HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-058 Findings - Philip Lang
BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
May 2nd, 2006
IN THE MATIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-00069, REQUEST FOR
A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE GARAGE FROM THE REQUIRED
20 FEET TO 14 FEET FROM THE SECOND STORY TO THE REAR PROPRETY
LINE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 758 B STREET.
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
APPLICANT: Philip Lang
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 2000 of39 IE 09AC is located at 758 B Street and is zoned R-2; Low Density Multi-Family
Residential.
2) The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a second story addition to
the garage located at the rear of the property. The required rear yard setback for the second story is 20
feet from the rear property line, and the proposal is to locate the second story 14 feet from the rear
property line. The site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community
Development.
3) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed.
4) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on April 18, 2006, at which
time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council continued their
deliberations to May 2nd, 2006. The City Council denied the application, noting that the application
had failed to meet the burden of proof for approval of the Variance.
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the
Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The City Council finds that the Front Yard General Exception from AMC 18.68.110 does not apply to
this application because the setback or yard area involved is not a front yard, but rather is a rear yard.
The Council finds that general exceptions allowed by this section are specifically described as applying
front yards as there exists another code section that speaks to flexibility for side and rear yards. The
Council finds that the application fails to meet the provisions allowing for reduced side and rear yards
for accessory structures and buildings from AMC 18.68.140 D. as the proposed structure is greater than
15 feet in height and is less than ten feet from a building already on the property.
2.3 The City Council finds that the proposal does not establish a unique or unusual circumstance which
applies to the subject site which does not typically apply elsewhere that necessitates a Variance to the
rear yard setback. Therefore, the City Council finds the application does not satisfy the approval
criteria for a Variance. The City Council finds that the non-conforming, varied setback pattern on
the alley that is adjacent to the subject property is not unique to this section of alley. Accessory
buildings which do not meet rear yard setbacks and are adjacent to alleys are found throughout the
Railroad District. The City Council finds that the Railroad District includes a variety of "non-
conforming" structures which do not meet current setback requirements, and the non-conforming
setbacks are a result of a neighborhood that was largely developed prior to land use ordinances were
put in place in Ashland.
2.4 The application asserts that the site is unique or unusual because a previous decision by the City
Council for a project located at 916 E. Main St., PA 2002-106, established the Railroad Addition
Historic District in whole as unique or unusual. The City Council finds that the previous decision
did not and was not intended to establish the Railroad Addition Historic District in whole as unique
or unusual. The findings document for the City Council's decision for 916 E. Main, P A 2002-106,
describes the unique or unusual circumstance as being a side yard development pattern in the
surrounding area based on an averaging of the side yards in an area within 100 feet of the site. In
contrast to the applicants' argument in the subject application, the side yard condition in the 916 E.
Main findings document is described in a site specific way, and is not described as being one of the
entire Railroad Addition Historic District but rather an area within 100 feet of the site. Furthennore,
the Variance granted in the 916 E. Main St. application pertained to the distance between the sides of
the buildings in the interior of the site rather than a standard rear yard setback at an exterior property
boundary. As a result, the City Council's previous decision does not establish a unique or unusual
circumstance for the purpose of a rear yard setback variance for all properties in the Railroad
Addition Historic District. Therefore, the City Council finds that it is not obligated to find the
subject property has a unique or unusual circumstance on the basis of the previous decision.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on evidence contained within the whole record on this matter, the City Council concludes that
the proposed Variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a second story addition to the garage from
the required 20 feet to 14 feet from the second story to the rear property line is not supported by
evidence contained within the record.
3.2 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, Planning Action #2006-00069 is denied.
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
"
ESl\\ \0\0
Date
-. _om ------- ----------r-r--