additional park- ing proposed for the college or to modify their plans. 3) Slattery then asked whether there was a significant difference between the R -3 and R -2 zoning. Fregonese stated that R -3 creates an illusion for potential buyers in terms of the number of units that are permitted. He stated that in his experience when those require- ments of landscaping, parking and solar access requirements were applied to any specific development that the density allowances were greatly reduced. 4) Wright stated that he had been selling real estate in Ashland for 22 years as his only income. Though these Lots are long and narrow, they lie adjacent to one another and the two of them comprise approx- imately 23,000 sq.ft. If he were he to combine the two lots into one tax lot, the R -3 zoning would permit 16 units whereby the R -2 zoning would permit only 10, thus creating a net loss of 6 units. He then stated that he recognized that the landscaping, lot coverage and parking requirements would have an affect on the property, but he did not feel this would create a net loss of the additional 6 units. 5) Slattery asked the applicant whether he had any development plans for the property to which the applicant replied, no. AFC, 3/9/83 Page 2 6) Hansen asked if Henry had student housing on it. The answer was, yes. 7) Fregonese stated that Wright was correct in his assumptions, that on paper the numbers are appropriate though rare in practice. He felt that the decision for staff would be a difficult one, noting that Wright had some good points and zoning could be justified either way. 8) Owens moved to approve Planning Action #83 -04 but to have the zoning R -3. Alston seconded and the vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -06 SOLAR ACCESS VARIANCE TERRY LEE PLANNING ACTION #83 -06 is araquest for a Solar Access Variance of 7 feet for construction of a two -story single- family residence at 230 Hillcrest. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residen- tial. Zoning: R -1:7.5 (Single- family Residential). Assessor's map 9CA. Tax lot 9501. APPLICANT: Terry Lee Greene stated that he would have to abstain from comment due to the fact that he had sold the property to the applicant. Owens was appointed Chairman pro -tem. STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese presented the Staff Report. He stated that staff had declined recommendation in this matter due to the staff error in the initial issuance of the permit and subsequent lack of objectivity. He then showed the Commission the site plan and the elevations pro- posed. He indicated the erroneous shadow plan submitted and the true shadow plan which was developed by staff and explained the amount of encroachment proposed as the request. The proposed shadow would shade a small area of the existing building, but would directly affect any subsequent additions directly off the back of the existing structure. Such shading would be roughly 2 1/2' taller than what the ordinance allows during the 45 minute period from 1:15 to 2:00 p.rn. on January 21. 2) Hansen asked whether there was an error in the original plans submitted. Fregonese replied, yes, that the error resulted in a five foot taller structure than what had been submitted. 3) Helms asked whether shadow plans were technically difficult. Fregonese replied that typically, a lay person does have difficulty, however, nomographs are available at the Planning Department for APC, 3/9/83 Page 3 review and explanation by the staff. 4) Owens asked for an explanation of the term "stem wall Jannusch explained the difference between a typical slab floor and stem wall construction, noting the differences on the blackboard. Owens then asked whether the plans submitted had indicated a ground level 5' lower than what the structure was actually constructed to. Fregonese stated, yes. Owens asked again whether the plans were approved as submitted and Fregonese replied, yes. 5) Slattery asked what the advantages would be to building a stem wall over a slab floor configuration and construction. Jannusch replied that often incorporation of a stem wall in continuous footing provides additional storage space since the joist system is incor- porated into the flooring rather than the floor being directly ap- plied to the earth. 6) Owens asked whether the shadow plan had been prepared by the applicant. Jannusch replied that it was her designer who had pre- pared the shadow plan. 7) Alston asked how severe the planning error would have been if the plans had been built to spec. Fregonese replied that the shadow would have been shortened by roughly a foot and one half if the plan were approved per the ordinance. 8) Owens stated that it was a requirement of the ordinance as it pertains to variance requests that the situation not be self imposed by the applicant. Fregonese agreed stating that the imposition could not be willfully or purposely self- imposed. He then read the var- iance findings requirements to the Commission. Owens asked whether any negotiations had taken place with the applicant. Fregonese replied that three weeks had been spent in developing options at the staff level to attempt to alleviate the problem. It was at this point that the applicant was informed that it would be necessary for the roof to be dropped an additional two feet over the staff proposal or request a variance from the Planning Commission. 