Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-12 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wizhing to 4peafz at any Reaming Comm- bsision meeting enc.aun.age_.d to do ho. %I4 you do wiAh to 4 peak, pte.cze. 'iLs e and age& you have been necogwi.zed by the Chain, give you& name and eompte .te add/teim. You witt then be mowed to 4peah.. P2eaze nate that pubtic .eAtimony may be LrnLted by the Chain. and no'una,P_,2y 4.4 not aP,eowed ante& the pubtLe hearing hah been clued. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, Oregon II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS: Regular meeting of September 14, 1983 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Revisions to the zone code relative to mechanical equipment (i.e., satellite dish antennae, heating /air conditioning units, solar collectors) and the freeway sign code. 2. PLANNING ACTION #83 -71 is a request for an Ordinance Variance for placement of a sign on a frontage other than the legal business frontage of Artisan Press located on the walkway at 154 East Main St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial Downtown Overlay. Zoning: C -1(D) (Commercial Downtown Overlay). Assessor's map 9CB. Tax lot 600. APPLICANT: Artisan Press 3. PLANNING ACTION #83 -78 is a request for Annexation, Zone Change and Minor Land Partition for approximately 2.34 acres located off the west side of Park St., south of the TID ditch. The partitioning would create two parcels from the existing tax lot with access to both parcels via a flag drive from Park St. Current County zoning is RR -5 and the property would be rezoned as RR -.5 upon annexation. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low Density Residential. Zoning: RR -5. Assessor's map 15DD. Tax Lot 502. APPLICANT: Marion Maryellen Krebs 4. PLANNING ACTION #83 -81 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to demolish the existing storage shed at the lumber yard at 165 "C" St. and replace it with a new structure. In addition, 5 additional off street parking spaces will be provided. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot 10100. APPLICANT: Copeland Lumber Yards 5. PLANNING ACTION #83 -82 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the existing Single- family residence at 622 Siskiyou Blvd. into law offices. An Ordinance Variance is also requested for the provision of three off street parking spaces which would access off the alley in lieu of four as required by Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan desig- nation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (low- Density, Multi- Family Residential). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lot 4000 APPLICANT: Ben /Bernadette Lombard 6. PLANNING ACTION #83 -83 is a request for a 15' front yard setback in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance for the construction of a single family residence between Orchard and Grandview on Wright's Creek Drive. In add- ition a variance from the Solar Access Ordinance is being requested. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1:10 (Single Family Residential). Assessor's Map 5DC. Tax lot part of 604. APPLICANT: Tim Miller 7. PLANNING ACTION #83 -84 is a request for final plan approval for a 39 -unit Performance Standards Subdivision located above Liberty St., Morton St. and Long Way. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low Density Residential and Woodland Residential. Zoning: R:.5P and WR (Low Density Residential and Woodland Residential). Assessor's map 16AC, 16BD. Tax lot #'s: 400 and part of 100 and 200. APPLICANT: Dave and Rhonda Lewis 8. PLANNING ACTION #83 -85 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for the proposed use of a hot dog cart under the canopy at the en- trance to Buy -Rite Market at 1475 Siskiyou Blvd. The cart will be removed at the end of each day. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commerical. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's map 15BA. Tax lot #'s: 400, 500, 600. APPLICANT: John Tompkins IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTION A. PA #83 -86, 12 mos. extension (until 9 -84) of prior PC approval of a MLP and Ord Variance on Prim St. Applicant: John Chmelir V. STAFF BUSINESS: A. Comp Plan Update B. Joint Study Session with CPAC 10 -26 -83 VI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION October 12, 1983 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Don Greene. In attendance were Mary Ann Alston, Ethel Hansen, Neil Benson, Mike Slattery, Don Greene, Betty Lou Dunlop, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes and Findings and Orders of the of meeting September 14, 1983, were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO ZONE CODE RELATIVE TO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Revisions to the Zone Code relative to mechanical equipment (i.e., satellite dish antennae, heating /air conditioning units, solar collectors) and the Freeway Sign Code. STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting the history of the develop- ment of the ordinance and then reviewed the amendments. A letter submitted by Jeff Barnes, Architect was read into the record. 