HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrager_622_PA-2012-01321
CITY OF
iolT
December 13, 2012
Gil Livni
2532 Old Mill Way
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #2012-01321
Notice of Final Decision
At its meeting of November 27, 2012, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a solar access variance for the property located at 622
Drager Street Assessor's Map # 39 lE 04BC; Tax Lot #404.
The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on
December 11, 2012. The Planning Commission decision becomes effective on the 13th day after the Notice of
Final Decision is mailed.
Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of
approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and
evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community
Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective
date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A) of the Ashland
Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal shall be
limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached.
I
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development Department
between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
I
i
I
i
cc:. Urban Development Services
Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
i
i
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 C p
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or,us
i
SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type II decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section
18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as
jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision
should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the
Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.13.
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record
shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence,
exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record
before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when
available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and
conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and
the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if
any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such
a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing
of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council
appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated:
a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of
the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and
that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of
correcting the error; or
b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of
the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the
decision; or
c. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was
unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the
proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could
have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this
exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an
approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly
construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and
testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
wmashland onus -
i
Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of
additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of
evidence before the City Council.
C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall
be limited to ten (10) minutes for the applicant, ten (10) for the appellant, if different, and
three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be
permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written
arguments shall be submitted no less than ten (10) days prior to the Council consideration
of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues
clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be
confined to the substance of the written argument.
D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City
Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining
whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission,
or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in
any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal.
No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to
respond.
E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or
deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and
conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its
action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council
elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise,
the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the
Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.13.5
F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as
the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure
to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right
of appeal to the Council.
3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
wmashland.orms
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 11, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2012-01321, A REQUEST FOR )
A SOLAR ACCESS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 622 )
DRAGER STREET. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS UNDER THE SAME ) FINDINGS,
OWNERSHIP AND HAS AGREED TO THE PROPOSED SHADING. ) CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
APPLICANT: Livni, Gil (applicant) )
Marls Knox of Urban Development Services (agent) )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #404 of Map 39 lE 04BC is located at 622 Drager Street and is zoned. Single Family
Residential (R-1-5). Tax lot #402 of Map 39 lE 04BC is located at 664 Drager Street and is zoned Single
Family Residential (R 1-5),
2) The applicant is requesting a solar access variance to shade approximately seven feet above
natural grade on the south facing wall of the adjacent property to the north. At the time of application,
both properties are under the same ownership, and the owner has agreed to the proposed shading. The
proposed building and the extent of the proposed shading are outlined on the plans on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for a Solar Setback Variance are described in Chapter 18.70.060.B.2 as follows:
a. The variance does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future
buildings; .
b. The variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a habitable
structure on an adjacent lot;
c. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on November 13,
2012 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Following discussion of the
application, the Planning Commission continued the hearing at their November 27f study session. The
Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the following index of exhibits, data and testimony is used:
i
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
PA #2012-01321
December 11, 2012
Page 1
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a solar setback variance to allow shading of
the adjacent lot to the north in excess of that allowed by ordinance meets all applicable criteria for a
variance as described in Chapter 18.70.060.B.2
I
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.70.50 requires that all
new residential parcels having a north facing negative slope of less than 15 percent, be designed with a
north-south lot dimension which will accommodate development according to Solar Access Standard A.
Solar Standard A allows a shadow to be cast on the property to the north no greater than that which
would be cast by a six-foot fence constructed on the north property line. All new lots are required to be
designed to permit a 21-foot high structure with a solar setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the
lot's north-south dimension. If an applicant chooses not to design a lot so that it meets the two standards
above, a "Solar Envelope" may be used to define the height requirements for construction on the lot
which will protect required solar access for the lot to the north.
The subject property is Lot #16.in the Helman Springs subdivision. The Helman Springs subdivision did
not demonstrate compliance with these requirements in the original application, and the solar envelope
was added as a condition of approval by the Planning Commission to require that all new structures be
designed to meet Solar Access Standard A. The subdivision's parent parcel was ultimately foreclosed
upon, and the subdivision in its entirety has been acquired by the current applicant who is now
constructing the homes.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property was platted with a north-south lot
dimension of approximately 19 feet less than would be required for a 21-foot high structure to
accommodate Solar Access Standard A. The lot as created will not accommodate the proposed two-story
home. The options available to the applicant are either to construct a single-story home complying with
the solar access requirements and conditions of the original subdivision approval, or to request a Solar
Setback Variance, which the applicant has done here.
E
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed home has a shadow producing point (roof peak) of
approximately 21.33 feet in height, and as proposed, the shadow produced by the home will be
approximately seven feet above natural grade on the south facing wall of the adjacent property to the
north.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that given the two percent slope to the north, there is an
approximate two-foot grade change from the southern property line to the north. The grade of the proposed
home site is based on the driveway's access points off Drager Street, which was required to be located on
the elongated side of the lot in order to maintain access standards. But because the lot slopes approximately
two percent to the north, the proposed home sits slightly taller than the north property line, and two feet
PA #2012-01321
December 11, 2012
Page 2
taller than the neighboring house to the north. The applicant's architect has located the majority of the
internal second-story floor space onto the south side of the residence, and designed the roof form in order to
mitigate the request to the degree possible and still maintain a house design that is consistent with the
architectural characteristics and massing of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission finds that the previous applicant's agreement to meet Solar Setback A on a lot
with a limited north-south lot dimension is an unusual circumstance for which the current owner is not
responsible. The application also notes that the applicants seek to have a finished floor elevation and
subsequent garage approach that is as close to street grade as possible, and this design results in the home
sitting approximately two feet above natural grade which adds to the difficulty already created by the
substandard lot dimension in complying with the solar access standards.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the home to the north at 664 Drager has 21 linear feet in
unheated garage, and 17 linear feet of office/media space with no windows on the south elevation. The
proposed home at 622 Drager will shade approximately seven feet up the south facing wall of 664 Drager,
but will not cast a shadow on the upper story or roof, which would still allow for passive solar access and
roof mounted solar panels. The property's rear yard would also be available for ground mounted solar
panels.
Given that the shaded portion of the home is an unheated garage and office space with no windows, the
shadow being cast onto the adjacent lot is primarily shading non-heated areas or areas that already have
limited solar benefits due to the floor plan. The Planning Commission therefore finds that the proposed
shading will not to diminish the solar access benefits to the habitable portion of the sti acture on the adjacent
lot to the north.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the since the proposed shading will be limited to the ground
floor of the adjacent home, that substantial solar access is still available in the upper floor south facing
windows. Building permit submittals for the adjacent home indicate that the south facing upper story has
full windows which are stepped back between five-foot, two-inches, and eight-feet, four-inches from the
face of the ground floor wall.
The City of Ashland's Solar Access Ordinance is designed to protect solar access to adjacent properties to
the north at noon on December 21st, the shortest day of the year when the sun is at its lowest point in the
horizon. Therefore, on any other day either before or after this time, more solar access will be available as
the sun rises higher in the horizon.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public He on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for a solar variance to amount of shading to the adjacent property for the property located at
622.Drager Street is supported by evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action 42012-01321. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2012-01321 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
PA #2012-01321
December 11, 2012
Page 3
2. That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the
Solar Setback Variance approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. That the applicant's subsequent retaining wall on the north property boundary shall be limited to two
feet above existing natural grade.
