HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006
CALL TO ORDER – Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. at the
Commissioners Present: |
|
Absent Members: |
|
Russ Chapman |
|
None |
|
Olena Black |
|
Council Liaison: |
|
Allen Douma |
|
Jack Hardesty |
|
|
|
Staff Present: |
|
|
|
Maria Harris, Senior Planner |
|
|
|
Derek Severson, Assistant Planner |
|
|
|
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner |
|
TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2005-01830
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE THREE PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPLICANT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Harris showed a site plan and explained the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a 15-foot pavement width instead of 20 feet to both Alta and West Streets. The applicant argues the situation is unusual because both Alta and West Streets are older platted streets that haven’t developed at this point. He is saying the benefit of the proposal is by making the paving a lesser width, there will be fewer trees required to be removed. The conditions are not self-imposed because the applicant did not plat the right-of-ways or the old existing situations.
Another issue is the accessory buildings. There are two accessory buildings located on proposed Parcel 1. In the past, Staff has always required an accessory building has to be accessory to some use. In a Single Family zone, an accessory building has to be accessory to a home. When a new lot is created and there isn’t a home to be accessory to, the small extra buildings have to be removed before the City signs the plat. The applicant handed out written information addressing this issue and Harris believes he is saying that in this case since the lots will be contiguous, then the property owner would retain two of the lots and therefore they can consider it one lot and let the sheds stay.
If the Hearings Board approves the application, Staff is recommending 17 Conditions. There is a correction on page 9 of the Staff Report. Condition 12 should say, “Solar Setback Standard A.” Also, add Condition 18 stating: “That the
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK KNOX, Urban Development Services, 320 E. Main Street, Suite 202, introduced ROBERT AND BARBARA HINDS, owners of
Knox noted the Tree Commission recommended approval of the Variance in order to preserve more trees. It was only around 1995 that Alta, when tied to a partition proposal, that it received any improvements. Knox has met with Public Works and the Fire Department and they are satisfied with the proposed improvement. On
Staff Comments – None
Rebuttal - None
COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Chapman is satisfied the Variance has been justified and would much prefer to see the trees remain. The Physical Constraints Review Permit will come into play when a house is proposed. He does not have a problem in allowing the accessory unit to remain.
Harris re-worded Condition 17: “That the accessory structures on Parcel 1 shall be removed prior to change of ownership or submittal of a building permit for Parcel 1. The property owner shall sign a deed agreement to that affect.
RE-OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
Knox wondered what will happen if the current property owner stays. The owners might want to live there, build on that property and then retain the existing house. They might continue to own contiguous lots. Harris said the problem on the City side is enforcement because we have little or not control over when properties change hands. She suggested changing the wording to say: “Unless there is evidence at the building permit that the ownership hasn’t changed.”
Douma believes it makes sense not to pull down a structure that is useful. Why destroy something and build it back up again? He believes we should leave it there until something else happens.
Harris said she would come up with language for the Findings.
The Public Hearings was closed.
Douma/Chapman m/s to approve PA2005-01830 with the attached Conditions and corrected Condition 12, added Condition 18 and wording for Condition 19 regarding retention of the accessory buildings to be included in the Findings. Roll call: Douma, Chapman Black approved unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 2005-01836
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF A NEW HOME FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 695 WALNUT STREET.
APPLICANT: STEVEN J. ASHER
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. Chapman and Black met up there at the same time but did not discuss the application.
STAFF REPORT
Chapman asked if there is adequate turnaround.
Douma understands the mass and scale on this lot and the impact to the neighbors. If someone wanted to building a 2800 square foot house, would the same issues about mass and scale apply?
PUBLIC HEARING
STEVE ASHER, Asher Homes, Inc., is representing the property owner, Patricia Armstrong. Asher is planning to create a 1511 square foot home on the main level and a 498 square foot accessory residential unit with a basement area of 772 square feet. He does not see bulk and scale as a major issue. The surrounding homes don’t follow any particular architectural style. If Asher does not receive approval for the ARU, he will build the house with the ARU square footage but it will just be part of the house. He stated the goal was to provide more affordable housing, infill and desirable housing for the community.
Backing out of the parking area is tight. A turn can be made with cars less than 14 feet in length. It was difficult to get the impervious portions to fit. He said they have already reduced the depth of the garage.
