*KenCairn left the meeting after the first Type II hearing.

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-071
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND ADDITION OF A SEVENTH UNIT TO THE EXISTING HOTEL (TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 438 NORTH MAIN STREET.
APPLICANT: DERMOT O'BRIEN

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-072
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INVOLVING THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 134 SECOND STREET.
APPLICANT: MARY NELKE

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-062
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FOR A TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION (ASHLAND MAIN STREET INN) CONSISTING OF THREE GUEST UNITS PLUS THE OWNER'S UNIT LOCATED AT 142 NORTH MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: DENNIS & ALMA GAY

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-078
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 499 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 572 HOLLY STREET.
APPLICANT: MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-081
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A FOUR LOT, 13-UNIT PROJECT AT 954 B STREET. THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THREE, FOUR-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS.
APPLICANT: ARCHERD/DRESNER, LLC

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-074
REQUEST PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW "DEVELOPMENT" (I.E. INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY) ON THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AT 327 GRANITE STREET. ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS ARE REQUESTED TO PERMIT THE DRIVEWAY ON LANDS GREATER THAN A 35 PERCENT SLOPE FOR A LENGTH GREATER THAN 100 FEET, TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY GRADE IN EXCESS OF 15 PERCENT, AND TO PERMIT A VERTICAL CUT SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
APPLICANT: CARLOS REICHENSHAMMER

This action was approved.

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by Dotterrer and KenCairn.

STAFF REPORT
Harris said the proposal is to use 475 square feet of existing space for an accessory residential unit. One parking space is being added next to the driveway. The application meets all the requirements of the R-1 zone. Harris said there is 46 feet of uninterrupted curb, close to the number of feet required for one on-street parking space.

PUBLIC HEARING
SUSAN REID, 171Granite Street, is representing the applicant. Reid was a Council member that helped develop the ordinance allowing accessory residential units with a Conditional Use Permit. Fifteen years later, she thinks it still holds true that the only way to develop small apartments in Ashland is through this ordinance. Banks are not encouraging people to build studio and one-bedroom apartments. This was an early attempt to provide affordable housing for single people. A small duplex is better than renting a single house to several individuals.

JEAN CRAWFORD, 923 Harmony Lane, believes this area is unsuitable for accessory units. Most homes have one car garages. Most of the garages have been converted into living spaces. Often a unit comes with two to four vehicles. She is concerned about traffic and parking impacts as well as limited privacy and no open space.

GWEN DAVIES, 860 Harmony Lane, read a statement in opposition. She referred to the R-1 definition and described their neighborhood. There are no sidewalks, as well as additional parking pressures and traffic congestion. There are children at play, erosion of the family atmosphere with the increase in the number of accessory residential units.

Ken Cairn explained that part of the purpose of the CUP for an accessory residential unit has been to allow aging parents to live on the same property under the care of their adult children. By denying the CUP, we might never allow parents to live on the same property as their children.

Davies said she would support a family arrangement.

Knox said what dictates the use of the accessory unit is the size. The proposal is for 475 square feet. This is a one person space.

JOAN BALLINGER, 911 Harmony Lane, concurred with Davies' remarks. She is opposed to the application. She has college students living next door to her. The problems she has had relate to noise and the tenant's disorderly conduct. The neighborhood has changed and it is not a positive change. There is no more room on Harmony Lane for cars. She is concerned about landlord accountability.

CHRIS ROBINSON, 891 Garden Way, read comments from the letter he submitted urging denial of the application.

KAREN FIEGUTH, 850 Garden Way, submitted photos and read a letter in opposition.

JOANNE COSTANTINO, 892 Harmony Lane, asked why the construction on the proposed property was almost finished before they received notice. It's different if you own the house and live there versus the owner living off-site. She read a letter from PATTY KNAPP, 902 Harmony Lane.

JANIE BROWN, 932 Garden Way, said there is not enough room for parking on the street. She is concerned about more traffic, speeding cars and more residents in the neighborhood.

LYNN COSTANTINO, 904 Harmony Lane, feels the Planning Commission has a right to put certain conditions on this action. He is not opposed to accessory units. This is going to be a duplex that is non-owner occupied. He would like to see a limit to the number of people able to live in a house. It is unrealistic to believe only one person will live in 475 square feet. The unit deserves a front door entrance. They should have a rule they can't have entrance less than six feet from the property line. A landlord should have to pay a license fee for the CUP of $250 to $300 a year and have an annual inspection. The money generated can be put into affordable housing. There should be a limit on the number of accessory residential units in a neighborhood.

Harris added a potential new Condition. Staff believes the second parking space is accessible as shown, but it would be better to reconfigure it so the driveway apron is centered so both parking spaces are accessible. That also achieves the required 48 feet of frontage for an off-street parking credit. Reid said she is agreeable.

Rebuttal
Reid said there was no removal or closing of a garage door. There have been no changes to the façade of this house. All permits were applied for through the City in an appropriate manner. The goal is to have a legal unit. The unit is close to transportation, a park, and entertainment.

COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Briggs asked if the electrical box went in before the applicants obtained a permit. It is Harris' understanding they obtained the necessary permits. She thinks there was internal work done on the property for things that may not have required building permits. Knox added that there are situations where someone intends to do just a studio.

Briggs felt the criteria have been met, however, she felt the applicants need to be in full compliance with the parking requirements. Harris said by changing the driveway apron to the middle, the applicants would have three off-street parking spaces, thereby meeting the requirement.

Harris understood the addition (closing of the garage) was done in the 1970's and has been in place. She checked on the number of approved accessory residential units on Harmony Lane, Garden Way, Sunset and Ross Lane. There is only one on file that has been approved. If there are second units out there, they have not gone through the City's approval process. A Condition has been added that they sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for sidewalks on Garden Way.

Briggs/KenCairn m/s to approve PA2004-052 with the attached Conditions. Add Condition 13 that the driveway apron shall be reconfigured and centered to provide access to both off-street parking spaces and to provide the adjacent 48 lineal feet of street frontage necessary for one off-street parking credit. The driveway apron shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. A permit for work in the street right-of-way shall be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation.

Dotterrer said he is opposed to the application based on the following Conditional Use Permit criteria: The Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. He sees this as a single family residential area and he believes single family areas should be left single family areas.

Roll Call Vote: Briggs, KenCairn , YES. Dotterrer NO. Motion passed.

KenCairn left the meeting.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-058
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AT 1167 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD INTO THREE PARCELS, WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL. A VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD, RATHER THAN 15 FEET AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: MICHAEL AND MARY JACOBSON

STAFF REPORT
Knox explained the proposed partition as outlined in the Staff Report. The plan shows the proposed building envelopes and proposed parking areas. Staff has had some reservations about the proposed parking. They are asking the standard setbacks be shown. The applicants have proposed a setback variance in the front yard. The variance is warranted because it is an existing house and an oversized property for the zoning (R-1-7.5). There are attached Conditions. On Lot 2, the applicants are proposing to address the lot coverage issue. Some of the driveway may need to be cut out of the middle parcel in order to provide the right amount of impervious surface.

PUBLIC HEARING
MICHAEL AND MARY JACOBSON are the owners of 1167 Tolman Creek Road. Dotterrer asked if they are willing to move the parking area on Lot 3 off the lot line. Michael Jacobson affirmed.

LUCY EDWARDS, 1130 Tolman Creek Road, expressed her concern for the larger houses going up in the neighborhood with the footprint being filled in. She would rather see the parcel divided into only two lots. If we are going to triple the density, she is concerned about safety as there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks along Tolman Creek Road and no traffic signal at the corner of Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou. She would like to see the impacts diminished.

DEBRA NEISEWANDER, 1159 Tolman Creek Road discussed her concerns regarding congestion, traffic and density. The thought of two large homes built on each lot is overwhelming.

HOLLY FREEMAN, 1215 Tolman Creek Road, stated that upper Tolman has a more rural feeing. The building of their neighbor's home last year completely changed their lifestyle. It looms over her back yard and she has no privacy. The approval of this application will further diminish the privacy of the neighborhood. Paving of Black Oak will diminish the rural feel.

Rebuttal
Michael Jacobson said their intent is to sell off only Lot 1. They do not intend to build on Lot 3.

Mary Jacobson said eliminating a driveway should cut down on traffic congestion. One of their conditions of approval is to install sidewalks.

COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Briggs/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2004-058 with the attached Conditions. The motion passed.