2) Greene stated that it was his understanding that the Ordinance provided for such equipment if it were attached to the main struc- ture. Jannusch stated that this was the case. Dunlop asked for an interpretation of how corner lots on streets would be regulated. Jannusch noted that the Ordinance had been specifically worded to prohibit any such equipment between any street and the main struc- ture. Dunlop responded by noting she lives on a corner lot with a triangular shape and that, in fact, her side yard is her back yard. Jannusch responded by stating that, in such cases, a hardship may be demonstrated and a Variance could be granted as a Type 1 Planning Action. At this point the Public Hearing was opened. APC, 10/12/83, Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING Since there was no public testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery addressed Greene. He asked Greene's feelings as a builder whether the implementation of this ordinance would be practical relative to the established mechanical equipment. Greene responded that items such as solar greenhouses have to meet the structure setback requirements anyway. He foresaw little, if any, problems with the solar collectors. He did state, however, it could create a potential problem with heat pumps. 2) Slattery stated that he felt uncomfortable with including all mechanical equipment in the Ordinance since dish antennaewere the primary concern initially. Green asked Jannusch whether he felt there would be any problems with attached garages. Jannusch stated that he felt that such problems could be addressed in a Variance request as well. Greene then asked what the cost of a Variance would be. Jannusch responded that this would be treated as any other Variance request with a minimum fee of $50. 3) After further discussion, Hansen moved to approve the changes to the Ordinance with Benson seconding the motion. The vote was 5 to 1 to approve with Slattery casting the no vote. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO THE FREEWAY SIGN CODE STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report explaining the history of the request and Staff support for the Proposal. He then read a letter into the record from Robert F. Dean, the General Manager of Ashland Hills Inn. At this point the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Since there was no public testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Hansen stated that she felt the revision was a definite need for the area. After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the proposed Amendment, with Hansen seconding it. The vote was unanimous to approve. APC, 10/12/83, Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -71 ORDINANCE VARIANCE ARITSAN PRESS PLANNING ACTION #83 -71 is a request for an Ordinance Variance for placement of a sign on a frontage other than the legal business frontage of Artisan Press located on the walkway at 154 East Main St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial Downtown Overlay. Zoning: C -1(D) (Commercial Downtown Overlay). Assessor's map 9CB. Tax lot 600. APPLICANT: Artisan Press STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting that a similar Variance had been granted on the corner of Third and East Main streets for the George McMahan Gallery. He further noted that Staff had no great problem with the proposal but still it was a judgement call the Planning Commission should decide. He then noted that the Historic Commission had looked at the proposal and had approved it. Greene asked Jannusch whether the realty sign would be changed on the East Main Street frontage. Jannusch responded by noting that the existing Artisan Press sign would be removed on Main Street but that the realty sign would remain. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING Since there was no public testimony, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery asked for a clarification. He stated that in the find- ings submitted, the applicant had noted a sign area of 40 sq. ft. Jannusch had indicated that the sign would encompass 28 sq. ft. Jannusch clarified this by noting that the actual copy area of the proposed signs would be 28 sq. ft. In the findings, the applicant had included the area from border to border on the signs. Slattery then asked whether the arrow counted as part of the sign area. Jan nusch noted that typically such signs are considered directional and could be considered exempt from the sign code. He stated, however, that if the Planning Commission wished they could limit the size of the arrow. 2) Alston stated that she felt the sign would be a good addition to the area. She liked the old- fashioned design of it. Greene con- curred. After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the Variance request with Alston seconding. The vote, again, was unani- mous to approve. APC, 10/12/83, Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -78 ANNEXATION, ZONE CHANGE MINOR LAND PARTITION REQUEST MARION MARYELLEN KREBS PLANNING ACTION #83 -78 is a request for Annexation, Zone Change and Minor Land Partition for approximately 2.34 acres located off the west side of Park St., south of the TID ditch. The partitioning would create two parcels from the existing tax lot with access to both parcels via a flag drive from Park St. Current County zoning is RR -5 and the property would be rezoned as RR -.5 upon annexation. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low Density Residential. Zoning: RR -5. Assessor's map 15DD. Tax Lot 502. APPLICANT: Marion Maryellen Krebs STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report reiterating Staff's initial con- cerns relative to the use of the access off Park Street and the previous Planning Commission approval of the George Annexation, as well as and the potential problem creating a penninsula of county controlled property within the corporate limits of the City. He then noted that CPAC had reviewed the proposal the previous evening and had recommended approval. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Marion Krebs spoke on behalf of the proposal. He stated agreement with the conditions imposed by Staff. He reiterated his feelings that the annexation fees were inequitable when a similar figure had been imposed for the annexation of the 2+ acres owned by the Forest Service at the Industrial Park. He requested that the Planning Commission support this contention in terms of a recommendation the the City Council. 2) Lucy Harrell stated that she was the former owner of the proper- ty. She stated her appreciation for Staff's good sense in recommending approval for use of the access. She then suggested that annexation fees should be determined by the improvements to the site rather than on an per sq. ft. basis. 3) At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene stated that he is on the sub committee which is developing a new annexation policy. He agrees that such charges are unfair and APC, 10/12/83, Page 4 that the committee is considering appropriate measures to improve the equity of the system. 2) Benson agreed with Greene. He asked Staff whether Krebs could appeal the fee structure of his annexation. Jannusch stated that it was not known presently whether such a policy would include pending Planning Actions or whether the committee would recommend such treatment on a retroactive basis. He noted, however, that the annexation proposal would be going to the City Council and that Krebs could state his case at this forum. 3) Greene stated that it had been Planning Commission policy in the past to not allow further splits off of flag drives. It was agreed to by the Commission that this should be an additional condition. After further discussion Slattery moved to approve the Planning action with the added condition that no further partition be allowed off of the flag drive accessing the parcels. Benson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. 4) Discussion ensued relative to the equity of the system's develop- ment charges. Hansen stated her support of the subcommittee's views that such charges are inequitable. She then moved that a recommenda- tion should be sent through the committee and to the Council that such charges should be based on the proposed improvements to the site and the actual cost or use to the site. Benson seconded the motion and the vote, again, was unanimous to approve this recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -81 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE REVIEW COPELAND LUMBER PLANNING ACTION #83 -81 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to demolish the existing storage shed at the lumber yard at 165 C St. and replace it with a new structure. In addition, 5 additional off street parking spaces will be provided. Comprehensive Plan designation: Commercial. Zoning: C -1 (Commercial). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot 10100. APPLICANT: Copeland Lumber Yards STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting that Staff had been nego- tiating with Copeland for a number of months over the treatment of the improvements on the site. Copeland had agreed to, among other things, repaint the west wall of the existing structure to Copeland brown and to install landscaping along the north and south frontages of C Street owned by Copeland. The improvements have been reviewed by the Historic Commission and had been approved. APC, 10/12/83, Page 5 At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Bill Kimmer of Copeland in Portland stated that the orange color had been a symbol for Copeland since the early 1900's. He further stated that the company was eager to improve the look of the yard in downtown Ashland. In addition, he noted that setting back the structure and widening the access point will improve the saftey for access and egress off the site. With no further public testimony, the public hearing was then closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Slattery asked Staff how the landscaping improvements here re- lated to similar landscaping requirements imposed for other applica- tions. He mentioned, specifically, the Varney Conditional Use and Site Review on Siskiyou Blvd. Jannusch stated that Staff had inter- preted this use differently. Staff's primary concern was for the visual impact for those areas that are directly visible to the pub- lic. He further noted that Copeland's intent was to eventually phase out the storage lot on tax lot 10,800 and for Staff to require more landscaping on the retail side would be counterproductive to these ends. 2) Benson asked whether the Tree Commission had had any input on the landscaping plan. Jannusch responded by noting that when the landscaping plan is prepared, the Tree Commission will be consulted. Benson asked for a clarification relative to condition #4. This condition had called for slatting of the cyclone fence along Pioneer. He wondered if Staff had meant 1st Street. Jannusch stated that it had been intended to be 1st Street. After further discussion, Benson moved to approve the Planning Action with Alston seconding. The vote was unanimous to approve. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -82 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW, AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE BEN /BERNADETTE LOMBARD PLANNING ACTION #83 -82 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the existing Single family residence at 622 Siskiyou Blvd. into law offices. An Ordinance Variance is also requested for the provision of three off street parking spaces which would access off the alley in lieu of four as required by Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (low- density, Multi Family Residential). Assessor's map 9BD. Tax lot 4000 APPLICANT: Ben /Bernadette Lombard APC, 10/12/83, Page 6 STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the staff report explaining Staff's dilemma with an all -out recommendation to approve. He explained Staff's reservations relative to the parking situation. He further noted that when the Historic Commission had reviewed the proposal, they felt conversion of the single family dwelling to office use presented serious prob- lems in that Siskiyou, in this area, should not become office orient- ed or commercial but that it should remain residential. He then showed slides of the structure from the Siskiyou frontage and of the rear of the parcel off the alley. He noted further that Siskiyou Blvd. is one of the most heavily trafficked streets in the City. Greene asked what the count is traffic on Siskiyou Blvd. Jannusch said approximately 25,000 vehicle trips per day. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Kip Lombard spoke on behalf of his application. He, too, had a slide presentation prepared which showed the existing house as well as the multi family dwellings adjacent to the structure. He then noted the area proposed for his sign as well as the access off the alley. He noted that the parking adjacent to the garage would be divided by brick pavers and expressed his willingness to stack two stalls to be accessed off the alley. He then indicated his plans to provide sidewalk access from the rear parking area to the front of the structure. Further, he noted that offices are located directly across the street on Siskiyou from his proposed conversion. 2) Lombard stated that a heavy burden had been placed on him in terms of neighborhood impact by the Historic Commission. He felt that this property is suitable for office space without any struc- tural renovation. Further, he noted that the rock which composes the outer walls is not readily adaptable to any revisions or additions. He felt that the primary impact to the neighborhood would be the potential increase in traffic generated and the parking situa- tion. He noted that unlike medical offices where clients are always present, with law offices he would anticipate a maximum of four to five clients a day. He felt that with the traffic count in excess of 25,000 along Siskiyou Blvd. that no substantial increase in traffic would be felt. He noted, further, that since business hours would be typically from 8:30 to 5:30 p.m., that no increase in traffic would be generated during the evenings. He did state, however, that he does fully expect his clients to park on the Boulevard bay or on Harrison. Through casual observations, he had noted no more than two vehicles parked in the parking bay adjacent to Siskiyou at any time. He then presented a data sheet noting these statistics. He felt it was a function of the Planning Commission, rather than of the Histor- ic Commission, to determine the policy and whether such a plan con- APC, 10/12/83, Page 7 forms with the intent of the Ordinance. He felt that his application conformed both with the Zone Code and the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Boulevard is not a quiet residential street and cited the office, multi family and bed and breakfast uses in the area. He felt that his proposal would not compromise the integrity of the neighborhood. 3) Lombard then stated that existing downtown space does not provide sufficient room for professional offices at ground level and that maintaining ground level offices is important for his older clien- tele. Relative to the cost for downtown offices, he cited the Paci- fic Northwest Bell building and its $350,000 asking price. He felt that it was unlikely that any group of attorneys or any other profes- sionals could realistically pay such a price. He then submitted a petition that had been circulated showing signatures in favor of his proposal. Concurrently, he presented a map showing those properties in favor and those opposed. 4) Benson asked Lombard what the size of the sign would be for this proposal. Lombard stated that it would not exceed the 15 sq. ft. mandated by Code. He noted, further, that the area where the sign is proposed is a maximum of 39 inches in width and that it was not his intent to fill this area with sign. Benson then asked whether fenc- ing would be provided adjacent to the proposed parking area. Lom- bard stated that it was his understanding that such fencing was presently not required but that shrubbery would be added to the area to provide appropriate screening. Benson's primary concern was pre- serving the privacy of the adjacent apartments. Lombard reiterated that use would be only from 8:30 to 5:30 daily. 5) Slattery asked Lombard how he would feel about having to remove the garage at a later time. Lombard stated he obviously would not desire to do this but that, should the Planning Commission deem it necessary after a years period, he would comply with their wishes. 6) Virginia Vogel, a CPA, stated that her offices were located on Third and C Streets and she had requested a similar Conditional Use Permit for operation' with Ron Salter who is also an attorney. With the improvements to the site, the neighborhood had been enhanced and it was her contention that the neighbors had been supportive of her proposal and that, in fact, less traffic had been generated by the use presently than when a single family residence had been located there. She noted, further, the installation of Dr. Kirkpatrick's office directly catty- corner from hers and felt that this sort of improvement could only serve to enhance the neighborhood. 