December 11, 2012
Planning Commission Approval Date
i
PA #2012-01321
December 11, 2012
Page 4
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 6100 PA-2012-01321391 E04BC 400 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 159
BLACK MARJORIE LOVERING TRUSTEE CHAMBERS SYLVIA DOVZAK CARRIE
744 PALMER RD 655 ALTAMONT 590 ELIZABETH AVE
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 5000 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 160 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 163
ETTERS TERRY R/DEBORAH A KALB JOHN M/SHARI L MACDONELL DOUGLAS M/SUE M
PO BOX 954 580 ELIZABETH ST 150 HIGH ST
KLAMATH FALLS OR 97601 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 420 PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 6200 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 161
MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT LLC MCKENZIE MICHAEL TRUSTEE ET AL PALOMA P MARIE
2532 OLD MILL WAY 6597 CANE LN 570 ELIZABETH AVE
ASHLAND OR 97520 VALLEY SPRINGS CA 95252 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 5900 PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 5800 PA-2012-01321
PATTON CLAY/LAURIE WOOD WANDA JO TRUSTEE FBO URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
265 RANDY ST 275 RANDY ST 485 W NEVADA
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
15
12/12/12 NOD
622 Drager
Ii
CITY F
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
November 27, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Richard Kaplan Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Pam Marsh Michael Pina, Assistant Planner
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Mike Morris
Eric Heesacker
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Kaplan announced he has reviewed the meeting video and packet materials for the 622 Drager hearing and is prepared
to participate in the continued hearing tonight.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented on the two handouts that were distributed: 1) a flyer from Rogue Valley
Council of Governments (RVCOG) regarding Planning Commissioner Training on February 20, 2013, and 2) a booklet on Sustainable
Street Network Principles.
Commissioner Marsh suggested the February study session be cancelled and for commissioners to attend the RVCOG training
instead.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2012.01321
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 622 Drager
APPLICANT: Gil Livni
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Solar Access Variance for the property located at 622 Drager Street. The property to the
north is under the same ownership and has agreed to the proposed shading. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R•1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 39 IE 141313; TAX LOT 1300.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
I
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins reported a site visit. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Michael Pina explained this is a continuation of the hearing from the November 13, 2012 Planning Commission
meeting, at which the applicant was asked to submit a revised drawing showing the shadow produced by the proposed home to the
south. Mr. Pina noted the requested illustration is included in the packet materials and depicts the shadow displayed on a summer
solstice eve.
Aswand Planning Commission
November 27, 2012
Page I of 4
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Noted the additional drawings that were provided and stated if the Commission bases their decision on the
criteria he is confident they will vote in favor of this request. Mr. Knox commented further on the criteria and stated: Criteria #1 -
18.70.060.B.2(a): No expansion of the buildings are planned and what they see is what will be built; Criteria #2: 18.70.060.B.2(b): The
shadow falls on the garage wall, which is not heated space, and hits the back of the garage where there is an office with no windows.
He added there will be no thermal loss whatsoever; and Criteria #3: 18.70.060.B.2(c): There are unique and unusual circumstances
regarding this lot. It is a 50 ft. wide corner lot that has extra setback requirements, and they believe the creation of this lot was an error
made at the original planning stage.
Patrick May/Stated he is the designer of the homes in the subdivision and displayed a 3D illustration for the homes. Mr. May explained
this development was conceived as a cohesive project and a lot of attention was given to the massing and building envelopes and how
they relate to each other. He noted where the shadow would hit the adjacent home and clarified the shadow will not impact the thermal
performance of that house.
Mr. Knox concluded his presentation and urged the Commission to focus on the criteria for the request before them.
Questions of the Applicant
The applicant was asked to address the reason for the proposed roof height. Mr. May explained if they were to change the roof pitch
any further it would be more of a ranch style home, instead of the craftsman style of the rest of the development. Mr. Knox stated this
house is small and very limited on its lot, and added the roof would be at the same height even without a second story, but it would
have been wasted attic space. Mr. May clarified they have lowered the roof pitch height as much as possible and stated they have
done everything they can to make this work.
The applicant clarified the square footage of the house requesting the variance is just under 2,000 sq.ft.
Public Input
No one came forward to speak.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked to comment on the applicant's assertion that a mistake was made in allowing this lot to be created. Mr. Molnar stated
he does not agree with the claim that this was an error. He explained the solar access ordinance clearly states that lots shall be created
that allow for a 21 ft. high shadow producing point in the middle. The next paragraph of the ordinance states if the applicant chooses
not to do that, the City places an envelope on the property essentially flagging that this will be a difficult lot to build a two-story home
on. Mr. Molnar briefly commented on the testimony and discussion that occurred at the original public hearing and clarified most of the
testimony was regarding the bath house, geothermal inventories off the property, the wetlands area, traffic, and proximity to the
elementary school.
E
Mr. Molnar clarified the option of pursuing a solar variance is always on the table. He also thanked the design team for their thoughtful
I
consideration of the relationship between the homes.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Commented that 21 units were allowed on this property and only 18 homes are proposed. He also commented that that the
City should look into how to achieve density and creative design while still meeting market demand.
Patrick May/Thanked staff for the recognition that significant thought has been put into how these lots relate to each other, what the
intent of the solar setback is, and how it affects the relationship of these houses. Mr. May stated they knew going in that this lot would
be a difficult lot for the development and believes they have been successful in creating a family home that fits on the lots and fits in
with the surrounding neighborhood. He clarified they are not trying to maximize the building footprint and instead are 10% under the
maximum allowed footprint and did so in order.to retain outdoor space for the homeowners.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Ashland P/ anning Commission
November 27, 2012
Page 2 of 4
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Marsh m/s to approve PA-2012.01321. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins voiced his opinion that this
development does not fit in with the Quiet Village neighborhood and noted he raised this concern when this subdivision was first
approved. Regarding the solar ordinance, he appreciates Commissioner Brown's argument that they should be considering future
owners of the property, however that is not part of the approval criteria. He added he believes there will be a similar problem with
another lot in this development. Commissioner. Marsh stated there were a number of factors with the original proposal and in the end
they got a lot that was oddly sized and they flagged it appropriately. In any instance, she stated the application for a solar variance is
always an option and believes they have met the criteria and should be granted the variance. Commissioner Miller stated this is a good
lesson for the Planning Commission that they need to do a better job of making sure lots meet the standards before they are approved.
Commissioner Kaplan voiced his support for Marsh's comments. He stated their decision should be based on the criteria and he
believes it has been met, and stated the other issues being discussed should not cloud their decision. Commissioner Mindlin voiced
concern with the alternative interpretation of the solar ordinance being discussed and stated she does not believe only the roof matters
and that solar capabilities should be maintained for south facing windows as well. She stated Commission Brown made a good point at
the last hearing about protecting future buyers and stated it is disconcerting to her that people continue to design homes that do not
take advantage of passive solar; however they do not have anything in place to discourage this at present time. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Miller and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 3-2.
Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for Mindlin's comments and stated it might be time to consider changing the criteria.
