Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Hearings Board

Minutes
Tuesday, April 11, 2006

ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARINGS BOARD

APRIL 11, 2006

MINUTES

 

CALL TO ORDER

Commissioner Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. 

 

Commissioners Present:

 

Council Liaison:

 

John Fields, Chair

Russ Chapman

Olena Black

 

Kate Jackson (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.)

 

 

 

 

Staff Present:

 

 

 

Maria Harris, Senior Planner

 

Absent Members:

 

Derek Severson, Assistant Planner

 

None

 

Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner

Sue Yates, Executive Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Black/Chapman m/s to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2006 Hearings Board meeting.  Voice Vote:  Approved. 

 

Fields arrived at 1:40 p.m.

 

TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS

 

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00403

REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONVERT THREE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS INTO THREE CONDOMINIUMS.

146 S. MOUNTAIN AVE. 

APPLICANT: ANTHONY HENTHORN & WENDY S. FULLERTON

 

This action was approved.

 

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00448

REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 499 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ABOVE A REMODELED GARAGE.THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE; THE EXISTING HOME IS THREE FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE WHERE A SIX-FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED.  THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIRED YARD SETBACKS.

1530 OREGON STREET

APPLICANT:  M. CARMEN FERGUSON

 

This action was approved.

 

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00223

REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE.   THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE.  THE ORIGINAL APPROVALS WERE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR).  UNDER PLANNING ACTION 2003-023, A 0.60 FAR WAS APPROVED WHERE THE MAXIMUM LIMIT IS TYPICALLY 0.50.  THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNDERGROUND PARKING AREA BENEATH THE APPROVED BUILDING, AND INVOLVES A FURTHER INCREASE IN THE FAR TO 0.66.  IF THE MODIFICATION IS NOT APPROVED, THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A SECOND ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD BE RE-APPROVAL OF THE ORIGINAL SITE REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION 2003-023. 

180 CLEAR CREEK DR. 

APPLICANT: SANTO COMINOS

 

John Fields recused himself and stepped out of the room. 

 

The Commission dealt with the request from Colin Swales requesting a hearing before the full Planning Commission. The Hearings Board by a majority vote can move this action to a regularly scheduled commission meeting.  Chapman is comfortable with the Administrative Variance and he believes the Variance is justified. 

 

Harris explained an issue was raised concerning where the notice was posted.  The Ordinance requires the notice be posted in clear view to the public right-of-way.  Failure of the notice to stay on the property will not invalidate the public hearing.  The notice was in full view when it was first posted (Staff had a photograph).  Staff believes the noticing meets the requirements and there is no reason to invalidate the proceedings.

 

Black is concerned about justifying a change in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in this application.

 

Black moved to call this action up for a public hearing before the full Planning Commission.  There was no second to the motion, therefore the motion failed.

 

This action was approved.

 

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00452

REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS.  A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO CREATE TWO PARCELS WITH SLOPES 25% AND GREATER ON HILLSIDE LANDS.

331 WIMER STREET

APPLICANT: KENNETH & MARGARET WELLS

 

This action was approved.

 

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00286

REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ON SEVERE CONSTRAINT LANDS TO CONSTRUCT A HOME.  A VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY GRADE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM OF 15% SLOPE BY A SECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY BEING 18% FOR A DISTANCE OF 107 FEET IS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.  ADDITIONALLY, AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR HILLSIDES LANDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT A DOWNHILL BUILDING WALL THAT IS GREATER THAN 20-FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT, TO CREATE A CONTINUOUS HORIZONTAL WALL THAT IS GREATER THAN 36 FEET IN LENGTH, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH ON HILLSIDE LANDS EXCEEDING 35% SLOPE.  A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS INCLUDED TO REMOVE ONE TREE 18 INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. 

 700 ASHLAND CREEK DRIVE

APPLICANT: CARLOS REICHENSHAMMER

 

This action was approved.

 

PLANNING ACTION 2006-00453

REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE EXISTING CHURCH CAMPUS BY REMOVING TWO ADDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTING A NEW NARTHEX, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CLASSROOM WING AND ADDITION TO WESLEY HALL.  THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED IN TWO PHASES AND WOULD INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF APPROXIMATELY 5,500 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTING APPROXIMATELY 7,100 SQUARE FEET OF NEW BUILDING.  THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE FOUR TREES SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER IN SIZE. 

175 NORTH MAIN STREET

APPLICANT: FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ASHLAND

 

This action was called up for a public hearing.

 

TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS

 

PLANNING ACTION 2006-0028

REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS.  THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 24-FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS ON OLD WILLOW LANE.  A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO WILLOW TREES SIZED 18 INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER FROM THE PROPOSED NEW VACANT LOT. 

521 FORDYCE ST. 

APPLICANT: ROBERT & CYNTHIA MUNROE

 

Site Visits or Ex Parte ContactsSite visits were made by all.