9) Benson asked about the trees which were indicated in the staff report posing a potential shading problem on the affected property. Jannusch showed on the plans where the trees were located. Fregonese responded by noting that the trees will probably shade the buildable area in the morning but only the deciduous tree would affect the shaded area in the afternoon. Alston then asked whether there is an open area at the bottom of the trees. Jannusch replied that there was approximately 8' of open space but that the canopy on the conifer trees essentially blocked the view. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. APC, 3/9/83 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING 1) Terry Lee, applicant, spoke on behalf of the proposal. She stated that when digging the basement, the contractor had hit hardpan and water at six feet below grade. She said that the design pre- cIuded the attachment of a slab, so the stem wall was constructed. She then stated that it was the slope involved on the property that required the additional 5' of construction. She continued that she had thought the lot was flatter at least until they had worked with it. 2) Duane Smith, 639 Prim St., raised a point of concern feeling that an important precedent could be established at this point. He noted that Ashland is not located in the plains of Iowa and that the inherent problem of building in Ashland is because of the extreme grades along the hillsides. He noted that the lots above the hos- pital in an area in which he is building suffer from similar circum- stances. He stated that owning a home is still the American dream and that the shadow plans required only confuse him. He stated further that hitting hardpan is typical when constructing on a hill of Ash- land at a shallow level. He felt that it was essential to keep the process simple and that leniency would be important in this case since he felt that there would be more problems arising such as this down the road. 3) Lee stated that she found solar calculations difficult to under- stand but that she ws willing to redesign the home though it would be an expensive undertaking. She appreciated the Rogers' need for their solar access. The Rogers' being the property owners affected by the shading. 4) Owens stated that it appeared that the staff and the applicant had worked as far as possible already with the existing design and that it was his understanding that the applicant was not willing to go below the 18' wall on the north elevation. He asked Lee whether she would be willing to do any further adjustments. Lee stated that it was her understanding that to drop the ceiling below 7 1/2' would not meet the building codes. This would be required to reduce the overall hsight below 18'. Jannusch indicated on the plans the reduc- tion of the height of the ceiling and the effect it would have on the stairway and the floorplan of the structure. It appeared that a reduction below the 18' level would essentially preclude the use of the second floor. 5) Slattery asked the applicant whether the collector panels she had intended to use would be on or above the ridge line. Lee replied that they would be flat on the roof and would not rise above the ridge line. 6) Ian Couchman, 199 Meade St., noted that an earlier structure had gone up in his neighborhood which he understood would be aesthetic- APC, 3/9/83 Page 5 ally in keeping with the surrounding area. He stated that the struc- ture had turned out to look like Noah's Ark and that he felt be- trayed. He said he was sorry about the mistake made, but that people should learn from them, stating that the mistakes should not mean that individuals should forego their protection. 7) Scott Rogers, 223 Meade St., spoke as the affected property owner. He stated that he did not see any Findings of Fact to support the variance request. The fir trees beside his house do not impose a shadow during the affected periods and that the deciduous trees on the applicant's property have no leaves on it in the wintertime. These standards had been established as a part of the Performance Standards. He continued by stating that he was on CPAC at the time the ordinance was adopted and believes it is a valid ordinance with good principles. He said that now he was put in the position of having to defend his personal use and access to the sunlight. He continued by stating that he works in the Medford Planning Department and is in the process of drafting an ordinance such as the one in Ashland. He then handed out the site plan he had developed and presented an overhead slide show indicating where the structure should have been placed. He stated that the ordinance does not place a hardship on the applicant, that the structure should have been located elsewhere on the parcel. The typical solar variance is processed as a Type I and he could not find supportive evidence to justify the request. He said that he has tentative plans to add on, but because of the narrow lot and slope that he had to contend with he may lose his proposed second story as well. Subsequent variance requests would be necessary northward on Meade St. 8) Slattery asked whether the applicant's designer or the builder were present. Lee stated, no, but that the designer's name was Doug Kendall and the builder was Fred Frazier. 9) Carlton Ward, 1374 Frank Hill Road, spoke on behalf of the appli- cation. He felt that the issue at hand was one of after the fact. He contended that the stem wall addition had been approved by the Building Department. He continued further that the applicant and the staff had put in a tremendous amount of redesigning time into this particular plan and that this work should be appreciated. He felt that the shading of 2 1/2' would be a good compromise, noting that the Rogers' had the option of putting an additional 2 1/2' stem wall on their proposed building. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery asked what the Planning staff's feeling was in terms of responsibility of approving the application. Fregonese explained that this whole situation was difficult, but that all parties were well intentioned. He stated that there was no felon here and no APC, 3/9/83 Page 6 attempt at deception or of malice. He felt that if no shadow.pIan had been submitted it may have been better for everyone concerned. 2) Owens stated that though the Planning Department bears a respon- sibility for the error that this does not make a stronger case for the variance request, that the application is still in violation without a variance. He continued by stating the question of whether the condition was self imposed or not could be very important in this case. The applicant had acted in good faith and it was his feeling that the ordinance requirements relative to the granting of the variance had been met. He felt that the Commission had hard evidence to grant the variance. 3) Alston stated that it was important to consider the affected property owner. She felt that it was important not to disregard the affected property owner because of the inconvenience to the builder. 4) Owens stated that he had hoped the parties could resolve the problem between the two of them. Hansen concurred, stating that if the affected parties could not come to some resolution the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent. Slattery asked for clarifi- cation relative to the building codes and what impact the dropping of the roofline would have in terms of these codes. Jannusch stated that he believed that if an area were less than 7' for a portion of the living space, that it could not be considered inhabitable area. 5) Alston asked whether this request involved the permission to construct a basement, main floor and second floor to the structure. Jannusch replied that it would. Alston then asked if it would be possible for the upper floor to be Iowered. Jannusch replied that this could be possible, but that it had already been constructed and in order to lower it, the joist system would have to be sawed off and hung on the walls in a lower position. Helms then asked if the series of events that took place in the permit issuance could consti- tute sufficient findings to grant the variance. Owens stated that it was his opinion that this evidence could be considered as satisfying the variance requirements in the ordinance. 6) Slattery asked the applicant whether she had talked to Rogers. Lee stated that she had, but that Rogers had stated that the problem now was between herself and the Planners. Alston had then asked Rogers why he wouldn't talk with her. Rogers stated that he had not seen any modifications proposed to the roofline at the time of the telephone conversation with Lee. He stated that he hasn't seen the proposed plans and feels that there is some discrepancy in the shadow plan proposed by the staff. 7) Alston asked whether Rogers would be willing to negotiate if he could see the plans. Rogers stated that he felt the Commission had enough evidence presently to make the decision. Alston stated that she felt that if Rogers had knowledge of the new proposal, that this APC, 3/9/83 Page 7 could provide alternatives to the decision making process this evening. 8) After further discussion, Helms moved to deny the variance with Alston seconding. The vote was unanimous with Greene abstaining. Fregonese asked the Commission to deny the motion without prejudice. Helms so moved and Slattery seconded. The vote again was unanimous with Greene abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -07 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE LONNIE FITZPATRICK PLANNING ACTION #83 -07 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Ordinance Variance for a mini- storage warehouse located south of Hersey St. on Williamson Way. Access would be off Hersey Street. The Variance is required for no provision of off street parking. Comprehensive Plan designation: Employment. Zon- ing: E -1 (Employment). Assessor's map 4DC. Tax lot 3509, 3512. APPLICANT: Lonnie Fitzpatrick STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch presented the Staff Report, noting an additional condition be necessary to attempt to break the expanse of the west wall. 2) Benson asked about the parking lanes. Jannusch clarified this for him. 3) Hansen stated that she felt it was important to require that the landscaping be maintained and properly irrigated. Jannusch noted on the plans where an irrigation system was intended. 4) Greene stated that he felt it was proper to require that a landscaping plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance and not at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. Fregonese concur- red. He then stated that he felt it would be appropriate to require a ninth condition relative to the breaking up of the wall. Jannusch then stated that he had contacted the applicant requesting an alter- nate design for the facility and the applicant was to address this. 5) Benson pointed out that murals along this wall would be illegal. At this point, the public hearing was opened. APC, 3 /9/83 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING 1) Lonnie Fitzpatrick, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the propo- sal. He stated that one option he had considered would be to flip the entire project, thereby having that expanse of wall on the east side, rather than on the west side. He continued by noting that the development was already set back 20' off of each street to reduce the impact on the adjacent properties. He stated that he had already deleted some units in order to meet these setback requirements and wished not to delete any more. He said he would be open to sugges- tions for the painting of that wall. 2) Benson stated that the Commission could possibly advise the applicant on the colors to use for the proposal. 