My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-T
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-T
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:29 PM
Creation date
3/29/2017 1:46:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
LUBA Materials
Document_Date
10/9/2013
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
to the findings and conditions at EC 9.8320(5), which are incorporated by reference. Following <br />right-of-way dedication, Buildings 1 and 2 will be below the minimum 10-foot front yard setback <br />requirement, being about a half of a foot and eight feet away, respectively. The applicant requests <br />a modification to this setback, stating that "...the dwellings abutting Oakleigh Lane do not exceed <br />massing widths or heights inconsistent with the neighborhood single-family proportions. Along <br />Oakleigh Lane, at the southern side of the street, townhouses address the residential street with <br />covered porches as found in this and other neighborhoods of the River Road area. Internally, the <br />site plan is pedestrian oriented with many places for children to play and residents to sit outside. <br />By clustering the units keeping all the parking to one side of the site, more usable open space, free <br />from vehicle traffic, was able to be conserved with open views to the river and bike path." (See <br />page 26 of the applicant's June 14, 2013 written statement.) <br />The substandard interior yard setbacks are as follows: the concrete wall, garages and carports <br />abutting the west property line and Tax Lots 10100 and 5700, respectively to the northwest and <br />southwest; the concrete wall at the southwest property corner, abutting Tax Lot 5600; and <br />Building 6, abutting Tax Lot 500. There is no explanation in the applicant's materials for the <br />substandard building setback along the south property line; however, staff notes that the affected <br />property owners (Mr. Adee of Tax Lot 500 and Mr. Campbell of Tax Lot 5600) submitted letters in <br />support of the proposed development. <br />With regard to the west property line, the applicant explains that the garages and carports are <br />located near the property line because it makes for a better site layout. The applicant claims that, <br />if there were a setback, it would collect weeds and trash because it would be an unused portion of <br />the site that serves no one. Staff understands that the design attempts to load most of the <br />development on the western portion of the site because the eastern portion is in the floodplain <br />and abuts a natural resource area. Staff's main concern is the potential impacts on the adjacent <br />lands to the west. <br />In addition to aesthetics (i.e. screening and softening of the bulk and scale of the development <br />along the property boundaries), the setback is intended to provide adequate separation between <br />structures to meet fire code regulations. The setback regulation is five feet from property lines and <br />ten feet between structures, which means that the abutting property would need to setback <br />future structures ten feet from the common property line. The applicant proposes an eight-foot <br />tall concrete wall along the west property line, not only to fulfill the screening function of the <br />setback, but to fire-rate the wall as well, to meet fire code requirements. Staff notes that the <br />appropriate fire rating cannot be determined at this time because the abutting property owners <br />are not proposing to build abutting structures; rating depends on materials and the regulations <br />change over time. Because the wall exceeds six feet, it too is considered a structure subject to <br />setback requirements. <br />Staff believes the final determination as to acceptability of the concrete wall must include the <br />participation of the affected property owners (Tax Lots 5700, 10100, and 5600). Even if the <br />setback modification is granted, EC 9:2751(7) requires the developer to obtain an easement.from <br />the abutting property owners. Staff recommends the easement as a-condition of PUD approval, <br />which will ultimately determine whether the'wall is acceptable to the abutting property owners. If <br />the applicant is unable to obtain the off-site easements, then staff recommends an alternative <br />Staff Report: Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing September 2013 Page 28 <br />Ho Agenda - Page 35. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.