7) Sandra Proebstel, owner of the adjacent property to the west, stated that she has six tenants presently with barely adequate park- ing off the alley. She noted that the bay is frequently in use adjacent to Siskiyou and that this would infringe on her property rights. Further, she felt locating parking adjacent to one of her units would create a disturbance for the tenants there. APC, 10/12/83, Page 8 8) Greene asked Proebstel whether a fence would help mitigate the impact from the parking area. Proebstel said that the living room and the bedroom are located on this side of the building but that her primary concern deals with the potential use by Lombard's clients of her tenants parking area. She then asked who would determine whether the garage would have to come down after a year's period. Jannusch stated that this would be determined through testimony at a Planning Commission Public Hearing. 9) Slattery asked what situation existed relative to the amount of parking Proebstel had versus the number of tenants she had. Proeb- stel stated that she had five stalls available with six tenants but that two of her tenants do not own cars. Slattery then confirmed that this parking does not really create a problem for her tenants. 10) Margaret Dodge stated that she had lived in a house two doors to the west of the proposal for over forty years. She stated her con- cern that this proposal would take up the on- street parking available at the bay. Her other concerns dealt with the lack of room for maneuvering to park off the alley and that the house and the garage are too big for the parcel. She said she felt that the Boulevard should be maintained as a beautiful residential street, that because it is distinctive, it speaks well for Ashland. Dodge continued by stating that there is plenty of other office space available in town. She felt that there was a distinct difference between the boulevard on her side of the street and the opposite side and that this home should be kept as a single family residence. She concluded by stat- ing that approval of this application would get a foot in the door for this kind of operation along the remainder of Siskiyou. She then stated that she had nothing against Mr. Lombard personally, and that, in fact, he was her attorney. 11) Larry Medinger spoke on behalf of the Historic Commission. He said the Commission was basically in agreement with Dodge, that the Historic Commission is in favor of adaptive uses, such as traveler's accommodation which are primarily residential in nature, but that in their opinion, this proposed use was too commercial for the area. He stated additional concerns about making the property more valuable for commercial uses which might lead to demolition of such houses. In reference to Vogel's testimony, he said that Third Street does have more parking than the subject proposal provides. 12) Jack Newton asked for a point of clarification. He stated that it was his understanding that Conditional Use Permits were appro- priate pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. He did not understand, though, how approval could be selective. Nowhere, does it say, he maintained, that law office cannot be located on the Boulevard. He stated, further, that most of the houses on the Boulevard have long been used for uses other than single family residential. APC, 10/12/83, Page 9 13) Greene responded by stating that Conditional Use Permits can be denied on the basis of the potential impact on a specific area. 14) Benson asked what rationale the Historic Commission and Hughes had used for approval of uses on North Main. Medinger stated that some applications had received favorable and some unfavorable along North Main. He then cited Lombard's testimony that it was possible for additional partners to join this practice thereby creating a larger clientele and greater parking problems. 15) Fred Wilkins, 93 California St., stated his deep concern re- garding the historic nature of the structure. He stated that as a member of the Southern Oregon Historic Society he had seen numerous applications such as this and that the buildings that are in the best shape are those which are used commercially. He noted, further, that structures in the worst shape are those old houses that are used as residences and that he is a walking client and believes that a great deal of the clientele generated out of Ashland would be the same. He stated, further, that the building will not change in appearance. 16) Pat Henry of Landmart stated that this property is, in fact, a narrow lot with a single family residence located on it. In terms of the marketability of the parcel, he maintained that no one wants to buy a single family residence surrounded by multi family residences particularly when they are located on the Boulevard and that the only individuals who have been looking at this house to buy have been those interested in professional offices or for traveler's accommoda- tion. The property has been on the market since February and the owners have dropped the price $20,000. He further noted that the clientele would be strictly daytime. 17) Lombard stated that he is sympathetic to the concerns of the Historic Commission and of Dodge. He concluded that he will not alter the appearance of the house and will maintain the character of the structure on the site. He further noted that he and his secretary had no trouble parking large cars in the garage. At this point the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Jannusch said there was approximately 16 feet between the west wall of the garage and the west property line which is inadequate for parking of two vehicles side by side but is adequate for two vehicles to be stacked. Secondly, he stated that the Commission did have the power to limit the size of Lombard's sign more strictly than that mandated by Ordinance. 2) Hansen stated that she had come to Ashland 14 years ago and that in her hold home town professional residential zoning had been APC, 10/12/83, Page 10 allowed. Such zoning regulations had encouraged beautiful development. 3) Slattery stated that he agrees with Henry's concern noting that he has problems with the Findings established by the Historic Commission. He stated that personally he would not move into that house with his family due to the noise factor from the Boulevard and the size of the lot. He did think, however, it would be appropriate to limit the size of the sign greater than what the Ordinance allows. He was generally in support of the application. 4) Alston asked Lombard to clarify what the location would be for the sign. Lombard explained that it would be located to the east of the entrance on the wall and would be approximately 18" x 36" in size. 5) Greene stated his agreement that it is doubtful that the structure would remain a single family residence and that if it remains vacant it will, no doubt, become run -down. He did feel, however, that additional conditions should be imposed. Alston asked if approval could be given strictly for this applicant. Greene stated that this had been done in the past. After further discussion, Slattery moved to approve the Planning Action with the amended conditions to include that this approval shall be granted strictly for the subject applicant and should a change of ownership be anticipated, an additional Conditional Use Permit shall be necessary. PUBLIC HEARING PA# 83 -83 SETBACK VARIANCE SOLAR ACCESS VARIANCE PLANNING ACTION #83 -83 is a request for a 15' front yard setback in lieu of 20' as required by Ordinance for the construction of a single family residence between Orchard and Grandview on Wright's Creek Drive. In addition a Variance from the Solar Access Ordinance is being requested. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single family Residential. Zoning: R -1:10 (Single family Residential). Assessor's Map 5DC. Tax lot part of 604. APPLICANT: Tim Miller STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the staff report noting that the applicant had submitted updated information since the Staff Report was done which would create a net increase in the shadow length anticipated of approximately 40'. He noted, further, that Staff was in a dilemma as to whether to recommend approval or denial and that the decision should be the Planning Commissions. He did state, however, that in APC, 10/12/83, Page 11 his opinion, the Solar Variance created more of a problem that the 5' Setback Variance requested from Wrights Creek Drive. Greene asked for a clarification as to the building setback line noted by a dotted line on the plat. Jannusch explained that this constituted the rear setback for structures to the east of the creek line. At this point, the Public Hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Tim Miller spoke on behalf of the application. He initially thanked the staff for their assistance in devloping the application. He then stated that as a part of the previous Minor Land Partition approval, the drainage easement requirement was not a condition at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the application but that Staff had requested that this drainage easement be formed after the Minor Land Partition had been approved by the Planning Commission. He was now requesting approval to place a chalet -type house amongst the trees and retain as much of the natural vegetation as possible. Using the blackboard he indicated that to observe the 20' setback would mean the removal of 2 large pine trees which he had hoped to retain. The proposed structure would have a loft and a daylight basement and Miller, at this time, felt that the house would not add to the existing shadows. He then showed a slide presentation indi- cating the location of his neighbor's house as well as the location for the proposed structure. He sited the section in the Solar Ordi- nance providing that a variance could be granted on the sole finding that solar access would not be further restricted or impeded by the construction of the structure. His contention was that the existing shading on the two parcels would create larger shadows than any proposed structure. In reference the requirements that construction be subject to Class E Lands, he said that he would like to have a shake roof installed and Class E Lands do not permit such construc- tion. 2) Bernie Cunningham, neighbor to the north, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He first stated that the petition signed by the neigh- bors is a common petition opposed to the 15' Setback and the Solar Variance. He noted that the trees indicated in the slide show are on the west side of his own house or up against it and that Miller's trees would, by and large, shade only in the afternoons during the protected period. His contention was that a solid structure would completely shade his solar access. He continued by noting that part of the creek is at a 45% slope and that when he bought this property the area was zoned half acre. It was also zoned half acre at the time of the Miller's Partition. He felt, further, that the only hardship was a economic one for Mr. Miller and that he was not willing to trade his solar access for Miller's trees. 