3) Iraj Ostovar, 389 Hersey, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He asked how the E -1 zoning would apply to this site and stated his concerns about the residences directly across the street, one of which he owns. Did the E -1 zoning conform in this Location. He stated that when the area became industrial a few years back, that he had raised much opposition to the rezoning. He was assured at that time that development in the area would be aesthetically pleasing including extensive landscaping and amenities. To this day these promises have not been kept except for one development. He is con- cerned about the devaluation of his property and referred to the long wall along the west property Line as the "Great Wall of China He recalled that the original agreement was to provide a 35' setback along Hersey Street and felt that 190 units would generate a great deal of traffic. He was concerned with the parking variance, stating that if off street parking were not provided cars would park along the street and in front of his house. 4) Greene asked for a history of the zoning in the area. Fregonese replied that prior to the current zoning, the area to the south of Hersey had been zoned M -1, or Light Industrial, with M -2 or Heavy Industrial, designated 200' in back of the railroad tracks. The two developments which had subsequently gone in had received variances for landscaping and for paving from previous Planning Commissions, thus creating the unpleasant situation that exists today. 5) Helms asked for staff's rationale in recommending granting of the parking variance. Fregonese stated that typically, individuals using the mini storage facility come and go in a sporadic manner and that parking would be made available in front of each unit. 6) Helms stated that he could not see that much traffic would be generated for the use since people do not typically go to storage units on a daily basis. Fitzpatrick stated that this was his third project and that traffic averaged about 3 1/2 cars a day. He felt that the proposal would be ideal situated across from a residential district since traffic would be minimal to and from, and since no AFC, 3/9/83 Page 9 employees would be involved such as in an industrial use that may go in there. 7) Helms suggested that speed bumps would be appropriate within the development. 8) Richard Anderson, 363 Hersey, stated that the grade change from Hersey St. to the property would make the wall three feet taller than that which was depicted on the plan. Jannusch stated that the grade change, in fact, is five feet. Thus with a building of 11' in height from finished grade, the height from Hersey would be 16'. Anderson stated that this wall would be quite obtrusive from his home. He didn't feel that the placement of landscaping intermittently would break up the wall and make that much difference from where he is located. He stated that the landscaping is located on all the other sides and that this side should be treated similarly. 9) Mr. Don Ballew, 2315 Siskiyou Blvd., stated that he has over 400 units presently available for mini storage facilities and that he currently has an excess of 100 vacancies. He stated that there are alternative permitted uses in the E -1 zone and that is presently looking at having to adjust his plans to adapt to these alternative uses. He then stated that recently, two other mini storage facili- ties had been repossessed by the County. He then stated some con- cerns about the parking variance. 10) Esfandiar Ostovar, directly across Hersey St., stated his con- cerns about the applicant not doing what he says he would do. He felt it was improper to place these units in such close proximity to the middle of the downtown area. 11) Marilyn Gibbons, directly across Hersey St., stated her opposi- tion from an aesthetic viewpoint. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked what other uses would be suitable for the E -1. Fregonese replied that many would be allowed without a Site Review. 2) Benson asked if there were any plans to pave Hersey beyond the point which it is currently improved. Fregonese stated that there are no current plans for such improvements. 3) Helms then noted that if Ballew has 100 vacant units, that it is ludicrous to bring another 190 more units into the City. 4) Fregonese asked the applicant what his proposed fees would be for the storage facility. Fitzpatrick stated that they would be competi- tive with the market. APC, 3/9/83 Page 10 5) Greene asked whether there would be a resident manager at the site. Fitzpatrick stated that his intentions were to have a manager there with parking made available in front of the office. 6) Hansen asked for the CUP requirements in the E -1 zone. Fregonese read them. 7) Helms stated that he sympathized with the residents across the street and felt that it was necessary to safeguard their properties. He asked whether it would be appropriate to request an exact mock -up of the proposal. Fregonese stated that this was proper and that the Planning Commission could continue review to a later date. Slattery agreed with Helms. 