HomeMy WebLinkAboutAllison_400_PA-2013-00389
CITY
-iNkSHLAND
January 10, 2013
P1usPower Buildings, LLC
c/o Christer Cederoth
180 Nutley St.
Ashland OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #2012-01414
Notice of Final Decision
At its meeting of December 11, 2012, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland Planning Commission denied your request for a Minor Land Partition, a Variance, and an Exception to
the Street Standards for the property located at 180 Nutley Assessor's Map # 39 lE 08AD; Tax Lot 5600.
The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders for denial
document on January 8, 2013. The Planning Commission decision becomes effective on the 13th day after the
Notice of Final Decision is mailed.
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.
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.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 f '
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900
L
wmashland,orms '
SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type H 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 parry, 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.B.
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 =
www.ashland.onus
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
I
I
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
l
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 J
www.ashland.or.us
I
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 11, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2012-01414, A REQUEST FOR )
MINOR LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS, THE EXISTING )
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WOULD REMAIN AT 180 NUTLEY AND ) FINDINGS,
THE NEW ACCESSORY GUEST HOUSE WOULD BE CONVERTED TO A ) CONCLUSIONS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON SCENIC. THE REQUEST INCLUDES A ) AND ORDERS
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. )
)
APPLICANT: Power Plus Homes LLC }
.............d -
RECITALS:
I) Tax lot #5600 of Map 39 IE 08AD is located at 180 Nutley Street and is zoned Single Family
Residential (R-1-7.5).
2) The applicants are requesting minor land partition approval 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. A Variance to reduce the required rear yard setback
from 20-feet to 10 % feet was also proposed. The applicant also requested an Exception to Street
Standards to not install sidewalks along the Scenic Drive frontage. The details of the applicant's plans
are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development, j
3) The criteria for Minor Land Partition approval are described in 18.76.050 as follows:
An application for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist;
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the
land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
F. lAfhen there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as
determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water,
sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the
nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of
the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done
under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land
partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved
PA 42012-01414
January 8, 2013
Page 1
Ili
collector or arterial street,
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten
percent.
2, Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant
shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the
subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to
participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the
formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs
thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and
the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of
the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall
be denied,
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from
the alley and prohibited from the street.
The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.050,F as
follows:
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section
18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the
following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B, The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
The criteria for a Variance are described in 18,100.020 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B, That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development
of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City,
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed,
{
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December
11, 2012 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission
denied the application, noting that the application had failed to meet the burden of proof for approval of the
Variance request.
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:
PA 92012-01414
January 8, 2013
Page 2
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an 110"
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 Variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback
from 20-feet to 10 %2 feet does not establish a unique or unusual circumstance which applies to the
subject site which does not typically apply elsewhere. The Planning Commission finds that the
oversized corner lot is unusual, but the placement of the accessory guest house too close to what
becomes the rear property line upon partition thereby necessitating the variance request was not a unique
circumstance. The Planning Commission finds the application does not satisfy the approval criteria
18.100.020.A for a Variance which requires that there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply
to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that Variance to the rear yard setback will have negative
impacts on the development of the adjacent uses as the Variance mostly affects the neighbor's property
to the West. The Planning Commission finds that the purpose of established setbacks is to provide
protections for adjacent property owners, The Planning Commission finds that the ability to partition the
lot would further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City by
providing additional density in close proximity to the city center, but that the negatives of the impact to
the neighbor properties outweigh the benefits. The Planning Commission finds the application does not
satisfy the approval criteria 18.100.020.13 for a Variance which requires that the proposal's benefits will
be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the circumstances that lead to the Variance was a self
imposed situation which according to testimony at the public hearing was attributed to the applicant's
representatives at the time of planning and constructing the guest house. The guest house was
constructed to the side yard setbacks of the code, and met the requirements at that time. However, in
order to partition the parent parcel into two lots, what was the side yard would become the rear yard for
the Scenic Dr./guest house lot upon partition. As a result, what was a side yard in the parent parcel
would become a rear yard for the Scenic Dr./guest house proposed lot. The guest house structure was
placed closer to the proposed potential new rear property line than is permitted, and created a generous
front yard area. The Commission finds that there would have been adequate space to move the guest
house towards Scenic Dr, an additional 9 %2 feet to meet the rear yard setback requirement, and there are
no physical constraints that would have prevented the shift in footprint. As a result, the structure could
have been placed in position to meet the rear yard setback requirement in anticipation of a future
partition request. The Planning Commission finds the application does not satisfy the approval criteria
18.100,020.C for a Variance which requires that the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully
or purposely self-imposed.
PA #2012-01414
January 8, 2013
Page 3
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the evidence contained within the record of the matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that the proposal for variance to the rear yard setback is not supported by evidence contained
within the record.
3.2 Therefore based on our overall conclusions, Planning Action 2012-01414, a request for a minor land
partition, variance to the rear yard setback and exception to the street standards, is denied.
t
January 8 2013
Planning Commission Chair Date
i
i
f
l
t
I
PA #2012-01414
January 8, 2013
Page 4
i
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5700 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 6000 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 8100
ARCHIBALD SANDRA WRAY COOPER PHILIP G TRUSTEE ET AL CURTIN PATRICK TRUSTEE ET AL
TRUSTEE ET AL 144 NUTLEY ST 942 SHEVLIN DR
1023 LINDA AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 EL CERRITO CA 94530
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5200 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4801 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 2400
FARMER RODNEY UMARY LINDA FAWCETT KENNETH/LANA FORSYTH ROBYN HELEN
196 NUTLEY ST 55 SCENIC DR 66 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
Y
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 2401 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5201 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5202
FOSTER THOMAS G III TRUSTEE ET GILBERT ROBERT/ESMY GILBERT ROBERT/ESMY J
AL 130 ALNUTT 22 SCENIC DR
147 NUTLEY ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 6002 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5500 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5303
JACQUOT SUSAN MARSH ET AL JOST GREGORY W TRUSTEE ET AL KATZEN BARRY M TRUSTEE
124 NUTLEY 39 SCENIC DR 29 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 7300 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5600 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4802
MILLS ARLENE M TRUSTEE ET AL PLUSPOWER BUILDINGS LLC RHOADES DON B/MARY ELLEN
34 SCENIC DR 3996 LITTLE APPLEGATE RD 51 SCENIC DRIVE
ASHLAND OR 97520 JACKSONVILLE OR 97530 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 2300 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4800 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5401
ROBERTS FRED C TRUSTEE FBO SCHMELING MAX STAHMANN JOYCE ET AL
143 NUTLEY ST 450 RAY LN 2305 C'ASHLAND ST 440
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4900 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5701 Pa-2012-01414
STOKES CHRISTINE A TROMBLY T J/JODI
215 NUTLEY ST 44 SCENIC DR Urban Development Services
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 485 W Nevada St
Ashland, OR 97520-1043
{ R
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 24, 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 #2012-01414, 180 Nutley.
