Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-10 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD AGENDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 CALLTO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Hearn and Gardiner. There were no absent members. Staff present were Molnar, Madding and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes from the November 12, 1996 meeting were approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 96-128 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PLAN FOR OAK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, ALLOWING FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR LOT 6 LOCATED AT 143 OAK MEADOWS PLACE. AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO THREE FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE, AND MODIFY THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO CORRESPOND TO THE FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR BOUNDARY. APPLICANT: DON GREENE This action has been postponed until January. PLANNING ACTION 96-125 REQUEST TO AMEND THE BUILDING ENVELOPES FOR THREE LOTS PREVIOUSLY CREATED AS PART OF AN APPROVED MINOR LAND PARTITION LOCATED AT 1609 PEACHEY ROAD. APPLICANT: KATHY COX/JULIAN STARR/STARRBUlLT INC. Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by Gardiner and Armitage. Armitage had previous site visits. STAFF REPORT Madding gave a history of this action as outlined in the Staff Report. The proposal involves a building envelope modification as Madding explained with use of an overhead showing previously approved building envelopes and proposed envelopes. At the time of Planning Action 96-030 a survey was done outlining the centerline of the creek and the conservation easement (running 20 feet to the west and to the east as well). The applicant is requesting a solar variance for the house located on Lot B. The solar envelope, included in the packet, shows the shadowing produced by the structure on Lot B which does not touch any of the structure located on Lot A as shown in the proposed building envelope. Staff reviewed the building envelope modification in relationship to the terms of the Findings for the Minor Land Partition in 1996. At that time a Variance was approved. The Planning Commission found the benefits of adding a third lot were three-fold. The building envelopes as proposed would buffer the existing houses on the other side of the creek; two, there would be a decreased chance of degradation into the creek as a result of new construction; and third, they would provide a wider visual buffer from Peachey looking down the creekline. When Staff assessed the Solar Variance, the criteria is fairly clear it would not inhibit solar access to the north. Madding referred to the letters written by the Lay's. There has been fill placed on Parcel B which the Lays' address in their letter. Staff concurs with the Lays that there was no grading plan provided to Staff at the time of the Minor Land Partition which is not uncommon. The Lays wondered if the fill would support standard construction. The building office will require a soils and compaction test to be completed by a certified soils engineer prior the issuance of a building permit on Parcel B. Staff gave great weight to the Planning Commission's Findings of the Minor Land Partition and recommends that the eastern edge of building envelopes as proposed in April of 1996 remain. Staff concludes the impact on Lot A would be minimal. If the Commission chooses to approve this action, Staff recommends attaching the attached five conditions. Armitage wondered if the applicant submitted the building plans without requesting the variances or did it come forward as a request for modification? Madding said the proposed building envelopes were taken from building plans that were submitted. Molnar stated further the applicant was notified when the plans were outside the building envelopes. He believes the applicant thought the envelopes were flexible. Madding noted a typographic error in the Staff Report. It should have stated the applicant did "not" provide information requested (Page 5, Conclusions and Recommendations). She said the applicants had looked at building a house and an accessory residential unit on Parcels A and B. They did a pre- application for a Conditional Use Permit. Some of the information they submitted at that time was probably relevant to this application, however, the applicants did not include it in this application. There may have been some confusion on the part of the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING JULIAN STARR and KATHY COX, 921 Blaine Street, said the building envelope is 24 feet further out from the conservation easement. They have planted 90 trees along the riparian area and will plant trees along the sidewalks. The actual lot sizes are a little different than what is shown on the overhead. Lot A has access to the creek. The deck on Lot B is small. They are restricted to the house size because of the easements in and around the property. He is afraid if he pushed Lot B too far west, there won't be any parking spaces in front of the garage on Lot B. No one told them there had to be a buffer between their houses and the houses on the other side of the creek. The planted trees will create a buffer. Gardiner asked why they filled in Lot B. Starr said they needed solar access to build the two story house on Lot C. The house was redesigned, pushed back and brought down to meet solar access. That meant cutting the property on Lot B four feet down. Gardiner asked if it changed the house elevation of Lot B. Starr said the house elevation was not changed. Starr said originally they were going to build 2400 square foot homes, but now the homes are proposed at about 2700 square feet. Armitage asked why on Lot A the footprint appears to come right to the property line. Madding said that is actually the roofiine. Starr said from the inside corner of the eave there is a six foot setback. Hearn asked about accessory residential units on the lots. Starr said he was told by the Planning ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD DECEMBER 10, 1906 MINUTES Department that accessory units would not be allowed