Commissioner Ray Kistler called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Alex Amarotico and Mike Morris. Staff present were Mark Knox, Maria Harris, Brandon Goldman, and Sue Yates.

This action was approved.

This action was approved.

This action was called up for a public hearing.

Knox said some changes have been made to the application. The rear elevation was revised. The packet shows a railing and picture windows. There are aesthetic issues as well as downtown design issues. The Historic Commission reviewed the plan and came up with some changes that are reflected in the minutes of their September meeting and in the Findings.

This action was approved.

Goldman said this was initially proposed as a studio without kitchen facilities. The applicant is now asking for a second unit. This was in their long-term plan. The zoning allows for two units as permitted outright. The proposed studio is 700 square feet. All parking can be accommodated on-site. The landscaping and irrigation plan has been submitted. The sidewalk connecting the rear unit to 5th Street has been installed.

The neighbors have expressed a significant concern related to solar. The lot is classified as Solar Standard B. The house is in compliance. Staff believes with the attached Conditions, that all the Site Review criteria have been met. In creating the original studio, the applicant has been forthright since the project’s inception about converting this to a second unit. The only concern is timing. The application for a second unit came in one month after completion of the building.

Kistler said he read a concern from the neighbor that the property was for sale. Weaver said when she turns the property over to someone else, she wants to make everything legal.

Goldman said at the point of conversion, the Systems Development Charges are required to be paid in full.

They live on the north side of Weaver’s property and their house is immediately adjacent to the studio. Their objection is about what is happening to the light on their side of the house. Weaver’s house pretty much blocks out the light to their house due to a slight slope of the land. He hoped this would have been a point of discussion/mediation at the very beginning.

Is there a provision requiring a neighborhood meeting? Weaver has not made any attempt to involve the neighborhood. They did receive a letter this summer.

Jamison would urge the approval of the application for conversion to be contingent on completion of the clean-up process.

The kitchen facilities are not yet installed. They cannot be installed until the improvements are made. The house will cast a shadow on the Jamison’s. The ordinance allows for the latitude on narrow lots to cast a shadow as much as a 16-foot fence would. Goldman said he suggested a neighborhood meeting to the applicant, but it is not a requirement.

With regard to the Condition for requiring clean-up of the property before approval, Goldman said he did not include it because it would likely be taken care of in order to install irrigation and landscaping.

Amarotico moved to approve PA2002-096. Morris seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.

Harris said this application requires a Conditional Use Permit because it is considered a temporary use. It was originally approved administratively. Last month the Hearings Board called it up for a public hearing. Their concerns were based on the traffic analysis as part of the annexation that was before the Commission last year. Also, they questioned whether this was a drive-up use. The applicant is requesting to locate a 70 square foot stand-alone structure in the parking lot area of the 76 Union Station. It is a walk-up. The exterior will have a wrap-around redwood deck. Three parking spaces are shown.

Harris has the original definition of a drive-up use in the ordinance. If you are getting goods and services and staying your vehicle, that constitutes a drive-up use. Staff understands that in this application, customers would have to get to the site by foot or get out of their car to get their coffee. It is Staff’s estimation that this is not a drive-up use.

In the traffic analysis, what is important to note, is that at the time the annexation was proposed, fairly intense uses were being proposed as well. Fast food restaurants are probably the highest trip generators of all uses. It is Staff’s opinion that this use could be an enhancement for the area because motel visitors can walk to the site. Also, it can be a linked trip to the gas station. Harris believes there is enough room to allow this proposal to go for a year and see how the traffic works. The intersection was functioning at a level of service B in October of 2000.

Harris said another issue that came up was the target use analysis. That is contained in the Staff Report.

A Condition has been added that the second site be used rather than the preferred site at the corner. The distance from the off-ramp of I-5 to the turn lane should not be impeded.

A Condition has been added to approve this for one year. If the applicant wishes to continue in the future, he can do a traffic analysis and see how this is working. The Site Design and Use Standards require that non-conforming properties be upgraded in proportion to the proposal. It seemed a little burdensome to do it at this point.

Staff is recommending approval with the attached 14 Conditions.

RANDY WARREN, 120 Emigrant Creek Road, Ashland, agrees that the second site is the preferred site. He would ask that at the end of the year, that they don’t have to pay all the same fees that they are paying now. Warren thinks that because there are so many motel rooms with no coffee shops on that end of town, that people are making additional trips into town. He believes this would be a good service to the whole area.

ANA DELFOSSE, 484 Neil Creek Road, Ashland, did not stay for the meeting but commented that she only wanted to comment if the decision was unfavorable.

Harris explained that Warren will only have to pay the SDC’s once. He will have to pay the Conditional Use Permit fee again. It would be up the Planning Director to waive any fees. Condition 14 can be modified to read: "That the applicant shall have the opportunity to submit a report on traffic operations and any complaint 60 days prior to the close of one year from date of approval and request a continuation of the operation for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. If the Staff Advisor deems it necessary, then the CUP will be closed at one year." Harris asked for a little flexibility with the wording. She still wants to make sure the site will be brought up to standards. The Findings will have to come back to the Hearings Board for approval.

Morris moved to approve PA2002-099, Amarotico seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.