Shawn Branaugh, Ashland Fire Dept., said there is enough width in the driveway to get to the house to fight a fire. There is not a turnaround requirement for this driveway length.
Asher said by trying to reduce mass and scale, they have left as much open space around the house as possible. They are looking at a 2000 square foot footprint on a 7500 square foot lot seems adequate.
BARBARA SMITH, 707 Walnut Street, said she lives off the flag lots. She submitted a letter that is in the packet. Even though the structure above will be 1500 square feet, the structure below will have a living space. They and the other neighbor definitely want to keep the six foot fence for privacy because the front yard proposed is off their private driveway. The flag lot was not intended to access 695 Walnut. She noticed on the plans that the house will extend above the six foot high fence for their view. It will be more people, more noise, more cars, etc.
Staff Comment – Harris said the measurement from the garage to the other side of the driveway is 22 feet. That is the minimum back-up requirement according to the code. She noted the maximum number of unrelated people that can live in a single family residence is five.
Harris said the parking space at the end of the drive is one that is required. They have to be able to pull out and go forward. There is no dimensional requirement in the ordinance that says what you need in order to be able to do that turn. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that turning movement can be made. They need to have a total of four parking spaces.
Rebuttal – Asher said it is a tight turnaround, but it’s a gray area. If it’s too difficult to make the turn, people will back all the way down the flag. He believes a three point turn is workable. He still believes a two bedroom house with an ARU will cause less traffic impact than a single family residence with three bedrooms.
COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Douma said he does not have a high level of concern about bulk and scale because someone could build the same size house that is proposed with two entrances without the ARU. The entrances are in an alcove and won’t even be seen. The parking space/turnaround should work. It meets the 22 feet. He assumes the impact of this proposal and a three bedroom house is equivalent. He wants to be cautious about denying an ARU if the ordinances allow an ARU on a 7500 square foot lot. Having more affordable housing is good for the community.
Black does not see any reason not to have an ARU in this area. She understands it meets the ordinance. The testimony indicated there are numerous single family rentals in the area. It seems having the ARU as part of a home, makes the rental situation no worse; in fact, it spreads the apartments into areas where they are more monitored.
Chapman does not think we can fault people for building to the maximum. It’s part of the philosophy of this town. Based on his personal experience, he believes the impact of the ARU is less than a house that could eventually have five renters in it. He supports the project.
Chapman/Douma m/s to approve PA2005-01836 with the attached Conditions. Roll Call: Chapman, Douma and Black approved the action unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 2005-02186
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE BIRNAM WOODS SUBDIVISION TO MODIFY THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR
APPLICANT: GARY S. PLANO & MARK C. MEYER
Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts - Black drove by the property. Chapman and Black had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Should the Hearings Board approve this application, there are nine Conditions of approval. There is a correction to Condition 6. It should say “recommendations”, not “recommendation.”
PUBLIC HEARING
GARY PLANO, 2606 Queen Anne Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, stated he is requesting the removal of the Ponderosa Pine that the arborist has recommended be removed. Under his CC&R’s, he is allowed to remove a tree if it suffers from an irreversible disease. In his application he has attached two sources explaining western gall rust and the fact there is potential injury if limbs and branches should fall. He is concerned about building a house around the tree. Any dead branches could bring an insect infestation.
TOM MYERS, Upper Limb-it,
Myers added that the problem can be treated but it cannot be solved. If the house is built around it, he doubts the tree will survive.
He has met the conditions for modification of Outline Plan. He wants to move the building envelope closer to Windsor Street thus allowing more light and space to ensure that his neighbor will enough light. Moving the building envelope allows for a back yard so the two houses are not so close together.
Staff Comments - Harris explained that the CC&R’s are private restrictions, not applicable to City regulations. When there is a modification of an old subdivision approval, it is not just a modification of the building envelope, it is also a modification of the tree protection plan for the whole subdivision.
Rebuttal –
COMMISSIONERS’ DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Condition 6 should be stricken.
Condition 2 covers the ten foot wide utility easement.
Douma/Black m/s to approve PA2005-02186 with the removal of Condition 6. Roll Call: Black, Chapman and Douma voted unanimously to approve.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary