ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Alex Amarotico called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mike Morris and Ray Kistler. Staff present were Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Kistler moved to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2002 Hearings Board. Morris seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.
Morris moved to approve the Findings for PA2002-131 (2455 Siskiyou Boulevard - Bikram Yoga). Kistler seconded the motion and the Findings were approved.
Kistler moved to approve the Findings for PA2002-129 (1042 Timberline Terrace - O’Rourke). Morris seconded the motion and the Findings were approved.
TYPE I PLANING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2002-140
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF FOUR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED AT 315 BEACH STREET.
APPLICANT: LYNN HENDRICKSEN
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-142
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 572 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE OWNER'S UNIT, AND RELOCATE ONE TRAVELER'S UNIT FROM THE MAIN LEVEL TO THE LOWER LEVEL FOR THE CHANTICLEER INN LOCATED AT 120 GRESHAM STREET.
APPLICANT: ELLEN CAMPBELL AND HOWARD WILCOX
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-143
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 67-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MOUNTAIN AVENUE, IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF LYNN STREET.
APPLICANT: NOMOCO, LLC
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-145
IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE EXISTING TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 333 NORTH MAIN STREET.
APPLICANT: MARK AND CELESTE GOODMAN
This action was approved.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2002-130
REQUEST FOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 160 CHURCH STREET INTO THREE PARCELS. A VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A LOT (LOT WITH EXISTING HOUSE) TO BE WIDER THAN IT IS DEEP.
APPLICANT: JIM AND JANESE WILLIAMS
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
- Site visits were made by all.STAFF REPORT
Knox reported this is a 1.18 acre lot that is proposed to be divided into three lots. There is single family Victorian house built in the early 1900’s on Lot 1. On Lot 2 and 3 there is a large barn that will need to be demolished. Lots 2 and 3 will take their access off the existing alley. Lot 2 will share an easement provided by Lot 3.
The zoning is R-1-7.5. If these were square lots with multiple street frontages, they could probably be divided into four lots. Under the Performance Standards, it could be developed as a four-unit subdivision. The applicants are choosing to do a three-lot partition. There are a number of oak trees, and by adding a fourth lot, it would compromise a couple of the trees. There is an attempt to stay away from the large oak trees. They tried to get three large trees into Lot 1 and make sure the proposed driveway skirt between the oaks with a limited impact on the root zone.
The Variance proposal is for Lot 1. They are creating a lot wider than it is deep. The problem is the acute corner created by the intersection of Church and the alley. It is another 90 feet that creates that width. There is really no other way to separate the house off than to apply for a Variance.
The application was originally approved as a Type I in October and was called up for a public hearing by a neighbor. Staff re-evaluated the proposal but could not find any reason this application should be denied. However, there were some things that came up and Conditions have been added to address some issues. There have been some modifications to Conditions 3, 4, 6, and 9. Those have to do with timing of improvements. The applicant has asked that some of the improvements be done at the time a house is built.
Conditions 6 and 7 relate to trying to maintain a clear distance from any of the oak trees. The Conditions were discussed with the Tree Commission and they agreed the Conditions were adequate.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROB SALADOFF
, agent for the applicant, had a question on Condition 8. He didn’t think it would apply to Lot 1. Knox said the intent is for rear access. If there is ever a need to close off the front driveway, then at least the property would have access to it. The Commissioners can remove Lot 1 from the Condition if they wish. Or, it can be worked out with the property owners.JIM WILLIAMS
said his intent is to create a subdivision that is in character with the neighborhood and the community. They wanted to preserve the elements of the land, particularly the oak trees. There are three trees in the center that present a challenge for development. They spent about a year with Saladoff’s help to adhere to the criteria and preserve all the trees possible.MARK BROWN
, 171 Church Street, is unclear about access off the alley. He lives on Church Street across from the entryway to the alley. What is the intent of improving the alley to these houses? Knox said there is going to be a slight improvement adjacent to the alley. The eight foot wide flagpole extends from Lot 3 to the street. There is a state law that each lot physically touch a public street. They will put a flush sidewalk path within the eight foot area, allowing clear pedestrian (legal access) to Lot 3 as well as some refuge for someone walking on the alley. That will help accommodate any fire clearance issues as well. They are trying to maintain it as an alley, not a street.Brown noted a memo from Jim Olson in 1991, stating Church and Scenic is one of the worst intersections in Ashland. He mentions steep grades, acute angles, poor visibility or any combination. It seems there could be a visibility problem coming out of the alley. Knox said there were some radius improvements done to the intersection of Church and Scenic. There is going to be a dedication to allow for a 15 foot radius so trucks could make the turn more easily. Wording could be added that there is nothing mid-point between 3 1/2 feet and 10 1/2 feet in order to see through a tree.
DAVE HOXIE
, 174 and 172 Church Street, said he is not opposed but wants to make sure the safety concerns are addressed. He thinks something needs to be done to the entrance to the alley. Since it has been paved, the entrance is decomposing and breaking down Church Street. Hopefully, the alley will never become one-way. There is not adequate space to turn a fire truck around. It will have to back out. There may need to be some pruning of a cedar tree.CICI BROWN
, 171 Church Street, said she brought letters from neighbors that could not attend. She is not opposed to the Variance. Her main concern is the access road. The ordinance states a minimum 20 foot width is required. She has measured different parts of the paved alley and it narrows from 18 1/2 feet to 11 feet, back to 12 feet and down to 10 feet. This does not meet the criteria for a 20 foot street.Knox said this Condition refers to the width of Church Street. The flag partition section refers to the dimension to be decreased to eight for flag lots.
Brown asked how wide the flag drive had to be. Knox said 12 feet for fire access requirements. Brown asked why the flag drive can be 12 feet with some places on the alley that are 9 feet. Knox said there are some questions about an area near the bottom. Those are existing conditions and grandfathered in. It meets the requirements of 12 feet to get to the property and out of the property.
Brown said there is an existing driveway on the lower part of the lot. Why can’t the access road be there where it is a safer location than so close to the Scenic/Church intersection? Knox said that would not meet the city’s Comprehensive Plan policies as well as our Street Standards. It would mean more curb cuts and the more curb cuts, the less safe it is.
Rebuttal
Williams said Lots 1 and 2 are both served by an existing hydrant. They need to commit to a hydrant or sprinkler system for Lot 3 to be created. In addition, they will fix the apron that connects the alley to Church Street. They will pave the area that will be part of the 15 foot radius. There is an existing tree near the entrance. They have checked the health of the trees on the lot. They were told the tree close to Church is a dying tree. It will fall apart or they will remove it. The sidewalk will impact the tree so it will go at that time.
Saladoff said from a safety standpoint, the intersection of Lot 2 is blind. A driveway would probably be less safe than what is proposed.
Kistler asked about the easement issue to Lot 3. Williams would rather not have that.
COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Knox added a Condition regarding vision clearance. At the time of final plat, any vision clearance issues with the alley and Church Street shall be resolved.
Kistler said with Lot 1 having access n the alley as well as the front street, he is okay with letting go of the easement onto Lot 3. Knox said the flagpole severs that opportunity.
Kistler moved to approve PA2002-130 with the amended Conditions and added Condition 10. Morris seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
- The meeting was approved at 2:25 p.m.