8) Fregonese stated that if this were the intent of the Planning Commission, it was important that they give the applicant some secific directions for a re- submittal. 9) Owens stated that the use is appropriate for the district, but he, too, sympathizes with the residents' concerns with regard to designing improvements. He felt, however, that no matter what new designs were presented, that the residents would still not be happy with the proposal. 10) Alston then stated that the neighbors' understanding was that attractive office buildings would be developed in the area. She felt that it may not be appropriate to continue review of the proposal if it would still eventually be denied. 11) Benson stated he thought it was appropriate to work with the proposal presented. Perhaps the installation of a 2 1/2' landscaped strip on both the east and west sides, or perhaps to plant ivy on the west wall. He asked for a clarification for the hours of operation to which Fitzpatrick stated that the hours would be 8 to 5. Fitz- patrick then noted again his proposal to reverse the design. Hansen stated that she felt this would just be moving the impact and not really alleviating the problem. 12) Fitzpatrick stated that if he was forced to wait another month, it would prove an economic hardship on him. He stated he would be willing to break up the units along the west wall, but if he were forced to postpone the plan for another month, he would miss the college students whom he was counting on to provide the majority of his clientele. 13) Alston asked whether is would be proper to grant the request with a variance and at a later time rescind the variance. Fregonese stated this would not be proper. Hansen concurred and stated that it was important to either grant approval to the proposal or not at this point and request that the applicant come back with better plans. APC, 3/9/83 Page 11 14) After further discussion, Helms moved to continue to the April meeting subject proposal, requesting that the applicant submit a color scheme, revised landscaping plans and a wall modification. Owens seconded, the vote was 6 -1 in favor with Hansen voicing the only no vote. 15) At this point, Commissioner Benson left, due to illness. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -08 RENEWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHUCK BUTLER /DUANE SMITH PLANNING ACTION #83 -08 is a request for a renewal of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Review and Ordinance Variance to construct a two story, 6,000 sq.ft. office building at the southwest corner of Grant St. and North Main St. The Ordinance Variance is necessary to locate parking in a required setback area abutting a publivc street (N. Main St.) Prior approval was granted March, 1980, as PA #80 -14. Compre- hensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family residential). Assessor's map 5AC. Tax lot 1700 APPLICANT: Chuck Butler /Duane Smith STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report. After explaining the proposal, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Applicant Duane Smith, 639 Prim St., spoke on behalf of the pro- posal. He concurred that the application was basically the same as what had been proposed in 1980. He then objected to the requirements relative to the parking strips along North Main St. In addition, he stated he wasn't sure whether sewer and water could go into Grant Street, due to the fall of the land. 2) Fregonese suggested that condition #3 could be amended to state that utilities should be installed to Grant Street rather than cut- ting North Main St. if possible. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Hansen stated she felt the project was needed and encouraged Smith to get going with it. 2) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve the proposal with Alston seconding it. The vote was unanimous in favor. APC, 3/9/83 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -09 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW CAROLYN H. MORRIS PLANNING ACTION #83 -09 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a 2 -unit, owner occuppied Bed Breakfast in the existing dwelling at 737 Siskiyou Blvd. Access to the parking will be via the alley abutting on the east. Comprehensive Plan designa- tion: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family Residen- tial). Assessor's map 9DA. Tax lot 4200. APPLICANT: Carolyn H. Morris STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report, stating that the parking area would be improved to an oil matte surface instead of a chip seal which was indicated on the plan and that the Historic Commission had been supportive of the proposal. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Carolyn Morris, applicant, stated that there was an additional triangular piece adjacent to Siskiyou Blvd. which she initially thought was included in her property. Her intents were to acquire this piece and landscape it. Since the house is located in the Miner's Addition of the City of Ashland, her intent was to name the facility the Miner's Addition Bed Breakfast. She had traced the land back to a donation land claim prior to the turn of the century and noted that there was a cornerstone dated 1900 on the house. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked whether a more complete landscaping plan would be required than was present at this point. Fregonese stated that usually, if the landscaping is existing, a more concise plan is not required. Greene then stated that he thought it may be appropriate to require that signs be erected to direct patrons back to the Boule- vard from the parking area. Fregonese stated that he didn't think this was necessary. 