A short recess was held and Pam Marsh was acknowledged for her time on the Commission.
Commissioner Dawkins voiced support for cancelling the February study session and having the Commission attend the RVCOG
training instead. Staff clarified there may be too many items on their docket to cancel and they will need to check the schedule.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Unified Land Use Code Project.
Review of Part 111: Special Districts:
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation on Part III of the Unified Land Use Ordinance Project and reviewed the
proposed amendments for this section.
1) Affordable Housing Density Bonus. Ms. Harris stated per the 2006 Land Use Ordinance Review recommendations, the density
bonus has been increased to 2%. She added staff will be attending the Housing Commission's January meeting and they will talk with
them about this and see if they have any further input. Commissioner Marsh questioned if they should consult with the development
community to make sure this incentive is adequate and Ms. Harris clarified they can bring this forward to the focus groups,
Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern with only one-bedroom units being built as affordable units. Additional concern was raised
that the ordinance that prohibits this practice only applies to annexations and not infill developments.
Ms. Harris clarified the remaining six amendments are technical adjustments.
2) Exception to the Street Standards. Ms. Harris stated this is an existing exception and staff is recommending the addition of
performance measures for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to help the commission in their determination of whether "the
exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity",
3) Lot Coverage in Subdivision Using the Performance Standards Option. Ms. Harris explained historically lot coverage is
calculated for each individual lot or for the entire site, but this is not explicitly stated in the ordinance. The proposed amendment would
make this practice clear.
4) Hillside Development Building Step-Back. Ms. Harris clarified the proposed amendment clarifies that decks that project out from
the building do not qualify as the required building step back.
I
Ashland Planning Commission
/November 27, 2012
Page 3 of 4
I
g~ %si I I
a~ f~ d I I I II
I
I I I
I
liI
I
I
I
I I
I I I I I
I G:
o I I i t
~ r ! ! I I f
~ ~ I I I
71
{
~4 I, I i I
I I
I k~ ' I ~ I I
I
LiJ
I
I ~ I I
I
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
November 27, 2012
PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01321
APPLICANT: Magnolia Investments LLC
Urban Development Services
LOCATION: 622 Drager Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 5, 2012
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 5, 2013
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 Single Family Residential District
18.70 Solar Access
REQUEST. A request for a Solar Access Variance for the property located at 622 Drager Street.
The property to the north is under the same ownership, and has agreed to the proposed shading.
1. Relevant Facts
Background
On November 13, 2012, the Planning Commission heard testimony from staff and the
applicant regarding a solar variance for the property located at 622 Drager Street. At this
hearing, the Commission decided to continue the request to the November 27th study Session
in order to have the applicant submit revised illustration showing the actual shadow produced
on the south wall of the adjacent property to the north.
Description of Requested Illustration
I
The applicant has provided an illustration depicting the limit of shadow produced from the
proposed home onto the south facing wall of the adjacent structure to the north. The image
provided is at a 1:1/4 scale when printed on 11 by 17 paper. Given this scale, staff estimates
the proposed home will cast a shadow approximately seven feet above grade on the south
facing wall on the home to the north.
Planning Action PA-2012-01321 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report Addendum/MP
Applicant; Magnolia Investments LLC Page 1 of 2
II. Project Impact
In the previous meeting, a question was raised as to the limit of shading that will occur on to
the adjacent home north, 664 Drager, which is under construction. The building permit for
664 Drager indicates the home has three-foot eaves, thus shading the south elevation, and
subsequently the two small windows located in the garage, by approximately four feet. The
shadow cast by the proposed home on the subject property overlaps the shadow cast by the
three foot eaves by approximately two feet.
As demonstrated on the applicants exhibit 2012-002, the amount of shading produced by the
proposed home in negated by the shadow cast by the three-foot eaves. In staff's opinion, the
shadow cast by the proposed home falls with the shadow cast by the eaves.
111. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
Approval criteria for a Solar Waiver are described in AMC 18.70.060..2 as
follows:
a. The variance does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future buildings;
b. The variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a habitable structure on an
adjacent lot;
c. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Should the Commission make such a finding and approve the Variance request, staff would
recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2. That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit
are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an
application to modify the Solar Access Waiver Variance approval shall be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. That the applicant's subsequent retaining wall on the north property boundary shall be
limited to two feet above existing natural grade.
Planning Action PA-2012-01321 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum/MP
Applicant: Magnolia Investments LLC Page 2 of 2
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2012.01321
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 622 Drager
APPLICANT: Gil Livni
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Solar Access Variance for the property located at 622 Drager Street. The property to
the north is under the same ownership and has agreed to the proposed shading. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP : 391E 14BB; TAX LOT : 1300.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Heesacker, Dawkins, Mindlin and Marsh reported site visits. Commissioner Dawkins stated he also
reviewed the planning action files for this property.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Michael Pina stated the proposal before the Commission is a solar variance request for the property located
at 622 Drager. He explained in 2006-2007 the Planning Commission and City Council approved the outline plan for an 18-unit
residential subdivision, and during that process a condition was added that stated all new parcels must be designed to meet
solar setback standard W. Following approval of the application, the subdivision was foreclosed upon and a new owner is now
constructing the homes. Mr. Pina noted that while a solar variance can be approved at staff level, staff felt that because this
condition was added by the Planning Commission the variance request should be brought before this group.
Mr. Pina reviewed the existing site conditions and displayed the elevation cross sections of home proposed for Lot 16. He
clarified the lot is too narrow to comply with solar setback standard 'A' with the house as proposed, and the applicant's have
requested a variance to this condition. He added in order to comply with the solar requirement as written, the applicant's would
need to construct a single story home with a maximum eave height of 8.56 ft. and a roof peak of 16.96 ft. above natural grade.
Mr. Pina outlined the approval criteria for a solar variance request: 1) the variance does not preclude the reasonable use of
solar energy on the site by future buildings, 2) the variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a
habitable structure on an adjacent lot, and 3) there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere. He explained that while staff believes a single story home could be designed to accommodate the
solar conditions placed on the lot, the proposed home does mitigate the impacts of the solar variance to the adjacent lot and will
primarily shade the garage of the adjacent house.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox, Applicant's Representative and Gil Livni, Property Owner/Mr. Knox handed out an illustration that depicts the
shadow line on the adjacent home (Exhibit #2012-01). Mr. Knox explained Mr. Livni purchased this property in foreclosure and
is trying to move forward with this subdivision, however mistakes were made when the subdivision was originally created. He
went on to say that the previous applicants did not address all of the City's criteria and this particular lot was approved at only
51 ft. wide, and is also a corner lot which comes with greater setback requirements. Mr. Knox added the previous applicant's
failure to present a shadow plan when this lot was first created has resulted in them needing to come back before the j
Commission for a solar variance.