because they were within the right-of-way. Armitage asked if the self-imposed turnaround required approval. Molnar responded, no, that was a modification they made on their own. The setbacks are measured from the property line. FRANK SEREAN, 278 Idaho, said the overhead drawing is not very accurate. The proposed envelope is closer to the original approval. He does not see a problem with Lot A as drawn on the overhead. He suggested in order to visualize proposed lots, he could stake them out on the lots. Lots A and B have been raised with fill but Lot A is in a swamp now. RICHARD LUCAS, 1632 Ross Lane, stated that he is speaking for himself as well as his neighbors. He is concerned about a parking lot being added at the end of the private drive. There are two double-wide aprons formed up and the neighbors are concerned why they are there. If not for parking, then what?. Because of the flip-flopping of the road and parking, the applicant has self-imposed a reason to push the house closer to the creek. Lucas' main concam is with the fill on Lot B. Because the fill came from Lot A, if there is a problem with Lot A, it is also self-imposed. He wants to see nice houses that are not too large. CARLA'I-rA LUCAS, 1632 Ross Lane, read their letter into the record. KERRY LAY, 965 Garden Way, submitted photos for the record. His letter was entered into the record. He always expected the property would develop over the 20 years they have lived in their house. He is quite concerned about the significant raise in elevation on Lot B. He said the photos give an idea of the height of the fill. Lay referred to Section 2.4 in Staff's Findings (96-030) and would be concerned about the proposed lots and the protection of the drainageway. He believes the applicants wish to create houses that are too large for the parcels. In order to resolve this, he suggested restoring the original lot back to one lot and return the property to its original grade and allow a larger residence with adequate setbacks. Staff Response Armitage asked where in the process an applicant would come across "building envelopes". Molnar said it is most common to find under Performance Standards. The reference is not as common in partition applications. He believes it originally came up with Staff and the applicant as a possible selling point of the variance. The applicant might look at areas where he could build and fine-tune those areas and put envelopes on the property. Armitage wondered what the Commission can do with this application. Molnar said they cannot restore to one lot as suggested by Lay. The planning action can be denied. A portion of the request could be approved with conditions. There has been a lot of testimony regarding the plans which do not accurately reflect the area of the conservation easement thus causing confusion. He believes there is not accurate information presented by the applicant. The information should not be hard to obtain. There is a survey of the property with the easements shown. It is difficult to assess what is being proposed. Armitage agreed there was Inadequate information. Molnar said the hearing could be continued. Have the applicant come back with his proposal with the information provided on the survey. Hearn agreed. There is a significant difference in what was submitted today and what is in the packet. Molnar noted that the provision of the conservation easement goes back to the Parks and Open Space ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD DECEMBER 10, 1906 MINUTES plan that designated a conservation easement for this property in 1989 and was imposed as part of the original application in 1993. He does not believe it should be looked at as an additional setback beyond the normal standard. Rebuttal STARR said there is more than a 25 foot setback from the conservation easement. There is another 20 feet too. They changed the plat maps to make them pretty accurate. They never considered a retaining wall along Lot B (eastern side). The soil has been compacted and they are willing to have it tested. There was no soil taken from Lot A to Lot B. SEREAN said the double-wide driveway aprons will be for access and parking for that property. It is not planned for a parking lot. STARR explained the turnaround no longer belongs to Starrbuilt Properties. Gardiner said he has a feeling of encroachment into the protected area. Armitage asked if the applicant wanted to continue. His concern will be Lot B when they come back. If the envelope is much outside the shaded area, then he believes it will be an encroachment on the visual. Starr wondered if approval could be given on Lot A and D. Armitage said once one is inaccurate, it is all inaccurate. If Starr wants a continuance, will he grant a 30 day extension? Starr agreed to the extension and continuance. Molnar requested the City provide the applicant with the survey with the envelopes as approved and the applicant apply their application onto it. Starr asked if he could use the new plat map submitted by his surveyor showing all the easements. Molnar said he would like to meet with Mr. Bova and look at a preliminary survey with the approved building envelopes and use that as the base map. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Gardiner moved to continue Planning Action 96-125 until January 14, 1997. Hearn seconded the motion and it carried. The meeting time is undecided at this time. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 96-139 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE BUILDING WITH APPROXIMATELY 4,756 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE (COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL) BUILDING LOCATED AT 545 "A" STREET. TWO APARTMENTS WILL OCCUPY THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING. APPLICANT: JEROME WHITE, DOYLE BRIGHTENBURG, CYNTHIA WHITE, PETER BRUNNER This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-141 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL TO BE LOCATED AT 2225 SlSKIYOU BLVD. APPLICANT: HARLAN DEGROODT DECEMBER 10, MINUTES This action has been postponed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ~I. JB, ND PL.AiNNIN(~ COMMIS,tiON HF. ARI~ BOARD DECEMBER 10, 1096 MINUTES