Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Hearings Board

Minutes
Tuesday, January 09, 2007

 

ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARINGS BOARD

MINUTES

JANUARY 9, 2006

 

CALL TO ORDER – Commissioner Mike Morris called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street.

 

Commissioners Present:

 

Council Liaison:

Mike Morris, stepped down for PA2006-01999

Tom Dimitre

Pam Marsh

Dave Dotterrer, stepped in for PA2006-01999

 

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

 

Absent Members: 

 

Staff Present:

None

 

Maria Harris, Senior Planner

 

 

Derek Severson, Associate Planner

 

 

Angela Barry, Assistant Planner

 

 

Sue Yates, Executive Secretary

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Marsh/Dimitre m/s to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2007 Hearings Board meeting.  Voice Vote:  Approved. 

 

TYPE I PLANNING ACTION

PLANNING ACTION #2006-02350  

REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONVERT AN APPROXIMATELY 500 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING TO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATION AT 180 MEADE STREET.

APPLICANT: JANE & BILL STREET

 

Morris would like to see a consistent methodology used throughout the application and said there was no definition in the Land Use Ordinance of how to determine gross habitable floor area.  The Commissioners agreed there is a problem with the definition of gross habitable floor area that needs to be solved outside of this application.  The action stands approved.

 

TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING

PLANNING ACTION #2006-02239 

REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 221 OAK STREET.  TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS ARE ALSO INCLUDED TO ALLOW A 15-FOOT DRIVEWAY TO SERVE MORE THAN SEVEN PARKING SPACES WHERE A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED, AND TO ALLOW A THREE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING HOME AND THE PROPOSED FLAG DRIVEWAY WHERE SIX-FEET WOULD TYPICALLY BE REQUIRED.

APPLICANT: KOKIPELLI PROPERTIES LLC

 

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Everyone drove by the property.  Dimitre said he noticed the trees by the driveway. 

 

STAFF REPORT

Severson said the applicant modified the proposal, placing the flag drive along the north property line with the required 15 foot width.  The angle of the house puts the property line five feet from the corner of the house at the rear, narrowing at the front corner to three feet.  The second variance required is a fifty percent variance to the side yard setback.  There will be no functional change to the property other than the driveway location and minor changes to the lot sizes.  The Conditions were modified accordingly. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

MARK KNOX, 320 E. Main Street, Suite 202, believes this configuration will make a much more intact application. 

 

COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION

Marsh/Dimitre m/s to approve PA2006--02239.  Roll Call:    The action was unanimously approved. 

 

Morris left the meeting and Dotterrer stepped in for Morris.

 

PLANNING ACTION #2006-01999 

REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 SQUARE FOOT THIRD-STORY  ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR USE AS A RESTAURANT WITH A ROOF-TOP PATIO DINING AREA.  IN ADDITION, THE REQUEST INCLUDES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE 40-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 N MAIN ST

APPLICANT: ASHLAND HOLDINGS LP/ALLAN SANDLER

 

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

 

STAFF REPORT

Barry showed the proposed building elevations.  The applicant is proposing about a 1000 square foot restaurant addition and the addition extends over the three story portion of the building toward the Calle Guanajuato about 23 feet.  The height of the proposed addition at the top of the parapet is 49 feet, nine inches.  The addition is set back about 17 feet from the existing face of the building.  The height of the proposed roof deck is about 40 ½ feet to the top of the rail or about two and one-half feet taller than the existing parapet. 

 

The application did not include any findings addressing the need for an Exception.  Staff is recommending that the building meet the standard and that windows be installed that are primarily oriented vertically.  Other than the window, the building appears to meet the applicable design standards.  The Historic Commission has recommended approval with two Conditions.  They would like to see 1) stucco, not bead board, and 2) brick and stucco color samples prior to the building permit being issued.  Those Conditions have been included in the Staff Report. 

 

The Conditional Use Permit criteria that applies most closely to this application is whether the bulk and scale is compatible with the surrounding area or whether the proposal is architecturally compatible.  Barry showed photos to compare.  The existing building is the only three -story building in the immediate area and the addition will add to the bulk and scale somewhat as viewed from the Calle, but the design does try to mitigate this affect by stepping it back and utilizing the upper area for outdoor seating. 

 

Staff believes the Hearings Board should ask itself whether or not the third story addition meets the criteria for no greater adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of similarity in bulk, scale and architectural compatibility.   Conditions are attached to the Staff Report.

 

Dotterrer asked about Condition 11 (windows not tinted).  He thought no tinting of windows was for the ground floor.  Harris said the Condition can be re-worded to better explain that it applies to prohibiting glare to surrounding residences.   

 

PUBLIC HEARING

ALLAN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect, said the City master plan encourages the patios over walkways.  The windows will not have a glare.  They will go along with the vertical windows.  They have reduced the scale of the addition.  They will replace the building on top and it will be about half the existing size. 

 

MARK MCKECHNIE, 4406 San Juan Drive, Medford, OR 97504, explained the design.  He said they are taking away the mansard and creating a deck.  There will be a new parapet. 

 

SHAWN BRANAUGH, Fire Inspector, Ashland Fire and Rescue, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, said the Fire Dept. is concerned about the proposed exiting system.  They believe that having only one exit would create an overcrowding situation.  Business management would probably have a difficult time of maintaining occupant load of no more that 49 persons, especially when the floor space appears to hold upwards of 100 people. 

 

Staff Response – There was no Staff response.

 

Rebuttal – McKechnie said the exiting system is a building code issue.  It is very easy to control the people because they are allowed to have only a maximum number of seats.  There is one exit from the room and two exits from the building. 

 

COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION

Harris said exiting is a building code issue and the Building Official will make the final judgment.    

 

Harris said the Hearings Board could strike Condition 12 (vertical windows).  When the Historic Commission reviewed it, it was questionable whether the windows could be seen at all. 

 

Dimitre has a concern about whether the applicant has met the burden of proof for the height criteria.  He is concerned about incrementally exceeding the height and adding more bulk that is over 40 feet.  How does that meet the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit?

 

Marsh realizes there is nothing they can do about the exiting/fire issue, but she believes it is virtually impossible to limit occupancy.  Secondly, she is ready to support the planning action.  The existing façade is not all that beautiful.  The third balcony should improve the visual impact.  She is not concerned by the bulk.   We need to approach the height limitation carefully.  The front of the building is already a three story building.  The extension will incorporate a little more square footage and take care of some of the fairly ugly visual impacts of the equipment that’s up on the roof.  Dotterrer concurred.  This is not a variance but a Conditional Use Permit.  They will be using the building and space the way the zoning was intended. 

 

Marsh agreed that Condition 12 can be eliminated but not because we want to avoid the Downtown Design Standards, but because the mullions break up what is a very large window into what appears to be vertical panes. 

 

Harris changed the wording to Condition 11 to:  That the windows shall not be tinted so as to produce glare on neighboring properties. 

 

Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2006-01999 with the elimination of Condition 12 and the re-wording of Condition 11 (Harris’ wording).  Roll Call:  The motion carried with Marsh and Dotterrer voting “yes” and Dimitre voting “no.”

 

ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by

Susan 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