Signature of Employee
Glcomm-devlplanninglTemplateslTEMPLATE_Affidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Nodce.dot 10/2512012
CITY F
SH LAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 11, 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:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Eric Heesacker Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Mike Morris
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements: 1) the City Council did not pass first reading
of the Housing Needs Analysis and decided to revisit this document at their February 4, 2013 Study Session, 2) the City
Council's goal setting is scheduled for January 26, 2013, and 3) the Planning Commission is scheduled to discuss possible
code changes for short term vacation rentals at their January 22, 2013 Study Session.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. November 13, 2012 Regular Meeting.
2. November 27, 2012 Special Meeting.
Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
[Commissioner Kaplan abstained from the 11/13/12 minutes approval due to his absence from that meeting; Commissioners
Brown and Heesacker abstained from the 11//27/12 minutes approval due to their absence from that meeting.]
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2012.01321, 622 Drager.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Kaplan/Miller m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2012-01321. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
I
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2012.01414
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Nutley Street
APPLICANT: PowerPlus Building/Christer Cederroth
i
Ashland Planning Commission
December 11, 2012
Page 1 of 6
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.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Heesacker, Dawkins, and Kaplan declared site visits; No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the application before the Commission is for a minor land partition to create two
parcels, as well as a variance request to the rear yard setback requirement and an exception to the Street Standards to not
install sidewalks on Scenic Drive. Ms. Gunter stated the existing single family residence would remain at 180 Nutley and the
accessory guest house would be converted to a single family residence and accessed off Scenic Drive. Ms. Gunter stated
parcel one, as proposed, would comply with the dimensional standards, setbacks, lot coverage, and solar access requirements;
however, parcel two will need to have its property line adjusted 2 inches to meet the lot width to depth ratio. Ms. Gunter
explained the main concerns regarding this application are with the variance request to the rear yard setback requirement. She
explained the property owner recently constructed a guest house on the property and at that time the structure complied with
the setback requirements, however if this lot partition is approved, the front of parcel two becomes Scenic Drive and the guest
house structure was built 10.5 feet from the property line, and 20 feet is required. Ms. Gunter clarified the lot is large enough to
have more than one parcel created out of it, and staff believes findings could be made for the exception to the Street Standards,
but staff does not believe the criteria has been met for the variance to the rear yard setback requirement, specifically that this is
a self-imposed circumstance.
Commissioner Dawkins questioned what would happen if this application is denied. Ms. Gunter explained the situation would
stay as it is - the structure would remain as an accessory guest house with no kitchen facilities permitted. She added the
applicants do have a few options, including: 1) either adding on or dividing one of the structures so that one is twice as large as
the other and then go through the conditional use permit process for an accessory residential unit, or 2) apply for a variance to
the size ratio requirement for an accessory residential unit. Ms. Gunter clarified an accessory residential unit is required to be
half the size of the primary structure and no more than 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner Heesacker questioned if it is possible to create a flag lot so that parcel two is accessed off Nutley. Ms. Gunter
explained staff did discuss this option with the applicant early in the process and the applicant could speak to this further,
Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Planning Division was aware that the applicant intended to partition the lot when the guest
house building permit was issued. Ms. Gunter explained the applicant and staff had held a pre-application conference prior to
the issuance of the building permit.
Applicant's Presentation
Alan Harperl130 A Street/Land Use Attorney/Handed out a copy of the variance criteria and the definition of the word
"willfully" (see Exhibit #2012-05). Mr. Harper stated he has never seen a provision like criteria C, which states "That the
circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposefully self imposed", and stated a person does not act "willfully" if
the action is a result of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law.
Christer CederrothlProperty Owner/Stated he had hired an architect to assist him with partitioning the lot and creating a
second structure and thought the architect had everything under control. He stated he did not look at the architect's documents
and was under the impression they had permission to do this. Mr. Cederroth explained he has always intended to split the lot
and did not realize there was an issue with the setbacks until after building construction had begun.
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Applicant's Representative/Clarified they did consider making parcel two a flag lot but it is too
short to do this. He commented that the variance criteria are not specific to physical constraints on the property and believes
Ashland Planning Commission
December 11, 2012
Page 2 of 6
there are unique circumstances about this situation. Mr. Knox commented that the property owner does not want to increase the
size of either structure in order to pursue the accessory residential unit designation, and stated if the loft had been placed on the
other side of the guest house structure this would not bean issue. He stated this structure is going to remain regardless of what
is decided tonight and believes there would be less impact to the neighbors if their proposal is approved. Mr. Knox concluded by
stating he feels strongly that this situation was not willfully imposed by the proposed owner.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Knox was asked to address the criteria and explain what their unique circumstance is. Mr. Knox replied this is a half-acre
parcel with a 2.9 density factor, it is in the R-1-7.5 zone, and is already out of compliance for depth. Additionally, this is unique in
that these are legal pre-existing buildings and because this is a corner lot, partitioning the lot switches the setback requirements.