2) A clarification of the change of parking area on the site was then explained. 3) After further discussion, Helms moved to approve the proposal with Owens seconding it. The vote was unanimous in favor. APC, 3/9/83 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -10 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW DON BALLEW PLANNING ACTION #83 -10 is a request for a Boundary Line Adjustment, Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for the addition of a vehicle parking lot at the existing mini storage facility located at 2315 Siskiyou Blvd. Comprehensive Plan designation: Employment and Sin- gle- family Residential. Zoning: E -1 R -1:5P. Assessor's map 14C. Tax lot 1600 APPLICANT: Don Ballew STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report. After some discussion, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Don Ballew, applicant, stated that the past objections were relative to the RV parking proposed for the parking lot. He stated the difference here was that this area would provide vehicular park- ing for the Forest Service employees or for the use of the mini storage facility. He then stated that there was presently a 4 1/2' wooden fence on the north side of the property which he wished to use in lieu of the 6' chain link fence. He then stated that he would like to utilize just half of the lot for parking if he didn't get the contract with the Forest Service and that the parking area be im- proved only to an oil matte surface. 2) Fregonese interjected that oil matte surfaces have only been applied where there was low level residential use, never had a park- ing area been improved for any storage facilities or commercial parking areas. In addition, he stated that a sight obscuring fence is important to the adjacent residential uses due to but not limited to vehicle lights and security lights for the parking facility. He stated that a 4 1/2' fence might do, but that this would require study by the Planning Department. 3) Slattery asked the applicant whether the facility would be made available for Forest Service vehicles or just passenger cars. Ballew stated that it would be strictly for the employees' use and that there would be a separate location for heavy trucks and equipment. 4) Cindy Dion, 1000 Henry St., spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated that she owns property directly to the east of the propo- sal and noted that she was opposed to the parking area since it is completely surrounded by R -1 zoning on three sides. She felt that the findings submitted by the applicant don't sufficiently show the APC, 3/9/83 Page 14 need for the parking area here. She questioned how much parking would be necessary for mini storage facilities. She noted further that any other uses he refers to must go to the Planning Commission. She stated further concern relative to the drainage proposed since the properties directly to the north are below this proposal. She questioned that if the applicant had 100 vacancies existing, that the actual intent he proposes at this time would be for storage of ve- hicles. She then stated that she felt it would be more appropriate to review this proposal at the time the Forest Service structure were actually constructed. 5) Alan Kaufman, 866 Blaine St., stated he recognizes that the area is basically residential with a rural feeling. He felt that a park- ing lot between residential uses would be detrimental with or without the fence. He then requested a clarification from Ballew on the Forest Service project. Ballew then responded by stating that he is bidding on the project for warehousing and office facilities for the Forest Service and should he get the contract, he would construct a building on the adjoining commercial lot, he felt this was a reason- able request. At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked the applicant where drainage was intended to be routed. Ballew stated that he was intending on utilizing the existing TID drainage ditch adjacent to the proposed property. 2) Greene asked how the solar access code would relate to a building proposal here. Fregonese stated that it must meet the requirements of a 6' high structure at the property line where it abuts a residen- tial zone. 3) After further discussion, Ownes moved to approve with Slattery seconding it. The vote was 5 -1 with Alston voicing the only no vote. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE DORATHY ANDERSON PLANNING ACTION #83 -11 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Ordinance Variance for a small neighborhood take -out deli in a por- tion of the existing dwelling at 661 "B" St. The Variance is for no off street parking. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low Density, multi family residential). Assessor's map 9AB. Tax lot 3700 APPLICANT: Dorathy Anderson APC, 3/9/83 Page 15 STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch presented the Staff Report stating that the Historic Commission had posed some philosophical questions relative to the commercial use in this residential area. He noted, however, that CPAC had voluntarily voiced unanimous approval of the proposal. He then read letters into the record from the Olsons and the Andersons. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Dorathy Anderson, applicant, spoke on behalf of the proposal. She thanked the Commission and the Staff for their review and stated her apologies for not attending the Historic Commission meeting. She stated that she had gone into this proposal with the understanding that the Railroad District does allow under Conditional Use such an operation under 600 sq.ft. of total area. She then stated that she wished to reserve the right to rebut the comments presented. 