Mr. Knox explained the street grade determines the foundation level of a house and since this particular lot slopes 2%, it has
forced them to raise the foundation level and therefore impacts the height of the roof. He went on to explain that they have
mitigated the solar variance impacts as much as possible by pushing the house as far to the south as possible, have adjusted
the design and height of the roof, and have designed the adjacent house so that only the garage and a small amount of
windowless living space is shadowed. Mr. Knox noted the code allows for solar waivers as long as the three criteria are met and
stated: 1) their proposal does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future buildings because the design
of the south facing wall is such that a large portion is non-habitable and the other portion does not have any windows, 2) the j
variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a habitable structure on an adjacent lot because the
shadow does not go above the roofline and therefore solar panels can still be located on the roof, and 3) this is a unique or
unusual circumstance because this is the narrowest piece of property in the area, it has an east-west orientation, and it is also a
corner lot.
i
Ashland Planning Commission
November 13, 2012
Page 2 of 6
Mr. Knox brought attention to the self imposed Earth Advantage condition, which the new applicant is going above and beyond,
and stressed that they have gone to great lengths to mitigate the solar access issue for this particular lot.
Questions of the Ap lip cant
The applicant was asked whether they will experience this same problem with other lots in the subdivision. Mr. Knox clarified
they do not foresee having a problem with the other lots, and Mr. Livni explained they have redesigned the homes to better fit
the approved lots. He added the houses they are building are smaller than what was approved, and none of the previous
designs would have worked with the exception of just a few lots.
The applicant was asked to comment further on how this narrow lot came to be. Mr. Knox clarified the design was done by the
previous developer, who is no longer doing business in Ashland, and the City ultimately approved it.
Public Testimonv
No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the email that was submitted by Jay Leighton, 260 Cambridge Street.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Knox briefly commented on Ms. Leighton's email and stated he is not sure she understands the depth of this application. In
response to her density concern, he clarified the houses that are being built are much smaller than the houses that were
approved. In regards to her comments on the solar variance, he stated they clearly meet the standards and this would not have
been an issue if it would have been addressed up front when this lot was originally created.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the record at 8:00 p.m.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Molnar commented on the solar requirement that was placed on this subdivision and stated it is too harsh to say the
Planning Commission erred in approving this lot. He explained the solar ordinance asks applicants to make sure that when you
are designing lots that the south to north dimension is long enough that based on the slope you can have a 21 ft. high shadow
producing point in the middle of the lot. He added the ordinance does not require this, but it is strongly recommended. If an
applicant chooses to not design a lot in this manner, the City can flag the lot to alert future property owners that they might have
some difficulty designing a home on the lot, which is what was done in this case. Mr. Molnar stated it is not impossible to design
a single story home that would meet the solar access requirements for this lot, but it could result in a home design that is not
consistent with the others in the subdivision, or could require them to sink the finished floor level which could be undesirable.
Mr. Molnar stated staff alerted the original applicants that this would be a difficult lot, and in the end they chose to keep it at 51
ft, and so in accordance with the ordinance this condition was added.
Staff clarified this variance request only applies to 622 Drager; it does not change the conditions of the entire subdivision. It was
also clarified that approval of this solar variance would be listed on the deed of the home to alert future home buyers.
Commissioner Mindlin reopened the record and hearing to allow the applicant to rebut new information.
I
Mark Knox/Clarified the applicants are not requesting a blanket variance for the entire subdivision, just this particular lot, and
stated a solar envelope could have been adopted with the original application that would have allowed the shadow to extend
much further than what they are proposing. In terms of the future property owners, Mr. Knox clarified Mr. Livni already has
buyers for these two lots; they are friends and are aware of this issue.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
i
i
Ashland Planning Coninnission
November 13, 2012
Page 3 of 6
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Brown/Miller m/s to deny the application. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Brown stated he is comfortable
with the constraints as originally proposed and is uncomfortable taking away the solar rights for future property owners. He
added it is possible to build a house that meets the solar requirements as originally imposed. Commissioner Marsh stated she
will oppose the motion and believes the applicants meet the variance criteria. She added with small lot development, which the
Commission endorses, these types of requests are inevitable. Commissioner Dawkins noted his concern that this issue will
resurface with other lots in this development. Commissioner Mindlin voiced support for the denial and stated the applicant's
proposal clearly shadows the adjacent home. She added just because the current buyer does not care does not mean future
buyers would give their consent. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Marsh,
Heesacker, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed due to tie.
Commissioner Marsh commented that it is difficult to guess what the future home owners will want, and stated if this is an issue
for them they can choose to purchase a different house. She recommended the commissioners focus their decision on the
approval criteria for the application before them. Commissioner Heesacker agreed. He stated the current buyers understand
and are comfortable with this, and if someone else has a problem they can move on and view another house. Commissioner
Miller commented that if the property owner were to build a smaller house they would not be facing this problem. Commissioner
Brown remarked that the applicant has not provided adequate information on the impacts to the adjacent lot. He added he s
would be willing to reconsider his vote if the applicant could provide an illustration showing the actual shadow produced on the
south wall of the adjacent property to the north.
Commissioners Marsh/Dawkins m/s to continue this action to the November 27, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6.0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2012-01414
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 180 Nutley Street
APPLICANT: PowerPlus Building/Christer Chedderoth
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Land Partition to create two parcels, the existing single family residence
would remain at 180 Nutley Street and the new accessory guest house would be converted to a single family
residence on Scenic. The request includes a Variance to the rear yard setback to reduce the required setback from
20-feet to 10 % feet. The applicant is also requesting an Exception to the Street Standards to not install sidewalks
along Scenic Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 39 IE 108AD; TAX LOT 5600.
Per applicant's request, the public hearing was postponed to the December 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Unified Land Use Ordinance Project - Part II: Zoning Regulations.
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation on Part II of the Unified Land Use Ordinance Project and reviewed the
proposed amendments for this section.
1) Accessory Residential Units. Ms. Harris clarified the proposed language would make accessory residential units a
permitted use in all zones. Site Review approval would still be required, but this amendment would remove the conditional use
permit requirement.
2) Manufactured Homes. Ms. Harris stated staff has suggested a few changes to ensure our ordinance conforms with the
Oregon Revised Statutes. Suggested changes include deleting the requirement that a home be 28 ft. in width, a change in
wording for exterior building materials, and the maximum height above grade. The requirement to have a garage or storage
building has also been removed and staff is recommended the setback requirements for manufactured housing developments
be amended.
i
3) Corner Lots in R-1 Zone. Per the 2006 Land Use Ordinance Review recommendation, Ms. Harris stated the minimum width
and lot size requirements for corner lots has been changed to the same standards for interior lots - a minimum width of 50 ft.
and minimum lot size of 5,000 sq.ft.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 13, 2012
Page 4 of 6
Cy
k \
aucv6-,f .0-.GiW 4 ,a.. a-•
^3 ~ I
.C
I
~ x
bs I - - '
I I
u E r
e;~f~ \ li r ~zz
L p~ G ~ al O
\ U
\ I V'
I r M
~ L r
loll '
4ftAi
I t \
\
I \ \
l
I \
I I @\ -
I I v,_
wl
I /I
I/rj I
Ely
i -r-
lr
lr1 i
i
I,
I ~ I
I
~ f
'
a
i
i
/ i
i\
I~
\ -11 JJi~I
ll \
ll~
I I
I I u J
I I ~p I`,
~s .lag.
m W n!{
c
_h
two
I I i
I I I
I ~ I
i
0 ~p
I ~ it J~
I i
I
I~ - I
l
g
i I ~
i
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
November 13, 2012
PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01321
APPLICANT: Magnolia Investments LLC
Urban Development Services
LOCATION: 622 Drager Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 5, 2012
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 5, 2013
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 Single Family Residential District
18.70 Solar Access
A request for a Solar Access Variance for the property located at 622 Drager Street. The owner of
the property to the north, who is also the applicant here, has agreed to the proposed shading. {
L Relevant Facts
Background
In July 2006, The Planning Commission approved the Outline Plan for an 18-unit single-
family residential subdivision and an Exception to the Street Standards to allow curbside
sidewalks to preserve trees, wetland, and the existing residence located at 247 Otis Street
(PA# 2006-00078). The application was appealed to Council and subsequently approved on
January 2, 2007. Final Plan approved was granted by staff on May 24, 2007 (PA# 2007-
00455). A public hearing was requested on June 4, 2007; the approval was upheld.