Public Testimony
Rodney Farmer/196 Nutley/Stated he is the neighbor to the west of this parcel and noted the letter he had submitted in
advance of tonight's hearing. Mr. Farmer stated he is opposed to the variance request due to possible future encumbrances on
his property and stated if approved, this action will impede the value of his lot. He acknowledged that this is a challenging
situation for Mr. Cederroth but thinks this is a self imposed circumstance. He stated in 2010 the applicant proposed a partition
and received all the relevant information explaining setbacks would be imposed; the applicant chose to not move forward with
the partition and instead built a structure 10 feet off their property line. Mr. Farmer stated they were told this was going to be a
guest house and have now learned the applicant wants a partition and a separate single family home. He stated they are not
opposed to the partition, but feels the applicant should have built in compliance with the current zoning laws.
Mr. Farmer was asked for his opinion on a solution. Mr. Farmer responded that his preference would be for the structure to
remain as a guest house. He stated it has been built as a guest house, this is what they were told it would be, and thinks this is
how it should remain.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked if this structure was originally approved as a guest house. Ms. Gunter responded staff conducted a pre-
application conference with this applicant for a minor land partition and following that meeting the applicant applied for a building
permit for a guest house (which by code is not permitted to have kitchen facilities). She clarified during the pre-application
conference the applicant did receive information on the current codes and setback requirements, and noted Mr. Farmer included
the relevant pages of the applicant's pre-application report as an attachment to his submitted letter.
Staff clarified if the structure were moved 10 feet it would meet the 20 foot setback requirement.
Comment was made that the staff report appears to focus on criteria C, and staff was asked whether they believe criteria A and
B have been satisfied. Ms. Gunter responded that she does not conclusively feel the applicant has met these standards,
however the Commission could potentially make a finding to state these have been met.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Clarified the applicants did look into the flag pole idea, but this was not a viable option, and the idea to move the
building 10 feet is possible, but the likeliness of this happening is rare. Mr. Knox stated this building mass is going to remain
regardless of what is determined tonight. He stated the applicant was not aware of the setback requirements and stated the pre-
applicant report can be difficult for the lay-person to comprehend.
Alan Harper/Stated nobody would purposefully put themselves in this position and the variance is the appropriate avenue to fix
these types of practical difficulties and hardships. Mr. Harper stated this application will have a very minor impact compared to
the hardship the property owner will face to either move the building or tear it down.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and public hearing at 8:10 pm.
i
i
Ashland Planning Commission
December 11, 2012
Page 3 of 6
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to deny Planning Action #2012-01414. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated
he empathizes with the owner but a huge mistake has been made and the impacts to the neighbor to the west cannot be
denied. He voiced his support for this structure to become a single family residence at some point in the future, but stated it
needs to comply with the setback requirements. Commissioner Miller also sympathized with the owner but stated the criteria
has not been met and the owner should have read the materials that were provided at the pre-application conference.
Commissioner Brown stated at some point the applicant changed course and decided to do something different than a guest
house and this is where the problem occurred. He voiced support for the motion and stated he does not want to encroach on the
properties that surround this parcel. Commissioner Kaplan stated he does not see how they could draft findings that would
support this application and he agrees with motion on the table. Commissioner Heesacker urged the applicant to pursue other
options, such as a variance request for the flag drive or possibly an easement, but stated he cannot approve this application as
presented. Commissioner Mindlin commented that in the past the Planning Commission has found properties to meet the
criteria for unusual circumstances that are far less unusual than this one, and stated there are benefits to dividing lots, but
agreed it is difficult to get around Criteria C. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Dawkins, Heesacker, Kaplan, Miller and
Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
I
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2012.01511
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: To adopt an updated Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a supporting document to the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan, and to amend the Street Dedication Map.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a short overview of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update. She stated the TSP
is an important resource that outlines the physical improvements, programs, and studies that need to be made over the next 20
years, and explained this application also includes an amendment to the Street Dedication Map. Ms. Harris clarified the lines on
the Street Dedication Map are conceptual and do not show the exact locations, and stated the identified roads will typically not
be built until an owner initiates development of their property. She stated staff is recommending approval of the TSP and Street
Dedication Map amendment with the following seven conditions:
1) The references to the TSP serving as the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be deleted from the
document.
2) The Historical and Projected Ashland Population in Exhibit 2-3 (pg.7) be replaced with the graph depicting the recently i
updated and adopted Jackson County coordinated population projection.
3) That the Population Density in Figure 2-4 (pg.8) be updated to include the 2010 census information.
4) That the descriptions of pedestrian facility types (pg.94) and bicycle facility types (pgs.102-103) be revised to reference
the adopted Ashland Street Standards.
5) That the updated City of Ashland Street Functional Classification Map (pg.87) be corrected to include a Neighborhood
Street classification consistent with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Street Standards.
6) That the Street Dedication Map in Figure 10-1 (pg.122) include a notation that the location of the connection from Clay
Street to Tolman Creek Road shall be determined at time of development.
7) That Project #R44 Tolman Creek-Mistletoe Streetscape Enhancements in Table 10-3 (pg.138) be revised to reflect the
improvements to Mistletoe Rd. described in the Croman Mill District Standards.
I
Lastly, Ms. Harris commented on the Fourth Street railroad crossing. She stated the TSP removes the vehicular crossing and
shows a pedestrian/bicycle crossing instead. She explained the original 1982 map included the vehicular crossing and this was
reaffirmed in the draft Railroad Master Plan, and stated staff believes this element is worthy of reconsideration. Mr. Molnar
clarified the TSP could be amended should the City desire to add a vehicle connection back on at some point in the future, but
staff wanted to raise this concern at this stage. j
Public Works Director Mike Faught addressed the Commission and clarified at the April 23, 2012 Joint Planning
Commission/Transportation Commission meeting the Planning Commission felt strongly the Fourth Street crossing should only
be a bicycle/pedestrian crossing and the Transportation Commission felt it should be vehicular. He stated this came back for
Ashland Planning Commission
December 11, 2012
Page 4 of 6
i
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please print)
Address (no P.O. Box) -
Phone Email
Tonight's Meeting Date
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constr^airrts limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Continents and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
m
Q
~-t o
Lr)
u®Zax `puri7qsV N o 2
a~ o _
_ c
m W f
o•
I[amaTa;S w
I
GV
v'J
CV
p II
I m m
M P. m ..a
o dw
~ o •m
I m d
~ W U m
a xm
I
iv xooN pag
,02
~I
i
m
Uat o m
r, - U020.10 "PUPlqsv
0 42 C LO
cm asnOH
I I i°
w U o E~ \ i _
6 'i F
~3 ' d q A
C ~
,a~0-,9 as x
txo F
0
O
W I
O ~
d C pp
F.
h a, U
u]
N
1` n
I I p II ~
a mw
F d aoi
00 a
w .C F
a° x in
,OT ,01
I
I
I
I
I
m
zlA o
.