2) Marshall Cole, 660 "B" St., stated that he lives directly across the street from the proposal. He stated that he bought the home a number of years ago and checked the zoning, noting that it was multi- family residential. He stated that he does own property in the Railroad commercial area. He felt it was more appropriate to retain the commercial areas as commercial and to leave his residential area as residential. He voiced criticism about the parking, stating that "B" Street narrows in this area and increased parking would generate a negative impact on the surrounding area. He noted a multi- family dwelling unit presently existing in the neighborhood which already congests parking and traffice. He then referred to a business he did own earlier on Siskiyou without a Business License only needing a Kitchen License from the Health Department. Fregonese corrected him by stating that in this area, on- premise sales are not permitted without a Conditional Use Permit. He stated, however, that delivery service would be ok. Cole then continued by stating that he under- stood that C -3 stops at 4th and "B He felt that allowing this kind of use down "E" Street in this area would ensure the spread of these kinds of operations all the way down through 8th Street. 3) Anand Mani, 5th and "B" Streets, stated that she approves of this idea of this kind of business in the area, but felt that the parking problem was severe and recognized that alley parking would not work either. 4) Anderson showed a portion of the zoning map with the designations and cited other businesses in existence on "B" Street within the R -2 zoning area. She stated that she had written a letter to 25 neigh- bors and had received no unfavorable comments. She then read the letter that she had written to the neighbors. She concluded by stating that she expected no more than 8 to 10 people per day. APC, 3/9/83 Page 16 At this point, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Helms asked about the Variance for parking relative to the apart- ment house Cole had mentioned in his testimony. He wondered whether Variances could be given for up to ten spaces in a row. Fregonese stated that he was not aware of any Variance that had been granted for the parking at the apartment house. He felt that it was probably a pre existing use or that the apartment house had been bootlegged in without the knowledge of the Planning Department. He then stated that Variances could be granted, but were not likely. 2) Slattery asked for clarification about the service porch at the back of the structure. Anderson stated that this is strictly a utility porch which is for the washer and dryer and would have no public access. 3) Greene stated that he was in favor philosophically with the proposal, but he could not support the parking variance. He noted that it is currently difficult to pass on "B" Street. He then ex- plained his understanding of how "B" Street had developed relative to the narrowing of the road. 4) Fregonese stated that only one space would be required for the proposed use. 5) Anderson stated that she was opposed to alley parking for the neighbors directly adjacent. She continued by noting that there is approximately 100' of frontage along "B" Street and since they do not park there, she felt it would be a shame to remove the beautiful trees in front of her parcel to provide parking. b) Hansen also expressed her concern with the parking problem and the traffic along "B" Street. Fregonese stated that it would be possible to provide one space on the front of the lot, off street. 7) Slattery maintained that if only one space were provided, that backing out of the space would create an additional traffic hazard. 8) Greene then stated that he was not sure that this is an appropriate use in the area, strictly due to the street problems. 9) After further discussion, Helms moved to deny the project with Owens seconding it. The vote was 4 -2 in favor with Hansen and Alston voicing the no votes. TYPE I APPROVALS PLANNING ACTION #83 -14 is a request for a Variance for placement of a APC, 3/9/83 Page 17 business sign on a frontage other than the legal business frontage of the gallery Located at 25 Third St. Applicants: Candy Cardin /George McMahan. 1) Planning Action #83 -14, the Variance for the McMahan sign was approved. STAFF BUSINESS 1) A date was set for a joint study session with CPAC on March 23, 1983. This to discuss air quality and the quarry issue. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. APC, 3/9/83 Page 18 John Fregonese, Executive Secretary A Z PH ,'b e/"YES NO -.7ze-ty Alston I� v v &b YES NO i Hansen Benson Helms Greene Owens PH TOT Al ston Hansen r Benson Helms Owens Greene TOT PH 1 4 0 ig i r Helms Hansen Benson Al ston Greene Owens TOT f YES NO PH Owens Greene Helms Owens Greene Helms Benson Hansen Alston T PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING RECORD -u� ^D �i YES NO PH YE Owens 1.' 6reefte _Helms 1./e' Benson tar Hansen Al ston_ 4iiiietzu L/'` TOT l PH '7-4 YES NO 135443 Hansen V" Alston TOT (.G/ b PH YES NO PH Helms Greene Owens Sect ea," V Alston Hansen Benson TOT Helms Greene V Owens Alston Hansen tam& TOT Alston Greene Owens 3 4 ,4 Helms Hansen Benson TOT PH NO YES NO 3 9 /4 PH 7 YES N" O Benson Hansen Al stones, tom Owens v Greene Helms I/ TOT P �/I YES NO Walr Hansen Owens Greene P- Helms TOT PH YES NO Alston Benson Hansen Alston Owens Greene Helms TOT