Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-25 Planning MINNOTE: 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 normally is not allowed after the public hearing has been closed. I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland Oregon II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of April 13, and April 21, 1983 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 11, 1983 A. 1 -year renewals of the following traveler accommodations: 120 Gresham, 467 Scenic, 725 Terra, 70 Coolidge, 150 N.`4Main St., 111 "B" St., 295 Idaho, 59 Manzanita, 453 Allison. B. PLANNING ACTION #83 -34 is a request for permanent approval of the existing travelers accommodations at 321, 325, 335 and 343 Garfield St. Comprehen- sive Plan designation: Multi- family residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi-family, Low density). Assessor's map IOCC 10CB. Tax lots: 9400, 4900, 5000, 5100. APPLICANTS: Denis /Judy Toney (Palm Motel) C. PLANNING ACTION #83 -35 is a request for permanent approval of the existing travelers accommodations at 142 Main St. (Ashland's Main St. Inn). Compre- hensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family, Low density). Assessor's map 9BB. Tax lot: 1300. APPLICANT: Roanne E. Lyall /Dorothy Walker D. PLANNING ACTION #83 -36 is a request for permanent approval of the existing travelers accommodations (Lamb's Guest Villa) at 634 Iowa St.. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, Low density). Assessor's map 9DB. Tax lot: 9500. APPLICANT: Zelma Lamb E. PLANNING ACTION #83 -37 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for use of the existing structure at 2400 Siskiyou Blvd. as an office. The Conditional Use Permit is required becuase the prior office use has been discontinued for more than 6 months. Comprehensive Plan designation: High Density, Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -3 (High Density, Multi Family Residential). Assessor's Map 14C. Tax lot #s: 5200, 5101. Bob Ferreira F. PLANNING ACTION #83 -38 is a request for an Ordinance Variance for a sideyard setback of 1' in lieu of 10' as required by Ordinance for a proposed addition to the west side of the existing dwelling at 534 Auburn St. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi family, Low density). Assessor's map 9CA. Tax lot 3000. APPLICANTS: Rex /Susan Hendricks G. PLANNING ACTION #83 -39 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review and Ordinance Variance for the use of the existing stitchery and cleaning pick -up business at 151 Pioneer St. as an on -site dry cleaning establishment. The Variance is necessary for provision of three off street parking spaces in lieu of five as required by Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial. Zoning: C -1. Assessor's map 9BB. Tax lot 12700. APPLICANT: Archie Krebs H. PLANNING ACTION #83 -42 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the upstairs portion of the existing residence at 514 Siskiyou Blvd. into a 2 -unit Travelers Accommodations. Owner's quarters would be downstairs. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low density, Multi- family Residential). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lot: 7600. APPLICANTS: Roy /Alice Levy IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: A. PA #83 -36, Minor Land Partition at 1068 E. Main St. V. STAFF BUSINESS: Study Session, May 25, 1983 PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOW MOVED to our new offices 20 E. Main St. next to the City Utility office (old Police station). VI. A J I` rant: Planning Commission gentorandttnt May 23, 1983 John Fregonese, Planning Director *bo rt: Meeting Schedule The May 11, regular Planning Commission meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, May 25, 1983, at 7:30 PM, in the Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street and the joint Study Session with CPAC which was previously scheduled for that time has been cancelled. New packets will NOT be distributed. Changes to the Agenda are as follows: Public hearing "E" has been withdrawn. Add the following Type I Planning Actions (copies enclosed). B. PA #83 -43, 1 -yr extension of prior approval (82 -26) of an 8 -unit PUD on the north side of Nutley, west of Scenic, and two Ordinance Variances. Applicant: John Barton. C. PA #83 -44, Site Review for a proposed 2 -story addition to to the rear of the existing fire station at 455 Siskiyou Blvd. Applicant: City of Ashland D. PA #83 -45, request for an Ordinance Variance at 78 Pine Street for a front yard setback of 12' in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance. Applicant: Robert Janssen E. PA #83 -36, Site Review to demolish the existing structure at 415 Lithia Way and to construct a 2 -story office building. Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Union. Cancellation of the two previously scheduled meetingsresulted in the failure of a closing of the real estate transaction in process for the property at 2400 Siskiyou Blvd. It is imperative that we have a quorum on the 25th to process the remaining Plan- ning Actions. Please be sure to call Ann Baker at the Planning Dept. (482 -3211 x253) if you CANNOT attend. CALL TO ORDER MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Lance Pugh at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. Members present were Mary Ann Alston, Tom Owens, Ethel Hansen, Barry Warr, Neil Benson, Michael Slattery, Don Greene and Betty Lou Dunlop. Also present were Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the April 13, 1983 and April 21, 1983, meetings were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING RENEWALS OF TRAVELERS ACCOMMODATIONS Review for renewals of Traveler's Accommodations located at 120 Gresham, 467 Scenic, 725 Terra, 70 Coolidge, 150 North Main St., 111 "B" St., 295 Idaho, 50 Manzanita and 453 Allison. As the Staff had no negative recommendations to make relative to the approval of one year extensions for the traveler's accommodations, Owens moved to approve these extensions with the original conditions attached at the time of their approval with Benson seconding the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 34 PERMANENT APPROVAL OF TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATIONS DENNIS /JUDY TONEY PLANNING ACTION #83 -34 is a request for permanent approval of the existing traveler's accommodations at 321, 325, 335 and 343 Garfield St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zon- ing: R -2 (Multi- family, Low Density Residential). Assessor's map 10CC 10CB. Tax lot #'s: 9400, 4900, 5000, 5100. APPLICANTS: Dennis /Judy Toney Staff had received no negative comments from neighbors, nor any negative impact on existing public facilities. At this point, the public hearing was opened. APC, 5/25/83 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING 1) Receiving no input from the audience, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Alston moved to approve Planning Action #83 -34 with Greene seconding the proposal. The vote again was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -35 PERMANENT APPROVAL OF TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATIONS ROANNE LYALL /DOROTHY WALKER PLANNING ACTION #83 -35 is a request for permanent approval of the existing traveler's accommodations at 142 Main St. (Ashland's Main St. Inn). Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family, low density residential). Assessor's map 9BB. Tax lot 1300. APPLICANTS: Roanne Lyall /Dorothy Walker No additional conditions beyond those which were originally applied. PUBLIC HEARING 1) As there were no comments from the audience, the public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery moved with Ownes seconding, to approve the Planning Action. The vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -36 PERMANENT APPROVAL OF TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATIONS ZELMA LAMB PLANNING ACTION #83 -36 is a request for permanent approval of the existing traveler's accommodations (Lamb's Guest Villa) at 634 Iowa St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family, low- density Residential). Assessor's map 9DB. Tax lot 9500 APPLICANT: Zelma Lamb STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report noting Staff had no problems with the granting of the permanent approval for this traveler's accommoda- APC, 5/25/83 Page 2 tion. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Mrs. Zelma Lamb, applicant, spoke on behalf of her facility stating that she had not received any complaints from the neighbors in the four seasons that she had been operating. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) With no further Commission discussion, Alston moved, with Benson seconding, to approve Planning Action #83 -36. The vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -37 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPLICANT: Bob Ferreira PLANNING ACTION #83 -37 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for use of the existing structure at 2400 Siskiyou Blvd. as an office. The Conditional Use Permit is required because the prior office use has been discontinued for more than 6 months. Com- rehensive Plan designation: High- density, Multi- family Residential). Zoning: R -3 (High density, Multi- family Residential). Assessor's map 14C. Tax lot 5200, 5101. APPLICANT: Bob Ferreira 1) Fregonese read a letter into the record from the applicant stat- ing that due to the delays imposed by lack of a quorum at two dif- ferent meetings of the Planning Commission, the applicant was forced to withdraw this application as the real estate transaction was terminated. 2) Pugh suggested that it would be appropriate for planning staff to refund the application fees to the applicant based on the afore- mentioned testimony. Slattery so moved with Alston seconding. 3) Fregonese stated that this would require approval by the City Finance Director. 4) The vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -38 ORDINANCE VARIANCE REX /SUSAN HENDRICKS PLANNING ACTION #83 -38 is a request for an Ordinance Variance for a sideyard setback of 1' in lieu of 10' as required by Ordinance for a APC,,5/25/83 Page 3 proposed addition to the west side of the existing dwelling at 534 Auburn St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residen- tial. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family, low density residential). Asses- sor's map 9CA. Tax lot 3000 APPLICANT: Rex /Susan Hendricks STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report stating that as the hardship is difficult to prove in this situation, that vacation of Union Street would be preferable in terms of alleviating the problem faced by the applicants. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) As there was no one to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposal, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Pugh stated that he felt awkward taking action on the proposal as there was no one to testify either pro or con. 2) Greene subsequently moved to continue review of the proposal until such time that the applicant could attend the public hearing. Slattery seconded it. The vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -39 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE ARCHIE KREBS STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting the concerns relative to storage of flammables, impact on water and air quality relative to disposal of chemical wastes and for justification cited for the Variance request. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Archie Krebs, applicant, spoke on behalf of his proposal. He stated that he has three existing plants in operation. He noted that the solvent used for cleaning is non flammable and that at any given time, there are approximately only three gallons of flammable liquid on the premises. Relative to the odors emitted from the cleaners, Krebs stated that there would be a system installed utilizing a carbon bed reclaimer to absorb all solvents and then these solvents would all be rendered back into the system. He said that the faci- lity would be inspected by the EPA and that it would conform to all APC, 5/25/83 Page 4 OSHA requirements. Relative to the parking Variance, Krebs noted that there are seldom over three customers at one time at any of the cleaning establishments that he now owns. He then asked staff what type of fence would be required for the parking barrier. 2) Jannusch stated that this would be a wood fence of from 4' to 6' in height for the screening of the residents to the north. 3) Hansen asked whether the construction of the new facility would comply with the fire codes. 4) Krebs agreed to this. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked what concerns staff had relative to the street trees. Jannusch noted that crabapples are undesirable due to the resultant fruit dropping on the sidewalks. 2) Fregonese stated that it had been "City policy" to allow only non -fruit bearing trees in these areas. 3) Slattery expressed concern about the fence blocking the vision of individuals backing out of the parking lot. Fregonese stated that such a fence would be subject to vision clearance requirements of the Parking Ordinance. He further noted that this fence would have to be located on the north side instead of the south side as indicated in the Staff Report. The fence, a minimum of 4' in height, could not be constructed any closer than 15' to the sidewalk. 4) Warr asked why the staff was requiring 5 gallon plantings instead of the 1 gallon plantings indicated on the plan. Fregonese noted that this was a typical staff and Commission requirement since 1 gallon plantings are quite small and take a lot longer to reach maturity. 5) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve with amended conditions and Benson seconding. The vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -42 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW ROY /ALICE LEVY PLANNING ACTION #83 -42 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the upstairs portion of the existing residence at 514 Siskiyou Blvd. into a 2 -unit Traveler's Accommodations. Own- er's quarters would be downstairs. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low Density, Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Low- density, multi family residential). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lot 7600 APC, 5/25/83 Page 5 STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting that the applicant had requested a ground sign in lieu of a wall sign and that Staff had no problem with this request. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) As there was no public testimony, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked whether this would be owner- occupied. Fregonese replied, yes. In addition, he noted that parking problems had been cleared up with a new grading plan submitted by the applicant to the established conditions of the Public Works Department. 2) Slattery asked whether the sign would be reviewed by the Historic Commission. Fregonese stated that it would be. 3) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the planning action with amended conditions with Warr seconding. The vote was unanimous in favor. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION #83 -33 is a request for a Minor Land Partition at 1068 East Main Street. Applicant: Paula Verzeano. This planning action was approved. PLANNING ACTION #83 -43 is a request for an extension of a PUD approval on Nutley and Scenic. Applicant: John Barton. The plan- ning action was approved as submitted. PLANNING ACTION #83 -44 is a request for an addition to the Ashland Fire Station #1. Applicant: City of Ashland 1) The Commission expressed concern relative to several items. Pugh felt that the parking of firefighting equipment close to the inter- section creates a traffic hazard for individuals driving down Sis- kiyou Blvd. and onto Lithia Way. He felt that approval should be subject to the requirement that no firefighting equipment be parked adjacent to either street. Secondly, concerns were voiced relative to the bricking up of the windows along East Main Street. Warr felt that different treatment should be given to these windows, such as an inside shutter rather than that treatment indicated on the plans because this would essentially permanently block the window areas. 2) After further discussion by the Commission, Warr moved to approve Planning Action #83 -44 with a condition that the windows along East APC, 5/25/83 Page 6 Main St. be left open and some alternate treatment be given to the closure of these windows. Slattery seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. PLANNING ACTION #83 -45 is a request for an Ordinance Variance at 78 Pine Street for a front yard setback of 12' in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance. Applicant: Robert Janssen 1) Jannusch showed the elevation of the proposal to the Planning Commission. It was then approved as submitted. PLANNING ACTION #83 -36 is a request for a Site Review to demolish the existing structure at 415 Lithia Way and to construct a 2 -story office building. Applicant: Rogue Federal Credit Union 1) Fregonese informed the Planning Commission of the chain of events relative to this proposal. He stated that the applicant's architect had a pre application conference at which time a representative from the Historic Commission had attended to comment on the proposal. At this time, the Historic Commissioner saw no problem with the design of the structure. The period allowed by Ordinance for an individual to call the request up for a public hearing had subsequently termi- nated as well. It was only on the Tuesday before the meeting that letters were received from the Historic Commission and Barbara Allen, owner of a realestate office directly adjacent to the proposed build- ing. 2) Fregonese then read a letter from Allen and a memo from the Historic Commission. 3) Fregonese then showed the site plan noting that the existing building currently blocks Barbara Allen's building anyway. He stated further that in working with the applicant, an alternate design had been developed which meets the solar access requirements. This particular design was, in fact, a passive solar design which should improve the building's efficiency. He continued by noting that wood commercial buildings have not been used in the downtown area since the fire that destroyed many of them years ago. He then noted that Lithia Way is a relatively new street built around the 1960's and the architecture there provides no consistent pattern of design and further that the Historic Commission has approved similar designs in the past. 4) Alston stated that there is a general feeling of space now with the existing structure and that the new structure will appear mono- lithic by comparison. Fregonese reiterated that it does meet the Building, Zoning and Solar Access codes. 5) Warr mentioned that the Explorer Travel building is a modern building and is located only a block or so up the street. He then asked whether the proposal meets the parking requirements. Fregonese stated that it exceeds the parking requirements in providing eleven APC, 5/25/83 Page 7 spaces. 6) Hansen felt it was a marked improvement over the existing situa- tion. 7) Pugh stated he was impressed with the glazing area, the depth of the structure from the Lithia Way frontage and the breaking up of the flat surface along the front of the building. He said, however, that he did understand why Barbara Allen was concerned about the design of the structure. 8) Greene noted that an Historic Commission member was present in the audience and that he wished to hear what this member had to say. Pugh cautioned Greene by stating that this was not a public hearing but that if he had a specific question to ask of the Historic Commission, such procedure would be appropriate. Greene then asked the Historic Commissioner, Larry Medinger, to explain what happened and how the Historic Commission did not voice their opinion earlier. Medinger stated that a call went out from the Planning Department to have the Historic Commissioners present at the pre application conference. One commissioner showed up who happened to be relatively new on the Commission with no experience. He okayed the design. Medinger stated that since the whole Historic Commission has had a chance to look at the design, that they did not feel comfortable with it and universally stand behind the letter submitted. He concluded by stating that the aesthetics of the gas station was no reason for lowering the level of design criteria for the new structure. 9) Pugh stated that he saw no problem with the situation, that he would request that the Credit Union work with the Historic Commission in coming up with a somewhat better design if possible. 10) Slattery stated that he had a problem with the building as a whole because of the expanse of glass along Lithia Way. He compared this structure to the Credit Union's building on Stewart Avenue in Medford, noting that this was a single- story, redwood sided building with alot of landscaping and he felt that it would be appropriate to switch the buildings. Since this was impossible, he stated he would like to see additional trees along the perimeter of the structure, particularly along the 22' high wall to break up the lines of the building. 11) Fregonese thought this would be a good idea. He stated, however, that he thought that the Planning Commission could be working them- selves into a sticky situation by digresssing from their allowable design review function such as the location of landscaping and of the ingress or egress to the site. He further noted that the Historic Commission is only empowered to provide recommendations and to use persuasion in their critiques in building designs. He further stated that he felt that the downtown area provides some neat and creative expressions of architecture and that all of the buildings constructed were contemporary when they were built. Noting that this considera- APC, 5/25/83 Page 8 tion is a matter of judgement, he felt it was not in the Commission's jurisdiction to make high level design decisions and have one estab- lished criteria to build by. This would make all the buildings in the Historic District look exactly the same. 12) Greene stated that in the past, the Commission has used design review only for outrageously bad designs. 13) Warr stated that he felt denial of the application based on its design would be going too far. He stated he did not feel it was appropriate to call this proposal up for a public hearing. The application was then approved. STAFF BUSINESS 1) The Study Session between CPAC and the Planning Commission was then discussed. The specific items were to include the Conditional Use Permit requirement for expansions of quarries as well as deve- loping criteria for installation of satellite dishes within the City of Ashland. Fregonese continued by noting that relative to the dishes, Staff's hope would be to regulate existing dishes as well as proposed. Draft ordinances will be distributed in June. 2) Fregonese then reviewed the Council's review and approval of the Southwest rezone, noting that Areas #2 and #3 were approved at the Council meeting on May 17, 1983, but that Area #1 was sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. A new field trip would be planned involving CPAC and the Planning Commission. The primary concerns of the Council were related to a negative impact on the area of 10,000 sq.ft. densities and the additional traffic impact gener- ated on Terrace Street from this density. He further noted that there is a section of Terrace Street where the right -of -way is only 25'. 3) Hansen asked when such a study session would take place. Frego- nese said the session would be in June with public hearings held in July or August. He further noted that Prickett and Lewis are intend- ing on applying under the current zoning rather than requesting addi- tional units under the single family designation. 4) Greene noted that he felt a bit frustrated as in all of the opportunities individuals had to testify regarding the Terrace Street access, no such testimony came forth in the original study sessions and public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED PA #83 38 ORDINANCE VARIANCE REX /SUSAN HENDRICKS 1) As Larry Medinger showed up to discuss the Hendricks proposal, the public hearing was again opened. APC, 5/25/83 Page 9 2) Greene asked Medinger whether the applicants had contemplated vacating the street. Medinger stated that he had discussed this with Al Alsing who had informed him that the City was in favor of vacating Union but wanted to add the requirement that the affected owners agreed to sign in favor of future paving of Auburn as a part of the application. He further stated that at one point, 40% of the neigh- bors had agreed to pave Auburn. However, this was short of the 51% required so the proposal fell through. Fregonese noted that the City could not hold up approval of the vacation proceedings whether the applicants agreed to pave Auburn or not. He noted that the vacation of Union would help the existing drainage problem. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene suggested that the best approach would be to vacate Union and not allow the variance. 2) Fregonese suggested that it would be more appropriate to grant the variance contingent upon the applicants applying for vacation of Union Street. Greene so moved with Benson seconding. The vote was unanimous in favor. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 5/25/83 Page 10 .PH Owens Alston_ Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Slattery Greene Dunlop TOT PH P'3 Slattery Alston Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Dunl op Owens Greene TOT Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Alston Tim YES 4 YES NO Dunlop Slattery L✓ 1✓ l✓ Greene Owens TOT PH ES NO PH PLANNING_ COMMISSION VOTING RECORD NO PH 3 ,UYES NO PH, A -35 Greene Owens Slattery Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Al ston_ Dunlop TOT Owens Greene Slattery Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Alston Dunlop TOT Pugh Dunlop Greene Owens Slattery Alston Hansen Warr Benson 9- Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh Benson Lo Warr Hansen Slattery Alston TOT YES NO PH Pugh clattery Greene Owens Dunlop Alston Hansen Benson Warr Pugh Alston Greene Owens Dunlop Slattery Hansen Warr Benson TOT TOT YES NO i/ YES NO PI Y ES NO PH PH �3 38 if3 3 7 f3-4 TOT YES NO C PH 83- 3G� NO Benson Warr Hansen Alston Dunlop Owens Greene Slattery Pugh TOT Benson Warr Hansen Al ston Slattery Owens Greene Pugh Dunlop TOT PH Benson Warr Hansen Alston Slattery Owens Greene Dunlop Pugh TOT Z Y ES NO YES NO