I
In January 2010, staff approved an amendment/modification to previous Final Plan approval
(PA #2007-00455) to allow the 18-unit Helman Springs Subdivision be developed in two
phases. The first phase would create a separate parcel containing the existing house, pool
building, and associated outbuildings on Lot 18; with the remainder to be completed in the
second phase.
i
Site
The subject property is rectangular and located at the northwest corner of Drager Street as it
turns north to intersect Randy Street within the Helman Springs Subdivision. The parcel has
a north-south lot dimension of 51.28 linear feet, and a slight slope to the north of
approximately -.019 percent.
Planning Action PA-2012-01321 Ashland Planning Department - Staff ReporUMP
Applicant; Magnolia Investments LLC Page 1 of 4
Standards
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.70.50 requires that all new residential parcels having a
north facing negative slope of less than 15 percent, be designed with a north-south to meet
Solar Access Standard A, and that all new lots are designed to permit a 21-foot high structure
with a solar setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-south dimension. If
the applicant chooses not to design a lot so that it meets the two standards above, they must
instead identify a "Solar Envelope" which defines the height requirements for construction
on the lot which will protect required solar access for the lot to the north.
The Helman Springs subdivision did not demonstrate compliance with these requirements in
the original application, and as such a condition of approval was added by the Planning
Commission to require that all new structures be designed to meet Solar Access Standard A.
The parcel was ultimately foreclosed upon, and the subdivision in its entirety has been
acquired by the applicants who are now constructing the homes.
Proposal
The applicant requests a solar access variance to shade approximately four feet above the
required Solar Setback allowance per condition of approval in PA-2006-00078, which
required all lots to be subject to Solar Setback Standard A.
The subject property was platted with a north-south lot dimension of 51.28 feet. Based on the
lot's north slope of approximately negative two percent, a minimum north-south lot
dimension of approximately 70.4 feet would have been needed to comply with the
requirements of AMC 18.70.050 and accommodate Solar Access Standard A. The lot as
created does not comply with the requirements of AMC 18.70.050, and as such will not
accommodate the proposed two-story home while complying with Solar Access Standard A.
The options available to the applicant are either construct a single-story home complying
with the solar access requirements and conditions of approval, or to request a Solar Access
Variance, which the applicant has done here.
The Helman Springs subdivision did not demonstrate compliance with these requirements in
the original application, and as such a condition of approval was added by the Planning
Commission to require that all new structures be designed to meet Solar Access Standard A.
The parcel was ultimately foreclosed upon, and the subdivision in its entirety has been
acquired by the applicants who are now constructing the homes.
II. Project Impact
The proposed home has a shadow producing point (roof peak) of approximately 21.33 feet in
height, and Standard A requires that this point be setback 35.99 feet from the north property I
line. [21.33 - 6/.445-.019 = 35.99 feet]. As proposed, the home's shadow producing point
will be nine feet closer than allowed under Standard A. The lot as configured would
accommodate a ten-foot high shadow producing point at the proposed setback from the
property line. To comply with Standard A, a single story home would need a shadow
producing eave height of 8.56 feet above natural grade, or a roof peak of 16.96 feet.
The applicants assert that given the two percent slope to the north, there is an approximate
two-foot grade change from the southern property line to the north. The grade of the
i
Planning Action PA-2012-01321 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report/MP
Applicant: Magnolia Investments LLC Page 2 of 4
proposed home is based on the driveway's access points off Drager Street, which was
required to be located on the elongated side of the lot in order to maintain access standards.
But because the lot slopes approximately two percent to the north, the proposed home sits
slightly taller than the north property line, and two feet taller than the neighboring house to
the north. The architect located the majority of the internal second-story floor space onto the
south side of the residence, and designed the roof form in order to mitigate the request and
still maintain a house design that is consistent with the architectural characteristics and
massing of the neighborhood.
Criteria Findings
The first criterion for approval of a Solar Access Variance is that "the variance does not
preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future buildings". The building
permit submittals for the adjoining lot to the north (644 Drager) show the southern elevation
having the garage (21 linear feet) and an office with no windows (17 linear feet). The
proposed home will shade the wall and not the roof, which would still allow for solar access
to roof mounted solar panels. The applicant indicate that the actual shadow produced will be
more towards the front of the structure (garage) and will leave the majority of the property's
rear yard available for ground mounted solar panels.
The second approval criterion is that "the variance does not diminish any substantial solar
access which benefits a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. " Given that the portion of the
home immediately to the north is an unheated garage and office space with no windows, the
shadow being cast onto the adjacent lot is primarily shading non-heated areas or areas that
already have limited solar benefits due to the floor plan. Staff believes that the proposed
shading could be found not to diminish the solar access benefits to the habitable portion of
the structure on the adjacent lot to the north.
The final criterion for approval of a Solar Variance is that "there are unique or unusual
circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. " In staff's
view, the previous applicant's creation of a new lot that did not meet the requirements of
AMC 18.70.050 could be found to be a unique or unusual circumstance for which the current
applicant was not responsible. Also, the application notes that the applicants seek to have a
finished floor elevation and subsequent garage approach that is as close to street grade as
possible, and this design results in the home sitting approximately two feet above natural
grade which adds to the difficulty already created by the substandard lot dimension in
complying with the solar access standards.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
Approval criteria for a Solar Waiver are described in AMC 18.70.060.B.2 as
follows:
a. The variance does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future buildings;
b. The variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a habitable structure on an
adjacent lot;
c. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
i
i
Planning Action PA-2012-01321 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report/MP
Applicant: Magnolia Investments LLC Page 3 of 4
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
While a single story structure could reasonably be designed to accommodate the narrow
north-south lot dimension and comply with the requirements of the Solar Ordinance and
subdivision approval, the applicants argue that the need for a more traditional design with a
finished floor elevation at or above the street level makes it difficult to comply with the
standard given the grade change on the subject property, the narrow north-south lot
dimension, and the need to design a home consistent with the architectural character of the
neighborhood. The application notes that the design and placement of the proposed home are
such that impacts to the habitable portions of the structure to the north will be minimized,
and solar access largely maintained for both its rooftop and rear yard. Staff believes that the
previous applicant's creation of a new lot that did not meet the dimensional requirements of
AMC 18.70.050 could be seen as a unique or unusual circumstance (for which the current
applicant was not responsible), and could be found to merit approval of the Solar Variance.
Should the Commission make such a finding and approve the Variance request, staff would
recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2. That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance
with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building
permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this
application, an application to modify the Solar Access Waiver Variance approval
shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. That the applicant's subsequent retaining wall on the north property boundary shall
be limited to two feet above existing grade.
n
i
Planning Action PA-2012-01321 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report/MP
Applicant: Magnolia Investments LLC Page 4 of 4
Zimbra Page l of I
Zimbra pinam@ashland.or.u
+ Font Size -
Planning action 2012-01321
From : Jay Leighton <jayl@osfashland.org> Thu, Nov 08, 2012 01:51 PM
Subject : Planning action 2012-01321
To :'planning@ashland.or.us' <planning@ashland.or.us>
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the solar variance request: planning action2012-1321, 622 Drager St. I am a resident in the neighborhood and object to the
variance request. As I understand, the Heiman Springs property already has a density variance because of the wetlands thus allowing buildings to be more
densely construction. This building pattern is in contrast to existing neighbors and newer construction within the adjacent blocks. Adding a solar variance to
this conditional use increases the impact on neighbors. I realize that the subject properties consent to this variance; being the same owner. However,
knowing the real estate turn over this town and.that real estate has a longer life than one owner I object to the impact it will place on future owners and the
precedent it sets for construction at this particular site.
Thank you for taking time to consider my input,
Jay Leighton
206 Cambridge St.
Ashland Or
541-482-9876
I
~I
I
I
i
httos:Hzimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/-PrintmessaRe?id=23315 11/8/2012
i i
i i
I I i
83 V
1H 32nd d 2Rj ONZ 1H 31bld Nld lSL
.9L1EL6-~E ..0-.G „oreOL ,on L-,6
I I ~
I I I
\ I
0 I -
\ 9 F
\ E
\ \ $ Im
~ ~uro~ I i I ti .
\ I I~
\ ( I it
I \ I
I ` I ! a I
I °L - -
V v -
a
~O w w~ \ j\ NQ 4W
J o K0 \ u. U K
00 10
O
r7
I 1 SI .n o ~ w
I V I` 1 \
\I NO TNM mu)
1 ld Wi3038'W
It
I \ ~I
I i \
I I A i I
I I ~ I
I I 1
I I ~o I
I I I
II ~ II
LLI lLl
Q
U U
I Y
1 Planning Department, 51 Win- n Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CT OF
541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland,orms TTY:1-800-735-2900 -AS IF"' 4 AP T F
PLANNING ACTION: 2012.01321
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 622 Drager
APPLICANT: Gil Livni
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Solar Access Variance for the property located at 622 Drager Street. The
property owner to the north, who is under the same ownership, has agreed to the proposed shading.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP :
391 E 14BB; TAX LOT 1300
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
96
i
RAN DY S1` -
i
252
2~0 -
t cted by solar variance - ~q
/f
SUBJECT PARCEL: DRAGERST
(Requesting Solar Variance)
622 Drager St
39 1 E 04 BC 402
0 10 20 40 Feet
I
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
i
G:\comm-dev\planning\Templates\NOTICE_Pianning Commission_Type Il.doc
SOLAR WAIVER CRITERIA
18.70.060.6.2 Approval Criteria
2. The Staff Advisor finds that;
a. The variance does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future buildings; and
b. The variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a habitable structure on an adjacent lot.
c. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
I
I
I
i
l
I
i
G:\comm-dev\planning\Templates\NOTICE_Planning Commission _Type ILdoc
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 6100 PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 400 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 159
BLACK MARJORIE LOVERING CHAMBERS SYLVIA DOVZAK CARRIE
TRUSTEE ET AL 655 ALTAMONT 590 ELIZABETH AVE
744 PALMER RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 5000 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 160 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 163
ETTERS TERRY R/DEBORAH A KALB JOHN M/SHARI L MACDONELL DOUGLAS M/SUE M
PO BOX 954 580 ELIZABETH ST 150 HIGH ST
KLAMATH FALLS OR 97601 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 420 PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 6200 PA-2012-01321 391 E05AD 161
MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT LLC MCKENZIE MICHAEL TRUSTEE PALOMA P MARIE
2532 OLD MILL WAY ET AL 570 ELIZABETH_AVE
ASHLAND OR 97520 6597 CANE LN ASHLAND OR 97520
VALLEY SPRINGS CA 95252
PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 5900 PA-2012-01321 391 E04BC 5800
PATTON CLAY/LAURIE WOOD WANDA JO TRUSTEE FBO
265 RANDY ST 275 RANDY ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
14
10/25/2012
622 Drager
,E
i
i
i
t ~ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
I log 4100 4WO
Map Maker
A _ . - ° Application
Property Data Online Legend
L - Hlghllphted Feature
4WO 140 a
11 theeuHer
- - m y m
42M 4420
a theBuHerTarget
I__r 470 3WO TaxLott3utllnes
Tax Lot Numbers
I I ~ m
- I~db
147 14g 14-5 ftl
moo ;530
167 US f '}a uv 5 9 L' L r i
'r, ti L I
34 113
1
E _y
of I11 ~ e
4111 410
l
411
417 41 ~'a 1i; a 91;3
412 Wit
t
!
S" 15100
1 e m
i
f - _
_
1213 12'02
513 1265
ff" 11 F.104
n ,
a u
!
" 8160
102
JACKSON
79" lHo
- COUNTY
F i
- -..s -
74W III are gnii
t' w, I
This ma Is based on a digital database
compiled by Jackson County From a variety
kson County cannot accept
6 i _ of sources""
- } a i _ l u1 I - responsibily for errors, omissions, or
-----_.~I~x.rL_ Positional accuracy. There are no
warranties, expressed or implied.
Created with MapMaker Map created on 1012512 012 10:45:05 AM using web.jacksoncounly.org
Please recycle with colored office grade paper
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On October 25, 2012, 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #2012-01321, 622 Drager.
Signature of Employee
}
i
I
1
i
i
i
G:Icomm-devl lanninglTemplateslTEMPLATE-Affidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Nofice.dot 1 012 512 01 2
URBANDEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LL
LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
i
I
City of Ashland October 12, 2012
Attn: Michael Pina
59 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: ADDENDUM: Solar Access Waiver; 622 and 664 Drager Street (391E 04BC
404 and 402) C
Based on our recent meeting regarding the Solar Access Waiver request for the property at 622
Drager Street (Tax Lot 402), attached are revised drawings that should replace the drawings
submitted previously on September 14th, 2012. The revisions are in direct response to our
conversation regarding the subdivision's original Findings of Fact stating that all lots would be
considered as Class "A" lots, but that the municipal code does provide for exceptions when it can
be determined the solar waiver request does not preclude reasonable use of solar energy nor
diminishes any substantial solar access on the adjacent lot at 664 Drager Street (Tax Lot 404).
The applicants believe the revisions clearly meet the criteria for a Solar Access Variance. As
illustrated on the west elevation of Sheet A3.0, the original plan submitted on September 14th,
2012, has been severely modified and reduced in height of the roof line and to further address
staff's comments as well the criteria for solar access waiver approval.
