FEBRUARY 12, 2008
Hearings Board Members: Mindlin, Stromberg, Fields
I. CALL TO ORDER: 1:30 P.M., Civic Center,
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hearings Board Minutes of January 8, 2008
III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
DESCRIPTION: Request for a modification of a previous Site Review approval (PA #2007-01400). The modification requested is a proposed increase to the size of the shed structure at the rear of the property. The existing shed was originally proposed to be reduced from its current size, 378 square feet to 125 square feet; the applicant has requested that the shed be reduced in size by 48 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSORíS MAP #: 39 1E 09AB; TAX
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2007-02158
OWNER/APPLICANT: Holden, Hugh and Liesa Fulton
DECSCRIPTION: Planning Action #2007-02158 is a request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved Land Partition (PA #2007-00985) for the property located at 805 Oak Street. The previous approval was to create two parcels, including one flag lot. The proposed amendment involves the modification of the previously approved building envelope, the removal of one tree (a 14-inch diameter Birch) that was previously proposed to be preserved, and the removal of a previously proposed pedestrian walkway located within the flag driveway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5-P; ASSESSORíS MAP # 39 1E 04 CA; TAX
Commissioners Mindlin, Fields and Stromberg reviewed the two actions and had no questions of staff, nor any desire to move either action to the full commission.
Commissioner Mindlin read the introductory statement regarding public hearing procedure, ex-parte contact, and bias and stated that she made a site visit. Barry provided the staff report detailing the request and familiarizing the Hearings Board with the property layout. Commissioner Stromberg asked for the distance between structures on 172 Skidmore to those on other properties. Barry did not have that information, but noted that no one in the notice area called or complained about the request.
Mark Knox, Urban Development Services 700 Mistletoe, acting as the agent for the owner/applicant provided a brief history of the site, primarily on the restoration of the site within the last year, but noted that the units are believed to have been moved onto the site from the old Lithia Auto Park in Lithia Park and that the units on the site have been in existence since 1948, with rentors from the units being proposed for additions having to walk from cottages to a common bathroom.
Knox also noted that the property has had a history of Police Dept issues and that the current owner/applicant has upgraded and fixed many of the issues with this bathroom addition being the remaining piece of the restoration.
James Beard of S & J Properties LLC , owner/applicant spoke and mentioned that these types of projects are what they specialize in and this one cost much more than they thought but felt it was worth it in many aspects and would like to complete the work with the approval of this request.
Mindlin stated that she was concerned about the setbacks proposed as well as the separation between buildings and questioned the applicant about the Historic Commission meeting and comments.
Knox stated those were two separate issues. Solving both would destroy the existing site. He stated that the Historic Commission had concerns about faÁade on main building also and noted that the ear east property line, notches in to be 3 feet from property line to help break that up and is less than 15 feet in height so 18.68 is met. Overall, Knox felt it was a balance between competing code sections.
The Public hearing and record closed at 1:55
Mindlin stated that she felt the historic ďcutenessĒ will be lost with additions and that the two units are cramped in the back of the property. Fields noted that the separation between buildings issue is a technicality as the applicant could connect the two with a simple trellis and not have that as an issue. Mindlin responded that she concerned about what drove the decision of the Historic Commission and didnít necessarily agree with the Historic Commissionís recommendation.
Stromberg made a motion to approve, with Mindlin providing the second to the motion
Fields added he felt the bathrooms were needed as a health and quality of living issue and that historical issues arenít as important in this case. This motion motivates restoration rather than demo and start over and recognizes the balance between modernizing the site and retaining the historic character.
Stromberg stated that the site currently has two legal nonconforming uses without bathrooms. With the choices available, the application is the better of the possibilities, noting that it is difficult dealing with historic structures and the applicant has made a decent attempt at a solution.
Mindlin stated that she prefers a redesign of the project to maintain the same separation as the current set up.
Fields noted that it is difficult not to micromanage the design elements of an application and Stromberg concurred that the Hearings Board should not do design/re-design.
Stromberg, Fields voted to approve the request, with Mindlin voting no. The application was approved with a 2 to 1 vote.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ė Adoption of Findings, Orders & Conclusions
1. Adoption of Findings Ė PA2007-02104, 1725 & 1729 Siskiyou Bv., Behnam Mehmanpazir
Staff advised the Hearings Board that the findings for 1725/1729 Siskiyou will be available at the evening meeting to review and adopt.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:55.