ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
|I.||CALL TO ORDER|
|Mike Morris called the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings
Board to order at 1:35 p.m. on November 9, 2004 in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
|II.||APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS|
|Douma made a correction to page 4, paragraph 11 of the October
12, 2004 minutes, beginning with "Douma stated." The third sentence should
read: "He doesn't know what should or could ever 'prevent' a percent increase."
He also made a correction to paragraph 12, second sentence, "Douma would
'not have' concurred with Dawkins' statement
". Douma/Dawkins m/s to
approve the minutes of the October 12, 2004 meeting. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
Douma/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA2004-114, 659 Liberty Street, Philip Weiss. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
|III.||TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS|
|A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-133
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY AT 309 HARRISON STREET INTO TWO PARCELS.
APPLICANT: GRAY & ADDIE MATTOX
This action was approved.
B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-112
This action was approved.
C. PLANNING ACTION 2004-138
McLaughlin explained that the posted notice indicated there would be a hearing as per his memo of November 9, 2004. The notice was in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners stating the action was administratively approved. The Commission should allow public comment. Staff's recommendation would be to accept the testimony and read the e-mail and determine whether the Commissioners want to concur with Staff's decision or notice it next month for a hearing
Holley believes the issue of the madrone trees on this property was a mistake to begin with and it is still a mistake. Given their age and size, the madrones were probably native on this site. Because of their brittleness, they frequently break. Nature has helped them by allowing them to sprout up from their own root system. The madrones are alive and serving the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance by providing erosion protection.
McLaughlin responded to Swales' e-mail dated November 9, 2004.
1. Should the Hearings Board suggest recreational facilities be located on a flatter part of the lot? The ordinance language is in the grading section of the Hillside Ordinance. In this instance, the site has been previously disturbed prior to the adoption of the Hillside Ordinance. Given its proximity to downtown in a historic residential area, it has been developed in a more manicured style. While the ordinance says these pads are discouraged, it does not prohibit them. The Ordinance requires if they choose to do such development, it has to meet all the erosion control standards, including the geotechnical report in order to accomplish it. In this instance, Staff did not see any significant issues to say it shouldn't happen there at all.
2. The "catering kitchen" is a building permit issue. It doesn't relate to the size of the house or the Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. Staff will be getting guidance from the City Attorney when the time comes in the process as to whether two kitchens will be allowed or not. That will be a separate item that could be appealed.
3. With the combined lots, should it be prohibited from future partitioning? The existing parcel is about 28,000 square feet. Combining the lots would add another 3,000. The Maximum House Size Ordinance provides absolute limits. McLaughlin does not see there is anything to be gained in terms of public good by prohibiting a future partition.
4. Average lot depth. The lot depth standard only applies to property being subdivided, not existing property or property being partitioned.
5. McLaughlin does not believe the approval is based upon any sort of veiled threats. Staff has seen this as a positive opportunity the applicant has brought forward to address a community-wide concern about the size of the previous approval. Here was an opportunity to come back with a smaller size and comply with what is allowable in the Maximum House Size Ordinance even though it needs a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has looked at the merits of the application in the spirit of the ordinance and the standards as did the Historic Commission. This action was also reviewed by the Tree Commission and received positive comments from them as well.
Opportunities for public involvement were given through the Type I process and through the posting of the site as well as the comments from Holley and Swales' e-mail.
Douma has not been aware of any veiled threats. He has relied upon the Historic Commission's evaluation of the project and cannot find a reason to say no to this project.
Dawkins said it does not make a difference to him whether the big house approval is waiting or not. This application is the third the Commission has seen. The first was on Iowa Street. It was a neighborhood full of starter houses at one time. He hates to see a constant taking of smaller houses and making them larger and unaffordable. The DeBoer house has lost its affordability just by the very uniqueness of the house. He believes the house has kept its character.
This action is approved.
D. PLANNING ACTION 2004-136
This action was approved.
|IV.||ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.|
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
End of Document - Back to Top