ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
|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
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2004 099
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-100
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-101
KenCairn stepped down for this action due to a conflict of interest.
|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.
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."
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
|ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.|