Specifically, the west elevation shows three dashed lines representing the circumstances of the
property. One dashed line represents the original house's roof line (September 14th, 2012
version). The second dashed line represents the actual shadow line at the peak of the roof and the
third dashed line represents a shadow line from a 6'-0" fence, on the top of a short retaining wall
which reflects the "actual" shadow line that would occur on any house - single or two story -
due to the 2' of grade change between the two properties. Note: the actual short retaining wall
will be approximately 18" in height as there will be a short 3" step from each of the adjacent
house's actual finished floor height.
The applicants contend the revisions and the illustration of the fence and short retaining wall
between the two homes represents the intent of the Solar Access Ordinance, Section 18.70.060
B. 1. and 2 for the purpose of obtaining a Solar Access Variance, as the height difference
between the two are minimal. Specifically, the standard 24/2 degree shadow line from the top of
the fence and the proposed shadow line from the peak of the roof are roughly 2' in difference. In
doing so, the floor to ceiling height on each of the floors has been limited to only 7' in height and
some of the second floor rooms have been reduced in size to accommodate staff's request and
the ordinances intent. These changes, coupled with the placement of the garage and limited
window area of the house on Tax Lot 404 meets the Solar Waiver criteria.
Attachments:
Attached is the Solar Access Waiver Agreement, Property Description (Exhibit A), Solar Access
Shadow Plan (Exhibit B), Accessor's Map of surrounding properties, the west elevation of the
proposed residence on Tax Lot 404 and a floor plan of the two adjacent residences (partial).
In particular, the west elevation of the proposed residence on Tax Lot 404 best illustrates the
property owner's efforts to design a home that not only addresses the physical constraints of the
property, but also mitigates the Solar Access request. Specifically, the grade of the home is based
on the driveway's access point off Drager Street which is along the elongated side of the lot in
order to maintain the City's access management standards, but because the lot slopes to the north
-.02375 (2%), the home sits slightly taller along the north property line and 2' taller than the
neighboring house on Tax Lot 404. The elevation also shows how the project Architect located
the vast majority of the homes internal second floor space onto the south side of the residence
and manipulated the roof form in order to mitigate the request and still maintain a house design
that is consistent with the architectural characteristics and massing of the neighborhood.
18.70.060 Variance Procedure & Findings:
The applicant is requesting the entitlement under Section AMC 18.70.060 A. (Variances for
Solar Access), which states:
A. Variances to this Chapter shall be processed as a Type I procedure, except that
variances granted under subsection B of this Section may be processed as a Staff Permit.
i
The property owner has thoroughly evaluated the circumstances of the request, considered
mitigations (as noted below), but believes the request is reasonable and does not diminish any
substantial solar access on Tax Lot 402. As such, the property owner is requesting an expeditious
decision and a Staff Permit process.
The criteria for a Solar Access Variance is found under AMC 18.70.060 B. which is noted below
followed by the property owner's and applicant's findings that justify the request. For
clarification, the criteria are noted in italic font and the findings in bold font.
B. A variance may be granted with the following findings being the sole facts considered
by the Staff Advisor:
1. That the owner or owners of all property to be shaded, sign and record with the County
Clerk on the affected properties' deed, a release form supplied by the City, which contains
the following information:
a. The signatures of all owners or registered leaseholders who hold an interest in the
property in question.
b. A statement that the waiver applies only to the specific building or buildings to which
the waiver is granted
c. A statement that the solar access guaranteed by this Section is waived for that
particular structure and the City is held harmless for any damages resulting from the
waiver.
d. A description and drawing of the shading which would occur, and
Attached is a Solar Access Waiver Agreement, provided by the City of Ashland, which
includes the information, described under AMC 18.70.060 B. The agreement is completed
and a description and drawing of the proposed shadow is attached.
2. The Staff Advisor finds that:
a. The variance does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by future
buildings; and
The property owner and applicant believe the proposal does not preclude the "reasonable
use of solar energy" on the property of 664 Drager Street (Tax Lot 402) as the attached
documents illustrate a normal and reasonable roof height on the north side of the house on
Tax Lot 404 which then casts its solar shadow on the south facing wall of the planned
residence of Tax Lot 402. In this case, because the shadow is only being casted on the wall
and not the roof of the home, access to solar energy (i.e., solar photovoltaic panels or
similar instruments as described in AMC 18.70.020 F.) and natural solar access remains
available. Further, considering the actual shadow being carted during the time period of
December 20 is directed more to the "front" or garage of the home on Tax Lot 402, the
majority of the property's rear yard is available for ground mounted solar energy systems.
In the applicant's opinion, the proposal meets this criterion as it does not preclude the
reasonable use of solar energy for future buildings.
b. The variance does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a habitable
structure on an adjacent lot.
Similar to Criterion a. above, the property owner and applicant believe the proposal does
not diminish any "substantial solar access" on the structure to be built at 664 Drager Street
(Tax Lot 402) as the attached documents illustrate a normal and reasonable roof height on
the north side of the house on Tax Lot 404 which then casts its solar shadow on the south
facing wall of the planned residence of Tax Lot 402; a wall that is depicted on the floor
plans as unheated garage space and office space, but with no windows along this elevation.
In this case, the shadow being casted onto the adjacent lot to the north is only shadowing
non-heated areas or areas that have limited natural solar benefits for the home's internal
tk,
spaces. Again, because of the actual shadow being carted during the time period of
December 21St (Winter Solstice) is directed more to the "front" or garage of the home on
Tax Lot 402, the proposal does not diminish substantial solar access to the habitable
portion of the structure.
c. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
The property owner and applicant both contend there are unique or unusual
circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. First, within
the subdivision itself, Tax Lot 404 has the narrowest north-south lot dimension of 51' and
does not have a street, alley or open space area to its north where solar access standards
incorporate flexibility into the regulating formulas (AMC 18.70.020. D.). The next closest
lots within this subdivision that have a narrow north-south dimension is Tax Lot 411 and
its dimension is 62' and is an internal tax lot with a side setback vs. a street side setback as
Tax Lot 404.
Overall, the property owner and applicant believe the request has been fully vetted in
relationship to a number of factors and concluded it is necessary and reasonable. The approval
will allow an attractive residence that will be compatible with its surrounding neighbors within
the subdivision. The applicant does have a local buyer who desires to reside on this property and
within a house that does have a small second floor for a home office and for guest
accommodations. In the applicant's opinion, the home addresses the needs of both the City as
well as the proposed buyer and still maintains the architectural character of the home's currently
built and planned for the subdivision.
i
i
i
c
i
E
i
I
I
i
Community Development - Planning Department
20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520
Phone 541-488-5303 Fax 541-488-6006
SOLAR ACCESS WAIVER AGREEMENT
Planning Action # For County Use
E
e
Address of Property Requesting Solar Waiver
Tax Lot # of Property Requesting Solar Waiver
Address of Property Agreeing to Solar Waiver ,
Legal Description of Property Agreeing to Solar Waiver (Attach, if necessary) )
C
The undersigned, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, consent to permit obstruction of their solar access
rights described in Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Municipal Code on that portion of property in Township 39, Range 1 East,
Section 1 _ Tax Lot # further described by legal description in the attached Exhibit "A".