3) Irene Cunningham of 545 Wrights Creek spoke in opposition to the proposal. She first stated that the Eggleston's who live at 545 APC, 10/12/83, Page 12 Wrights Creek are now out of town but they wish to have their names added to the list of neighbors in opposition to the Variance Re- quests. She first stated that her house is already dark inside and that by permitting a Solar Variance she felt that Miller's house would be teetering on the edge of the creek and could not understand why anyone who owns that much land would have to build on this tiny corner of it. She stated, further, that she didn't know how he would get his cars in there and what he will do with the rest of the land. Continuing, she stated that though she feels very small and petty in this that she had never asked anyone else to sacrifice for her and her husband's gain and did not feel like she should be asked to sacrifice for someone else's gain. After further discussion, Mr. Cunningham stated that the south side of his house does have windows. 4) Miller reiterated that the Variance is as much a part of the Ordinance as is the protection guaranteed. After further discussion, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Chairman Greene stated it was Planning Commission policy that no new Planning Actions would be heard after 10:30 p.m. 2) Slattery asked staff for clarification relative to the shadow plan accuracy. Jannusch stated that the shadow is greater on the north side due to a miscommunication between staff and the applicant. The actual structure height from grade level will be 30' and not 21'8" as had been initially indicated. Slattery then cited the Lee denial for a Solar Access Variance. 3) Jannusch explained an alternative developed by Staff which the applicant could utilize in placing a structure on this corner while still meeting Criteria 3 of the Solar Access Ordinance. Greene stated that it is incumbent upon the applicant to come up with a proposal such as this. Jannusch read some of the alternatives exhi- bited by Miller in his Findings. He then reiterated Findings Re- quirements for the granting of a Variance. He continued by stating that this option of maintaining an average height of no greater than 18' on the north wall while building 10' off the north property line would allow him to build in this location pursuant to Criteria 3. The structure design, of course, would have to be modified and if the roof pitch were revised it could be no greater than 5 and 12 in a north south direction. 4) Slattery stated that cutting down the trees may be necessary rather than negatively impacting the surrounding neighbors. 5) Greene stated that his problem with the application was that the applicant had agreed to the conditions of the Minor Land Partition and is now requesting a Variance. He felt that since the Partition APC, 10/12/83, Page 13 had been initiated by Miller that these conditions had, in fact, been self imposed. He said that he was personally not in favor of either Variance. 6) Slattery asked whether the application could be denied without prejudice. Jannusch said that this would be appropriate. He re- peated that it would be necessary to redesign the house but that the applicant could fit a structure in this location without the necess- ity for either Variance. 7) Greene stated that this corner was not the only buildable area on the lot and that a financial hardship does not constitute sufficient Findings for the granting of a Variance. Jannusch noted that the only potential hardship may be by the building of the bridge and the disturbing of the creek area for access to the rear of the parcel. In answer to a question by Alston, Jannusch concluded that the bridge would have to be designed to meet the Fire Department requirements. 8) Cunningham stated that he had a design for a log bridge that was not expensive and would handle a capacity of 25 tons. He showed the design to the staff. Benson then stated that the Forest Service uses log -type bridges often in their construction. 9) Greene stated his sympathies with the applicant but he felt that that there are alternatives to the design proposed and did not feel that the Variance Request was justifiable. Hanson concurred. After further discussion, Slattery moved to deny the Planning Action without prejudice. Benson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to deny. 10) It was determined by the Commission that since it was after 10:30 p.m., no new Public Hearings would be opened and the meeting would be continued to Monday October 17, 1983 provided a quorum could be gathered for that meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned at 10:30 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 10/12/83, Page 14 PH YES NO pI4,ir J1 ►vn ston Hansen heA on Greene r !r __Dunlop TOT PI-1 sr/ YES Slattery Alston Hansen Benson Dunlop Greene TOT Alston (1J� TOT PH YES NO Dunlop Si attery Hansen Benson Pugh Alston Greene O- TOT PHq Greene S1 attery Benson Hansen Al ston_ Dunlop TOT 6_ 6 Greene Slattery Pugh Benson Hansen Alston Dunlop TOT PLANNING COMIMISSION VOTING .RECORD NO PH 33 8a YES NO Greene Dunlop Benson Hansen v Slattery ,0 PH YES NO ES NO P YES NO Dunlop Greene Zoom Slattery Al ston Hansen 'St Benson TOT PH S3 --3 YES NO PH R4,09.h 31 attery Greene Dunlop Alston Hansen Benson TOT S PH YES NO Pugh Alston Greene Dunlop Slattery Hansen Benson TOT /61/ 2- t 8 kk 3 PH),/ VES Benson Hansen Al ston Dunlop Greene Sl attery Benson Hansen Alston Slattery WOW Greene Pugh Dunlop TOT Benson Hansen Alston Slattery Greene Dunlop Pugh TOT TOT YES NO PH YES NO