 

STAFF REPORT

Severson said this action was preliminarily approved by Staff and was subsequently called up for a public hearing by the neighbors.  He reviewed the request as outlined in the Staff Report.  The Exception to Street Standards proposed is to allow placement of the driveway for the proposed Lot B nearer to the driveway on the adjacent parcel to the west than normally allowed under the City’s Street Standards.  They are proposing a seven and one-half foot separation. 

 

Staff had some concerns regarding two of the trees.  In keeping with the arborist’s recommendations, a Condition has been added that any utility lines installed should be installed outside the driplines of the two trees or if they have to go through the driplines and tree protection zones that they be directionally bored under the tree root system. 

 

The Tree Commission reviewed this action last week and made three recommendations.  A Condition has been added that their recommendations be made Conditions of approval.  One recommendation is that the Pinus contorta tree be mitigated.  The Pinus contorta on the plans does not require a street tree removal permit so mitigation cannot be required.  Severson suggested modifying the Condition to require the applicants to only meet two of the recommendations.

 

Staff is recommending approval of the application with 25 Conditions.  Amend Condition 19 to address the Tree Commission recommendations.

 

No wetlands have been identified on this property.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

CYNTHIA MUNROE, 560 Fairview, said the property was always flood irrigated until the subdivision went in.  They plan to replace the trees that will be removed.

 

ALEX KNECHT, 955 Drew Lane, representing the applicant, discussed the neighbor’s issues.  It is an oversized lot and the owners want to create another lot.  In response to the neighbor’s letter from Old Willows Subdivision, Knecht noted these items   Loss of parking.  They will be taking away one and one-half spaces.  They wish to put the curb cut closer to the canopy and keep as much parking as they can. The idea of accessing the lot from Fordyce doesn’t make any sense.  Trees.  The tree in the front is a hazard.  They will replace them with healthy trees.

 

Munroe said she talked to a member of Old Willows Subdivision Homeowner’s Association.  They pay dues to maintain the parkrow.  She was asked to be a part of the homeowner’s association and is not interested.    

 

Old Willow Subdivision put in sidewalks and parkrows and the homeowner’s association is required to maintain those areas. 

 

SCOTT KURTZ, 831 Liberty Street, stated he is one of the original developers of the Old Willow Subdivision.  They worked hard to minimize the impervious surfaces and ended with large parkrows and large open spaces but it allowed for parking only on the north side.  He will be surprised and dismayed if this application is approved because of the reduction in on-street parking.  He feels it is inappropriate to cut into the street. He believes it is not safe to use Old Willow Lane as the ingress and egress. 

 

It’s been contentious because there is nothing written in the ordinances requiring this owner and others in similar situations to join the homeowner’s association,  It would be helpful if the Munroes could participate in the maintenance of the parkrows and open space and participate in the Conditions, Covenants and Conditions (CC&R’s).  He requested the partition has access from Fordyce Street. 

 

CHARLES SCHINCK, 1212 Old Willow Lane, is representing the homeowner’s association.  There will be congestion if the curb cut comes out where proposed.  There is an alley across the street that serves six families and this will cause conflict.  Also, the mailboxes are near the driveways for all of Willow Lane.  Currently, there is barely enough parking for the families that live there.  He too would like the Munroe’s to participate in the homeowner’s association.  He would propose they access both homes from Fordyce.  All of the Old Willow houses were specifically designed with the garages in the rear.  This property won’t match. 

 

JOSH HAMIK, 1239 Old Willow Lane, stated there are already congestion and parking problems.  There are a lot of children in the neighborhood.  He doesn’t like the fact they are not interested in being a part of the homeowner’s association.  The driveway is long enough off Fordyce to have parking along it.

 

KATIE GOMEZ, 1249 Old Willow Lane, took pictures on Sunday of cars parked on Old Willow Lane.  There were very few vacant places to park.  There is considerable street congestion. 

 

Fields read comments from CLEO COPO, 1269 Old Willow Lane, in opposition to the application,

 

MARK ALLEN, 1222 Old Willow Lane, gave some history of the subdivision.  He does not support another curb cut on Old Willow Lane.  The street is narrow and there is minimal parking.  They can’t afford to lose any parking.  The garage in front of the house is 100 percent contrary to how he built his home.  He concurs with what has been said by everyone else in opposition.

 

Staff Comments - Severson said the applicant chose not to take advantage of the common driveway.  The criteria in the Partition chapter could require the applicants to consolidate if that was necessary to address the neighbors’ concern. 

 

Chapman asked if they could condition this requiring someone to become a part of the homeowner’s association.  Harris said you can assign conditions but is it a proportional request for dividing off one lot?  Harris suggested it might be a cleaner solution to require the applicants to require them to take over maintenance of their section of parkrow. 

 

Rebuttal – Munroe offered to take over maintenance of the parkrow.  The house was there long before the subdivision.  They gave a temporary easement to the property owner behind them.  The easement is no longer there.  She can’t see having a curb cut is any more dangerous to their subdivision than having four cars parked there. 

 

Knecht said utilities run along the south property line. 

 

Severson noted the alley is somewhat offset from the proposed driveway.

 

COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION

The Commissioners questioned whether a second access would be necessary.  Chapman thought it seemed only right that the back house participate in the homeowner’s association.  He believes they should use Fordyce by way of a consolidated driveway.  Fields said he’d like both parcels to share the same egress.  The public easement that can’t be built on can be the access for the house with no street cut on Willow.

 

Harris said the Exception is now out of the discussion.  She mentioned when Staff was originally looking at the proposal, the reason they thought access off Old Willow Lane would work better is because Fordyce is a higher order street.  Old Willow has about 150 vehicle trips per day off it.  Fordyce from East Main to Rose Street in 2001 was 1445 vehicle trips per day.  From Romeo to Munson the numbers reduced to 406 vehicle trips per day.  Additionally, Staff always looks at a scenario that will provide the most potential for a rear yard area open space as well as reducing impervious surface. 

 

Fields thought Fordyce can better handle the vehicle trips. 

 

Chapman/Black m/s to approve the Partition for PA2006-00282 requiring there be consolidated access off Fordyce Street.  Deny the Exception to Street Standards, approve the Tree Removal Permit for the two willows and adjust Condition 19 to require two replacement trees and a revised tree plan before the signature of the plat.  The existing street tree could then remain where it is if there is no driveway.  Roll Call:  The motion carried unanimously.

 

PLANNING ACTION 2005-02257

REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF A NEW HOME AS AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

655 LIT WAY

APPLICANT:  BRIAN MAGEL HOMES

 

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – Black and Chapman had a site visit.

 

STAFF REPORT

Anderson said this action was administratively approved by Staff and called up for a public hearing by a neighbor.  She explained the request as outlined in the Staff Report.  The application was lacking some detail but with applying Conditions and a new landscaping and tree protection plan, the plans can be resubmitted and reviewed by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit.  The Tree Commission reviewed the application and found the submitted information insufficient for review.  They would like the application continued or conditioned in a manner that allows for new plans to be reviewed and commented on by the full commission at next month’s meeting.  Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria and is recommending approval with the attached 21 Conditions. 

 

There is about a five percent drop in grade from the upper part of the lot to Lit Way.    

 

MARK GALLAGHER, 364 White Oak Circle, Medford, said he is standing in for Brian Magel.  The applicant’s submittal addresses the criteria.  The house complies with all the requirements of the R-1 zone as demonstrated in their submittals.  It is one block from a transit station.  The accessory residential unit will provide needed affordable housing.  The on-street parking does qualify for a credit.  One of the spaces would be located on the street.  The walkway will provide a more direct route the transit stop on Siskiyou.  The applicant concurs with the Conditions.  He requested approval of the application.  They do not have any problem meeting the landscaping requests. 

 

DEBRA HARRIS, 1691 Harmony Circle, stated she is against parking on the street.  She read a letter she had written.  She discussed parking on the street, traffic impact, noise, lights, glare from the cars, and access to Ashland Shopping Center.  She wants the house set back as much as possible from the road.  She also wants the unit to look like a home and doesn’t want the property used for commercial use (parking lot, outbuildings for restaurant use). She is concerned about the traffic in the Lit Way area.  The blind corner is very dangerous.  She would like to see the driveway down Lit Way further down the street.  Cars run over all the street corner curbs in the area.  She is requesting in the interest of safety that they put in a sidewalk at the blind curve.

 

D. Harris submitted a letter from her neighbors. 

 

Maria Harris said by asking the neighbors to install a sidewalk might be a question of proportionality. 

 

Rebuttal - Gallagher reiterated that the off-street parking section is not a discretionary requirement.  It was probably put in place in order to minimize the amount of impervious surface on projects like this so on-street parking can be utilized.  Black asked if he could put a footpath along the driveway and add a public sidewalk.  Gallagher didn’t think the applicant would object to putting in a sidewalk.  It might affect the cost of the affordable unit.   

 

Staff Response - Anderson said Condition 14 deals with vision clearance.  She suggested adding a Condition 22:  That all driveways shall meet the driveway grade requirement of the maximum 20 percent in accordance with 18. 68.160. That the finished driveway grade shall be delineated on the building permit submittals.  Correct Condition 21 where it should say …and shall not “directly” illuminate…  Amend Condition 9 to read:  Use Condition 2 of the Tree Commission recommendations regarding street trees, but not Condition 1 and Staff will work with the landscape requirements. 

 

COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION

Chapman/Fields m/s to approve PA2005-002257 with the attached 22 Conditions and amended and added above.  Roll Call:  The motion carried unanimously.

 

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by

Sue Yates, Executive Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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