The undersigned certify and agree to the following:
1. This agreement shall be binding upon their heirs, successors and assigns and shall run with the land.
2. The undersigned are the owners of the property described on Exhibit "A".
3. This waiver applies only to the specific building(s) noted in the attached Exhibit "B"; and to the shadow(s) cast by
such building(s) as noted in Exhibit "B".
4. The solar access rights described in Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Municipal Code are waived only for that
buildable space shown on Exhibit "B" and the City of Ashland is indemnified and shall be held harmless for any
damages resulting to any person or property resulting from this waiver,
5. The consideration for this agreement is $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
acknowledged by the undersigned.
i
Property Owner(s) Agreeing to Solar Waiver V'-
Signature Date
Signature Date
State of Oregon )
County of Jackson)
On this day of r 20 before me personally appeared, t se n
whose identity was proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and
acknowledged that he (she) (they) executed the same.
d, - _j
" Motary 6 Ut 1 l rri~ ir~~ Commission Expiration Date
~rf It are,
tI E [ d
( I6p~V6v" 6yi,G~IiIE~~F ;t` , e 9~ NOTARY PiJSLID-ORE6Co-
OI~Iv1Is ~It1i 1 a COMMISSION No. 436232
MISSION EXPIRES MAR. 20, 201
"t3NIMISSION FXVIRE, CON
Approved by City of Ashland Planning Staff Date
G:\comm-devWanningTonns&Handauls\Solar Waiver Agreement.doc 811912009
Exhibit
r,
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 346I.ASTMAII~1 STREET'
M1 LAND, OREGON 97520
7 u 1~ (541}488-( RAC 4WI104
U
(emA for all dooments: ashland@ameri-tille com)
Royce Real Estate Services, Inc. August 20, 2012
145 E. Main Street Report #2
Ashland, OR 97.520 Escrow Number : AS0798794
Escrow Officer: Eva Vineyard
Attn: Eric Sonetti Title Number 0798794
Title Officer Susan Moore
Your Reference: Florian/
Magnolia Investment LLC
PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FOR:
664 Drager Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Policy or Policies to be issued: Liability Premium
Owners Standard Coverage $475,000.00 $975.00
Reduced Rate
Lien Search $25.00
E
$380,000.00 $433.00
209.3-06, 208.1-06, 222-06 $100.00
Elimination Ind. (2) $100.00
Early Issue (upon approval) $660.00
Proposed Insured: To Follow
We are prepared to issue ALTA (06/17/06) title insurance policy(ies) of Old Republic
National Title Insurance Company, in the usual form, insuring the title to the land
described as follows:
Lot Seventeen (17) of Helman Springs Homes, Phase 1, a Planned Community in the City
of Ashland, recorded on June 14, 2010 in Volume 36, Page 5, Survey No. 20689, according
to the official plat thereof, now of record
For Informational purposes only, the following is included:
l
(Map No. 391E048C, Tax Lot 402, Account No. 1-099606-0, Code 5-01) j
i
i
and dated as of August 3, 2012 at 7:30 a.m., title is vested in:
Magnolia Investment LLC
The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Report
and covered herein is:
Fee Simple
- M
r
i
i
I r
I
j 'i 3oam I
j I
i
>c. - --J-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
oij
/
qqyy ,
HIV ! 11 R / ~ f ~ ,a
F
\i. Y
i
e\ IHn ' I
y. II
o
NY' n V 9
d ~ c \ \ \ ouu, I
E
A ~~n
L i j-0
--1S.1ONVE
U ~
_ z z
LLJ O
a r)
Z h Q
0o z z
ow Q 0 a
30 cn
tiCl J W
N 0 ] t tai w
I II I i
I I I
I I i
I I I
I I I
I I _ I I I it ~
I I _ I i I
I I _ ~ amv t 4 I
.~n6-.E .O:Ga sz ~
I ~0
I
7 IIII i ~ . ~
I
IIII i I ~
I
IIII
1
I I
I
I
f
- a
, I I
I
~ ao
~ tl
I I I 77 I 1 ' w
I 1~ ~ I L ~I I' i t~l
I 1 I I ,II ~ u a3e~ -
I ~ ~ I ~ II I , _ I
I I ~
LLJ
LLI
A ~ 0 I I ®
e a e 0 ~1 0
r
r
LJJ
a
~
- U U
V
U
CO
I I I
I I
I I I ~
I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I
a w
CS
°a z
F-
°w ® Q
V)
Z i
do a ~ J W
NO] tLLL w
r-------------------------------------------------
I
I
I I
~ s-ae
I
I
~ s. .g.LZ rt-.L zs-s .P.L I
I
I
I
I O O ~
I ,
I
I I
~ I I
I I I I
~ I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I ~
~I I I ~ I
I I I ~
I I I I I
I I w l / I I
I j I a I V'. I
I I Q I ~ I
I I ~ I I I
, ~ I I I
, I ~ I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I i
I I ~ I
I I it
o I o I
~ I
I ° ¢ O I
I la I
I P I
I I ~ K~ 0 i. I
O ` w a
I
I I I I
I I ~ ~
I I I o 41 I
I ~ I ~ ~ O I I
''I ILQ
I I I g -
I I ~ I o I
I 5 I I
I I I I
I I I
I I O a I
I V
I I
I ~ I
I L_ 1~ _ J I I
I
S a
o ~ I I
" o I
o o
m o I=
I o I
m
I
I I
m r
o o - _
a m I
I Z ~ ,
I I
~ I o
LLJ I el
Iii
I ~ ' ; 6o J Q
_ J [/1
LA
u CIA
z O
'Q ~o 02-
a y Lu .-a
oZ h
K Q d z z
Z°~a Q
z
3: 0
w Q 0
Z z ° LL w LLJ
N O]
-
0
m o 4
o
0 0
00
4
o -
0
- ~ m Z
o
o ~
3
O O
Ii
vit.9 z~l-At ,.U.f
LL OJ
.9 .0 _
ILI
Q
U
N
v
' ZONING MIT APPLICATION
' Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE m` t
ASHLAND
f
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO
Street Address 622 J"),rot
Assessor's Map No, 39 1 E a Tax Lot(s)
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name I Phone 00 1/3 -S ft~ E-Mail
Address r f Q2 j0d/ ~vav City 1 (1,1161 ,,;(1 zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name tL. Z-t I Phone (IE-Mail
Address er ..err?! ~'Lt!Z IZi ` -f
City Zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish,
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground,
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
bet removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
- ~P Ll
AP ant's S pature - Date j
I
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
f
J-J/ 1
Property OWneSi nature (required) Date
rs
[To be completed by City Staff]
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ r <
OVER 0
C:\Documents and Settintis\lucma:,Desktop,Zoninp Permit Application.doc j
Job Address: 622 DRAGER Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
A Owner's Name: MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT LLC C Phone:
Customer 06201 State Lic No:
P MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT LLC T City Lic No:
L Applicant: 2532 OLD MILL WAY R
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (510) 913-5110 T Address:
N Applied: 09/14/2012 0
T Issued:
Expires: 03/13/2013 R Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: 391 E04BC404 City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Solar Setback Variance
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
I
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
i
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
I
Solar Setback Variance 982.00
I
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I
i
i
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY F