Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Hearings Board

Minutes
Tuesday, August 10, 2004

ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 2004

I. CALL TO ORDER

Dave Dotterrer called the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board to order at 1:35 p.m. on August 10, 2004 in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
Commissioners Present: Dave Dotterrer
Marilyn Briggs
Kerry KenCairn
Absent Commissioners: None
Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.)
SOU Liaison: None
High School Liaison: None
Staff Present: Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Mark Knox, Associate Planner
Derek Severson, Assistant Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES & FINDINGS
Briggs/Dotterrer m/s to approve the Findings for PA2004-0094 were approved.

On page 2 of the of the July 13, 2004 meeting minutes, under Lucy Bashaw's testimony, it should read 'she' not 'he'. Briggs/Dotterrer m/s to approve the amended minutes.

TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS

PLANNING ACTION 2004-098
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 90 SEVENTH STREET INTO TWO PARCELS.
APPLICANT: DAN HELLER

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004 099
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 780 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR LEVEL OF THE RESIDENCE BEING CONSTRUCTED AT 835 OAK STREET. ALSO INCLUDED IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUS 3-LOT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO REMOVE A 10" WALNUT AND AN 18" PINE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 825 OAK STREET.
APPLICANT: CAROLE WHEELDON/DAVID BEAUDOIN

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-100
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 80 WIMER STREET AND EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE "MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE" PROVISION DUE TO THE RESIDENCE BEING SEPARATED FROM THE GARAGE BY A DISTANCE OF FIVE FEET, FIVE INCHES, RATHER THAN SIX FEET AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: TOM & KATHY PETERSEN

This action was approved.

PLANNING ACTION 2004-101
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 91 NURSERY STREET INTO TWO PARCELS AND A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS FOR A CURBSIDE SIDEWALK. ALSO, A REQUEST FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE TWO TREES.
APPLICANT: ARCHERD AND DRESNER, LLC

KenCairn stepped down for this action due to a conflict of interest.
This action was approved.

III. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING

PLANNING ACTION 2004-102
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW TO OPERATE A PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT INVOLVING THE OPERATION OF A HOT TUB RENTAL FACILITY AND RELATED AMENITIES (I.E. SHOWERS, SAUNA AND STEAM ROOM) AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 832 A STREET. IN ADDITION TO TWO INDOOR HYDROTHERAPY TUBS, THE FACILITY WILL OPERATE FIVE OUTDOOR HOT TUBS WITHIN THE GARDEN AREA OF THE REAR YARD. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMO TO REMOVE ONE TREE.
APPLICANT: ILENE RUBENSTEIN

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

STAFF REPORT
Knox reported the application is a permitted use in the E-1 (Employment) zone and subject to the Site Review Chapter because this is a single family home being converted to a more intense use. The applicant is proposing a personal services establishment for a hot tub facility. There will be five hot tubs in the yard. The administrative office area and storage will be inside the house. The applicants are proposing to convert the existing garage into a showerhouse. They are proposing to construct a small sauna room in the back of the property.

The applicant owns the two adjacent properties. The house is a Contributing resource in our National Register Resource Inventories. The applicants have already begun restoring the structure, allowed under the current ordinances. The Historic Commission approved the application for the proposed changes, addition and also the remodeling of the garage. The curb cut will be replaced, providing an additional parking space on the street. Last week, the applicants submitted information requested by the Historic Commission and the Historic Commission Review Board reviewed the submittals and recommended approval.

The applicants will explain their request for removal of the small tree. The Tree Commission recommended a continuance of the hearing. Knox read their concerns (in packet). The applicants have submitted a new landscape plan. Nothing has really changed as far as the layout, but the applicants did address the Tree Commissions' concerns. Staff has accepted the new information and instead of requesting a continuance, we are asking the Hearings Board to move the project forward with the landscape plan to be reviewed by the Tree Commission next month.

Staff had issues with the parking. The Land Use Ordinance does not address the parking demands for this type of establishment. The applicant has provided information from the City of Arcata. The applicant has suggested, based upon her experience, one space for every two patrons and one employee. Staff concurred.

There are seven Conditions. Knox recommended a Condition 8 stating, "That the applicant submit the revised landscape plan to the Tree Commission during their September regular meeting."

PUBLIC HEARING
Ilene Rusenstein, 854 A Street
, said there will be a lot of cross usage, a good adjunct to what she has now. She will offer a discount to those who walk or bike.

Rubenstein said they are removing the almond tree because it is too close to the structure. The New Zealand Tea Tree does not belong on the list of trees.

Bryan Holley, 324 Liberty Street, said the Tree Commission did not choose to zero in on with this particular project. It seems there are larger procedural and order questions the Tree Commission has and that is the reason for the request for the continuance.

The Tree Commission agreed the almond tree should be removed. The concerns they have are with the black walnut tree and the plum tree. He read the information submitted by the applicant addressing the Tree Commission's concerns.

Holley has larger questions personally about procedure and policy (referenced in Chapter 18.72.060 and 18.72.110). Some landscape professionals have set a standard for landscape plans and tree protection plans. Through their plans and dialogue with the Tree Commission, it enables the Tree Commission to send forward a recommendation based on all the best information at the time.

Holley referred to the Tree Ordinance, 18.61.200. In his discussions with Staff, he does not understand how the language can be so clear, yet it is not matching up to what is happening on the site. He would like Staff to direct the applicants to the ordinances and make sure they read and understand them. Holley asked that the Planning Commission have a discussion about the Tree Commission still getting landscape submittals that do not meet the standards set forth in the ordinance.

Holley said the Tree Commission agreed with the applicant's Tree Removal Plan.

KenCairn agrees with Holley on the landscape plans. Having a landscape plan with common names on it is meaningless to most and doesn't give Staff enough information to know if it is an appropriate plan or not. She did note, however, that the applicants are not subject to the same Tree Ordinance issues at the same level until they enter into the planning action. Holley responded this is a gray area. KenCairn said it seems the Tree Commission should recommend to Staff that they follow the guidelines. Holley said the Tree Commission has been working on a checklist that will go to Planning. Dotterrer believes it is less important to the Planning Staff than it is to the applicant. On a fairly simple project, it doesn't seem like it should be so complicated and one should be able to figure it out on their own.

Holley said there are draft additions to Chapter 18.72 that would helpful. Dotterrer said this project does not seem like that big a project and should we get to the point where the smaller projects need a professional?

Staff Response - Knox agrees with Holley and the Tree Commission's comments. A checklist would be extremely helpful.

Rebuttal - None

COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
KenCairn/Briggs m/s to approve PA2004-102 with the eight Conditions. Roll Call Vote: Unanimous.

ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.


End of Document - Back to Top

Ashland 24/7

Pay Your
Utility Bill
Connect
to AFN
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Apply for
Building Permits
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2017 City of Ashland, OR | Site by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

Email Share