.2 OL~ asnOH
4-f U)
S q4oijapaD
\ zJ W
V)
fl
~x
fl LL'
s: Q o ° ° o o
~ c ~ I t I I
n oo i/
I ii I o
I i~ I
I i I
I i
% o 0
jo
I/
,I I
~ I d I
i ~ I y I
m
o j. x
m ~ j I K I
w
I I
\ I I
I
„~JT
~o 0
I\
\ o o
I \
\ o
\
I w
I
o I
I I
oo
I I
0 0
I
Lf) IA uI sv t
Q
rL ii
o '2 asnOH
(D -d~
U
E~ \ i z
s
t/) E 4 P +
~ S> fl N N fl
W
iF
Y
I
I
00
i
i/I j
I j l o
i
li j I
j I
°a: / I d I I
°
y I I I
~ al I o !
I I ~
I I I
oa
-
I
i
i
I
I
City of Ashland
I~l nni~ t, l xhiJ
18.100.010 Variances - Purpose
~TAfF
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent
with the general purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of
certain provisions thereof, variance may be granted as provided in this
Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is not in
conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the district in which the
land is located. In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions
similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of
the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the
City as a whole.
18.100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such
application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and
plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to
be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing
that all of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on
the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and
intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425
S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or
purposely self'imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
WILLFULLY
Committed voluntarily and purposely, with the specific intent to do
something; voluntarily and intentionally assisting or advising another to
do something that the person knows disobeys or disregards the law.
person does not act "willfully" if the person acts as a result of a
good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law.
Letter from Rodney Farmer and Mary L. Farmer, 196 Nutley Street, Ashland, Oregon for
entry into the Public Record of the Ashland Planning Commission Meeting: December
11, 2012.
Planning Action: 2012-01414
Subject Property: 180 Nutley Street
Submitted December 10, 2012
Recently Mr. Cederroth informed us of his intention to have a lawyer represent him
at the planning commission hearing. We thus felt it most proper to submit our response
in writing regarding his request for a variance so as to leave no misunderstandings.
On July 7, 2010, Mr. Cederroth and his professional architect Mr. Duffle, went through a
pre-application meeting with the Ashland Planning Staff for a partition of his lot. At that
time, Mr. Duffle signed a pre-application check off sheet for all applicable items
including building set back requirements.
In August 2010 we reviewed the partition plan and survey map. We had no issue with
the partition application. We have resided at 196 Nutley Street since November of 1985
and have known since that time that the lot at 180 Nutley could be partitioned into two
parcels.
Subsequently, we were told by Mr. Cederroth's personal assistant Ms. Hamilton
that the original plan had been changed and a guest house would be built instead
of a single family residence.
At the time of the excavation for the guest house foundation, we verified the common
property boundary line with the contractor Mr. Stiritz.
Ms. Hamilton informed us in October 2012 that an application for a partition of the lot
had been submitted to the Ashland Planning Department. We learned of the setback
variance request upon receiving the mailing from the Ashland Planning Department.
We have since reviewed the Planning Division Staff Report, the Project Description and
Findings of Fact by Urban Development Services, LLC and other pertinent documents.
We are in agreement with the Ashland Planning Staff that the variance criterion have not
been met and further that the conditions have been self-imposed. We do not abide by the
common cliche "rather that ask for permission - beg forgiveness".
Mr. Cederroth assembled a team of state licensed professionals to accomplish his goals.
Since they had known of his intention to partition the lot as of July 2010, certainly
someone would have been knowledgeable of the Standard Yard Requirements by
reading Ordinance 18.24.040.
We believe yard setback rules have been established to maintain fire safety, neighbor
privacy and sound/visual buffering. The design of the guest house "as built" appears to
us to have it's main ingress/egress from the French doors opening north towards Nutley
Street. The west side now includes a door and porch in place of a window (initial design)
that decreases privacy, etc. should a structure adjacent on Tax Lot 5200 be built in the
future. If a partition is granted, Mr. Cederroth's single family residence would likely
have increased noise and decreased privacy on a daily basis as compared to a guest
house. The required 20 foot setback would mitigate this potential disturbance.
In reviewing Mr. Knox's Findings of Fact document we submit the following:
On page 13: "If a second floor deck above the first floor in this same space existed---".
What is the intention of this statement? Dealing with hypothetical situations does not
support Findings of Fact.
On page 14: "the structure, regardless of side or rear setback, has little impact on
the adjacent property to the west." We agree at this time there maybe minimal impact.
However, decisions being made now may have long term consequences should the
decision to build an accessory unit/ guest house on the 196 Nutley St. lot be made.
Additionally, the description "that the subject building "second floor" is actually a very
small 153 square foot "loft" space" is inaccurate. In fact, according to the Jackson
County Assessment record the loft is approximately 220 square feet with an additional
exterior wall extension supporting a private bathroom. One might assume this is a
second story living space. Page 5 of the Planning Staff Report supports the interpretation
that the "loft" is in fact a second story (being 35% of the space below).
On page 16: "Based on conversations with the property owner, who speaks little
English" We took exception to this description of Mr. Cederroth's limited
comprehension of English. We verbally notified Ms. Hamilton (3 days before the Nov.
13 Planning Commission meeting) that this statement by Mr. Knox on behalf of Mr.
Cederroth was false. Mr. Cederroth called us the day before the meeting to claim that he
did not read Mr. Knox's report and acknowledged it as an error. Additionally he notified
us that he was postponing his November Planning presentation. We would now expect a
formal clarification of this "error" of Fact by Mr. Knox prior to the December 1 Vh
Planning meeting.
In conclusion, we are unclear as to the reasons for the circumstances that have
contributed to Mr. Cederroth's "unfortunate and irreversible error".
We ask how a partition request for a single family residence morphed into a guest house-
"cottage" and back to the original partition request from 2010,in such a short time frame?
We accept that the structure "as built" exists in its present location. It meets the criteria
for a guest house and has the proper setback. However, we believe that there are no
unique or unusual physical conditions that necessitated the structure being in its present
location and the granting of a variance thereby. Also, should the lot partition be
granted, we have concerns regarding the possible negative impact that a single family
residence (without the proper setback) would have on the firture development of our
adjacent property.
Finally, the Staff Report (Page 5) suggests that a boundary line adjustment could be
pursued in order to alleviate the variance request. Under no circumstance while we own
the land will a boundary line adjustment be an option.
specific landscaping & irrigation plan required at time of formal application. Where possible,
avoid using lawn. Provide irrigation system.
Parking, Access and Internal Circulation: As per the requirements of Chapter 18.92 Off-Street
Parking.
Lot Coverage: A maximum of 45 percent of the lot may be covered with buildings, driveways,
parking areas, walkways, and other forms of lot coverage.
Setbacks: Front yards shall be a minimum of 15 feet excluding garages. Unenclosed porches
shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any existing public
utility easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All garages accessed from
the front shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property. line; side yards, six
feet; the side yard of a corner lot abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard,
ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply
with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access.
Signs: N/A
PROCEDURE: Type I - Administrative Approval, subject to hearing on appeal, for a
Partition, Hillside Development and a Tree Removal.
APPLICATION MATERIALS: The application is required to include drawings of the
proposal (i.e. plan requirements) as well as written findings addressing the applicable approval
criteria in accordance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Chapter 18 Land Use of
the Ashland Municipal Code. The following section includes the requirements for plans and
approval criteria which are applicable to the proposal as described in the pre-application
submittals. When more than one planning approval is required for the proposal, multiple
sections of the ALUO may apply. The burden of proof is on the applicant(s) to ensure that all
applicable criteria are addressed in writing and that all required plans, written findings, and
other materials are submitted even if those items were not discussed in specific, itemized detail
during this initial pre-application conference.
Plan Requirements
Two (2) copies of the plans below on paper no larger than 11 "x 17". Note: These copies are
used for the Planning Commission packet and for the notices mailed to neighbors. Please submit
clear, reproducible copies.
Two (2) Copies of Preliminary Map for Partition as required in 18.76.030: j
The preliminary map shall have a minimum size of eight and one half (8 inches by eleven
(11) inches and contain the following information:
A. A map describing the boundaries of all contiguous land in the same ownership.
I
180 Nutley
July 7, 2010
Page S
i
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
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.
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
i
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
November 13, 2012
PLANNING ACTION: # 2012-01414
APPLICANT: Power Plus Homes LLC
LOCATION: 180 Nutley Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: October 24, 2012
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: February 22, 2012
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 Single-Family Residential Districts
18.76 Partitions
18.88 Performance Standards
18.100 Variances
REQUEST: 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.
1. Relevant Facts
A. Background ® History of Application
In April 1983, an application for a Minor Land Partition to divide the lot at 180 Nutley
Street into two parcels was approved by the Planning Commission. The partition
approval was not recorded and was extended in April 1984.
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject site is located to the southwest of the intersection of Nutley Street and Scenic
Drive. The parcel is 21,764 square feet in area. The site is zoned R-1-7.5, Single-Family
Residential, 7,500 square foot minimum lot area. The properties to the north and east are
also zoned R-1-7.5. The property to the west is zoned RR-.5, Rural Residential, 1/2 acre
minimum. There are single family residential units across Nutley, to the west and south.
Directly across Scenic is a small apartment complex. The subject site is located within
the Skidmore Academy Historic District.
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 1 of 8
The subject property has a circa 1920, 989 square foot, Historic Contributing structure,
the Robert L. Taylor house. The simple gable, single story bungalow is orientated
towards Nutley and is setback 80 feet from the street. A recently constructed 957 square
foot, two story guest house is behind the existing residence and is oriented towards
Scenic Drive, setback 35-feet to the deck. A 170 square foot (10 X 17) arbor is located
between the two structures.
There are two existing driveways on the parcel. One is along the west side yard of the
parcel accessed off of Nutley; there is a shared access easement on this driveway for the
neighboring property. The other is adjacent to the rear property line (south) accessed off
Scenic Drive. A parking area off of Scenic Drive has been created on Parcel 1 a few feet
off of the intersection of Nutley and Scenic.
The parcel has a downhill west to east slope ranging from 16 to 24 percent towards
Scenic. Some areas have been terraced and exceed 25 percent; the applicant provided a
slope analysis which demonstrates the natural slope of the property is not greater than 24
percent. There are a number of trees on the property. The trees are primarily along the
two street frontages and are a mixture of deciduous and conifer. No trees are proposed to
be removed as part of the partition proposal. There are no drainage swales, creeks or
other natural features on the property.
1. Minor Land Partition -
The proposal is to partition the existing 21,764 square foot parcel into two
parcels; Parcel 1 is proposed to be 12,326 square feet, oriented towards Nutley
Street and will have the existing single family residence, Parcel 2 is proposed to
be 9,438 square feet oriented towards Scenic Drive and will have the guest house
converted to a single family residence. The two existing driveways accessing the
parcel are to be retained one for Parcel 1 accessed off Nutley Street and the other
for Parcel 2 accessed off of Scenic Drive. The parking area at the intersection of
Nutley and Scenic is proposed to be decommissioned. No tree removal is
proposed as part of the partition.
2. Variance to Rear Yard Setback -
A variance is required because the guest house structure on Parcel 2 is a two story
structure which necessitates a 20-foot rear yard setback and the structure is 10-
feet, 6-inches from the rear property line.
3. Exception to Street Standards -
The applicant has requested an exception to the street standards to not install
sidewalks along the Scenic Drive frontage of the parcel.
II. Project Impact
The project requires a Minor Land Partition approval to divide the existing parcel into
two separate parcels. A Variance is required for the rear yard setback to be reduced from
20-feet to 10 1/2 feet, and an Exception to the Street Standards is requested to not install
sidewalks along the Scenic Drive frontage. The proposal has been scheduled for a public
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant; Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 2 of 8
hearing because Staff does not find that the proposal meets the criteria for the Variance to
the rear yard setback.
A. Minor Land Partition
The applicants propose to partition the site's 21,764 square foot lot area into two parcels.
One parcel is proposed to be 12,326 square feet in area (Parcel 1) and will have the
existing Single Family Residence. The other is proposed to be 9,438 square feet in area
(Parcel 2) and will have the existing guest house which will be converted to a Single
Family Residence. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot area for the zone.
Adequate public utilities are either in place to serve the existing and proposed parcel or
are able to be installed. The applicant has requested a variance to the required setbacks
and has requested an Exception to the Street Standards to not install sidewalk along
Scenic Drive.
Lot Line Determination, Lot Dimensions and Setbacks - Lot lines are based
on the street frontage. The lot line adjacent to the street is the front lot line,
opposite of that is the rear and the remaining two are sides. `
Corresponding to the determination of the lot lines are the lot dimensions and the
required yards or setbacks. According to Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.32.040.C.no lots shall have a width greater than its depth. The setbacks for
Single Family Residential Parcels are as follows:
Front yards shall be a minimum of 15 feet excluding garages. Unenclosed porches
shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any public
utility easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All garages
accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front
property line; side yards, six feet; side yard of a corner lot abutting a public street
shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus feet for each story in excess
of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 19.70 which
provides for Solar Access.
According to the proposal Parcel 1 complies with the dimensional requirements
and the setback since Nutley Street is the front lot line (north), opposite is the rear
(south) and the remaining two (east (Scenic) and west) property lines are the
sides. Proposed Parcel 1 complies with the dimensional standards of the AMC
with the minimum lot width exceeding 65-feet and the minimum lot depth of 80-
feet. Additionally, the setback of the structure on Parcel 1 complies and exceeds
the setbacks in the zone of 15-feet in the front yard, six feet along the west
property line, 10-feet along the side yard abutting a public street and 10-feet per
story along the rear property line.
Based on the proposal, the front lot line of Parcel 2 will be adjacent to Scenic
Drive (east), opposite of that is the rear (west) and the remaining two (north and
south) are the side property lines. The proposed average lot width of proposed
Parcel 2 is 97.32-feet. The proposed average lot depth is 97.3, in order to comply
with the dimensional standards from AMC I8.32.040.C; proposed Parcel 2 will
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 3 of 8
need to be uecreased in width by .02 feet. A condition to this effect has been
added.
Based on the location of the residential structure on proposed Parcel 2, the
majority of the setbacks are complied with including the solar access standards.
The rear yard setback is not met and the applicant has requested a variance
discussion (see below). The arbor between the structures does not appear to meet
the required minimum side yard setback of six feet and it is unclear if it complies
with the solar access standards. The applicant's findings state that the structure is
able to be modified in order to comply with the required setbacks. A condition to
this effect has been added.
CURRENT LOT CONFIGURATION PROPOSED LOTT CONFIGURATION°
tar:err,
)FRONT:
I
n
PARCEL1 C
SIDE.,
SIDE
SIDE! SIDES
REAR (PARCEL 7)':, f
.SIDE (PARCEL 2)
IREAR_t.. PARCEL2 JFRONT•i
IRE01 iSIDE I N
_ ~ fJ
I
O 1020 QFa_t N, o c.-... _2a_<,.s
Driveway and Site Access v There is a driveway along the west property line
which has a shared access easement for the adjacent property to the west. This
driveway is the proposed access for Parcel 1. A parking area for two vehicles is
proposed to be installed parallel to the existing driveway. Another driveway
accessed off of Scenic Drive is along the south property line, this is the proposed
access for Parcel 2. Additionally, there is a parking area that the property owner
created about 19-feet from the intersection, accessed off of Scenic Drive. A curb
cut was not created, the property owner drives over the curb. Due to the access
management standards which require a 35-foot separation from driveways to
intersections, this parking area cannot be permitted and has been proposed to be
decommissioned.
B. Variance
The variance request is for the structure on Parcel B to be located at 10-feet, 6-inches
from the rear property line. where 20-feet are required for a two-story structure. The
application identifies the unique and unusual circumstances as that the property is an
oversized corner lot within the R-1-7.5 zone. Additionally the application finds that the
creation of the new parcel makes the existing structure (Parcel 2 structure) non-
conforming because the property line shifting from what was the side and the rear of the
parent parcel become the front, rear and side of Parcel 2. The applicant states that the
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant; Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 4 of 8
i
second floor is a lott and that the structure could have ceiling heights just as tall without
having the setback.
According to AMC 18.08.662 the definition of a story is: That portion of a building
included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the next floor
above, except that the top story shall be the portion of the building between the tippet-
surface of the top floor and the ceiling above ...If the wall face of the zipper most floor at
the rear or side yard setback line is more than three (3) feet above the floor level below,
the upper floor shall be considered a story for the purposes of setbacks. The existing
structure is a two story according to this definition. Further, under the definition of a
mezzanine according to the Oregon Structural Specially Code (OSSQ, the loft space
created cannot be more than a third (33.3 percent) of the space below, in this case the loft
area is 35 percent of the space below, has more than seven feet of headroom and the wall
faces are more than three-feet at the rear property line.
The application identifies the positive benefit of the proposal as the grade differential
between the property to the west and the structure in question. The applicant states that
the adjacent most properties structure is more than 70-feet away.
The application states that the placement of the structure was a mis-communication
regarding how the property lines and corresponding setbacks would shift upon partition
and therefore the setbacks would be affected as well.
The variance is the minimum necessary in the sense that the structure is built and cannot
easily me modified. The property to the west does exceed minimum lot size and
potentially a boundary line adjustment could be pursued in order to alleviate the variance
request. Staffs primary concerns are that the variance criterion does not appear to be met.
Typically, variance requests and approvals are based on unique or unusual physical
conditions of the property which necessitate the placement of a structure in a certain
location due to the constraints posed by the physical condition. For example the location
of a large tree, stream, wetland or rock outcropping are typical examples of
circumstances necessitating setback reductions. Additionally, since the structure was
recently constructed, staff believes it is difficult to make a finding that the conditions
were not self-imposed.
C. Exception to Street Standards
The applicant has requested an Exception to the Street Standards in order to not install
sidewalk along Scenic Drive. The applicant's contend that there are grade issues which
would require the installation of a fairly significant retaining wall, a number of trees
would have to be removed and utility cabinets would need to be relocated or the sidewalk
would have to route around them. As stated by the application, one the City's largest
Local Improvement Districts did occur in the vicinity of this property resulting in
sidewalks along Scenic across the street. There are no other sidewalks on this side of
Scenic. A finding could be made that the slope of the property along the street frontage,
the number of trees, the number and location of the utility cabinets are all unique
circumstances which would make putting a city standard sidewalk in very difficult.
Additionally, the sidewalk would not provide connectivity to any other sidewalks on the
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 5 of 8
uphill side of Scenic Drive and there are continuous sidewalks on the other side of Scenic
Drive.
III. Procedural ® Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Minor Land Partition approval are described in 18.76.050 as follows:
An application for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options.
(Ord 2836 S8, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as
determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary
sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the
nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of
the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under
permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land
partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not
exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant
shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the
subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate
in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a
local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of
utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and
if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the
alley and prohibited from the street.
(ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008)
The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows:
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100
and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following
circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 6 of 8
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 2836, amended, 02/02/1999)
The criteria for a Variance are described in 18.100.020 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The site is oversized and had partition potential without a variance prior to the placement
of the structure. The parcels exceed the minimum lot size for the zone, the infrastructure
is in place or can be installed which supports the additional parcel. Additionally the
future uses of this parcel and the adjacent properties are not impeded by this partition.
Findings can also be made regarding the request for an exception to not install sidewalks
due to the proximity of a very comprehensive Local Improvement District, the slope of
the property along the frontage, the potential for connectivity of sidewalks along the
remaining street frontages, and that there are a number of impediments to sidewalk
installation.
As stated above, Staff's primary concerns are that the variance criterion does not appear
to be met. Typically, variance requests and approvals are based on unique or unusual
physical conditions of the property which necessitate the placement of a structure in a
certain location due to the constraints posed by the physical condition. Additionally, since
the structure was recently constructed, staff believes it is difficult to make a finding that
the conditions were not self-imposed.
Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve
the project, Staff recommends the following conditions:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified here.
2) That prior to final partition plat:
a) That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved
by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval.
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 7 of 8
b) All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and
reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final
survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division.
c) That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions prior to
signature of the final survey plat. The utility plan shall include the location
of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines
and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and
electric services.
d) The parking area adjacent to the intersection of Nutley Street and Scenic
Drive shall be re-vegetated in accordance with the applicant's proposal.
e) That the parking spaces adjacent to the driveway for Parcel 1 shall be
installed in accordance with the applicant's proposal.
g) That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the
Scenic Drive frontage prior to the signature of final survey plat. All street
trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be
installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the
Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
3) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) A modification of the building permit for the guest house on Parcel 2 will
be necessary to allow for the wiring to install a range as required.
b) Payment of applicable system development charges ( for a new residential
unit) are required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
residence on Parcel 2.
Planning Action 2012-01414 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant; Power Plus Buildings LLC Page 8 of 8
i
NPS Form 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86)
United States Department.of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register Historic
Continuation
Section Number: 7 Page: 148 Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR
411.0
KATZEN, BARRY & LINDA HOUSE 1990
29 SCENIC DR 391E08AD 5303
Architect: Straus, David Builder: Vitus Construction
Modern Period: Contemporary Non-Historic, Non-Contributing
i
Located upon a flag lot occupying the center of this block and accessed via a narrow driveway off Scenic,
this modernistic multi-story stucco-clad home was built by Vitus Construction and designed by
Medford architect David Straus. (Ashland Building Permit 90-04093)
412.0 Survey #636
MILLS VICTOR HOUSE 1927
155 STRAWBERRY LN 391E08AD 5400/5301
Architect: Clark Frank Chamberlain
Historic Contributing
This dwelling was identified as the Victor Mills House in the inventory of architect Frank Chamberlain
Clark's works. Mills purchased the property prior to 1926 according to Jackson County Assessors field
books. (JCD 126:126) and had sold a portion of the property by that time. (JCD 135:320) No
occupant during the 1940s could be identified and by 1964 the house was owned by Horace Badger.
C
The Mills House is a stucco-clad two story dwelling that exhibits a modest Spanish Colonial influence.
It retains sufficient integrity to relate its period of construction. {
413.0 I
SHERWOOD, IRVING HOUSE 1985c
35 SCENIC DR 391E08AD 5401
Modern Period: Neo-Traditional [LOG] Non-Historic, Non-Contributing
This large log structure was built in 1985 and the earliest identified owner was Irving Sherwood.
414.0
JOST, GREG & VIRGINIA HOUSE 1988c
39 SCENIC DR 391E08AD 5500
Modern Period: Neo-Traditional Non-Historic, Non-Contributing
This multi-story dwelling with natural siding and a complex roof was completed in 1988.
415.0 Survey #870
TAYLOR, ROBERT L. HOUSE 1920s
180 NUTLEY ST 391E08AD 5600
20`" Century American: Bungalow Historic Contributing
No specific information regarding the construction of this dwelling was located although Robert Taylor
is shown living at this address in 1948 and the house appears to date from the 1920s era. A simple gable
bungalow form with projecting gable porch, the structure is located facing Nutley, at the SW corner of
the intersection of Scenic. The earliest identified owners are Edgar and Alberta Grahman, who
f
P
i
Planning Department, 51 t ..n Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 a -1 LAf
I
g
PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01414
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 180 Nutley Street
APPLICANT: PowerPlus Building
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 101/2 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 391E 08AD; TAX LOT 5600
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
22:
1,7
it1 1]< 11l
SUBJECT SITE
100 NUTLEY STREET
NUTLEY Sr 39 1E Ow 6600
us ua ~
ue a i
va
g ta;
j u
ra ~
,1a
N
I
01020 40 Feet Progat tisasaefv.ak.ercranty,notscnt±nbl:
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 j
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 j
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.
Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2012\2012-01414 TII.doc
MINOR LAND PARTITION CRITERIA
Section 18.76.050 Preliminary Approval
An application for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
(ORD 2836, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City
documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street.
The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of
the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to
not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if
the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.
(ORD 2951, 2008)
VARIANCE
18.100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans
and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of
the following circumstances exist: j
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. j
(ORD 2425, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(ORD 2775, 1996)
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the
Street Standards in 18,88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter, due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter.
(ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2836, 1999)
i
i
I
i
GAcomm-dev\planningTianning ActionsTAs by Street\N\Nutley\Nutley_180\Nutley_180_12-01414 NOC. dot
( f
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5700 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 6000 ! PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 8100
ARCHIBALD SANDRA WRAY COOPER PHILIP G TRUSTEE ET AL CURTIN PATRICK TRUSTEE ET AL
TRUSTEE ET AL 144 NUTLEY ST 942 SHEVLIN DR .
1023 LINDA AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 i EL CERRITO CA 94530
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA~-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5200 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4801 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 2400
FARMER RODNEY L/MARY LINDA FAWCETT KENNETH/LANA FORSYTH ROBYN HELEN
196 NUTLEY ST 55 SCENIC DR i 66 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 2401 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5201 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5202
FOSTER THOMAS G III TRUSTEE ET : I GILBERT ROBERT/ESMY GILBERT ROBERT/ESMY J
AL 130 ALNUTT 22 SCENIC DR
147 NUTLEY ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 6002 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5500 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5303
JACQUOT SUSAN MARSH ET AL JOST GREGORY W TRUSTEE ET.AL KATZEN BARRY M TRUSTEE
124 NUTLEY 39 SCENIC DR 29 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND OR 97520. ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
I
PA-201.2-01414 391 E08AD 7300 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5600 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4802
MILLS ARLENE M TRUSTEE ET AL PLUSPOWER BUILDINGS LLC RHOADES DON B/MARY ELLEN
34 SCENIC DR `3996 LITTLE APPLEGATE RD 51 SCENIC DRIVE
ASHLAND OR 97520 JACKSONVILLE OR 97530 ASHLAND OR 97520
V
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 2300 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4800 ;'PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5401
ROBERTS FRED C TRUSTEE FBO SCHMELING MAX STAHMANN JOYCE ET AL
143 NUTLEY ST 450 RAY LN 2305 C"ASHLAND ST 440
ASHLAND OR 97520 i ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 4900 PA-2012-01414 391 E08AD 5701
STOKES CHRISTINE A TROMBLY T J/JODI Pa-2012-01414
215 NUTLEY ST 44 SCENIC DR Urban Development Services I
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 485 W Nevada St
Ashland, OR 97520-1043
. i
`PluspoWer Buildings LLC
C/o Christer Cederoth
180 Nutley St
Ashland, OR 97520_2748
~C
i
010 a ~i8illl' ESE 1+8 A n ® "00-
4 17007 _ j, g • am } INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
y~
Map Maker
420 ( 4101 Application
4300 4300 # F>' Property Data Who Legend
4112: m HtghHghtod Feature
302 4 440
410 thee
uffer
' _ X41
theBu((erTarget
4050
Tax Lot Outlines
j
3100 Tex Lot Numbers
M 'm r 4t~'~ tk 4 ` ~
4313 i`.
4304
!L5U1 ' ,
4'N 0 a
e
F Atr*
51(1 4B.01
49'i!i)
4B4k~
4.602 2401 23" 2200 2100 l ty y~ 1
,
11 I1T:_G'i ~1,
EMU _ !I
r. ~v~4fiA 3k
i it #k{t it : k ' 41~k~ I 1'
r.2(* 60a
4l it t' - r~
V`
17100 6 ij a
I
rt ,
, .
i
'600
=3~1 [1
p6j gf
i
I
1-401
02
1 ~
7660
00 d, x'44 'lot
7
r"
a WI
F
y~ _ r
1~P ST11IANI '
r . r s
tf i! a
rr I10 10 ~ JCOUNTY
1 4 I~ ! 4 € 0rCg011
60
S t~l
' This map Is based on a dlgllal database
101 compiled by Jackson County From a variety
3 of sources. Jackson County cannot accept
1 a y responsibly for errors, omissions, or
' I [ Q• ? positional accuracy. There are no
EEE 7 N B 1 warranties, expressed or Implied.
r~
Please recycle with colored office grade paper Created with MapMaker Map created on 10/23/2012 9:21:30 AM using web.jacksoncounty.org
W
P JECT DESCRIPTION AN FINDINGS OF FACT
SUBMITTED TO
CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ASHLAND, OREGON
SUBMITTED BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
485 WEST NEVADA STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
OCTOBER 5TH, 2012
Io PROJECT INFORMATION:
PLANNING ACTION: The property owner of 180 Nutley Street (see site plan below) is
requesting a single Lot Partition to divide the half acre property at 180 Nutley Street into two
parcels consisting of 12,326 and 9,438 square feet. The property owner is also requesting
approval of a Variance in order to retain an existing accessory building that does would not meet
the rear yard setback if the parcel is partitioned and a Street Exception request to sidewalks along
Scenic Drive.
Existing House
I~ i1 Y
n use f -1-`
,
i
Proposed Property Line ~f
° s Recently Removed i'
sl Guest Cottage
New House r F
ADDRESS: 180 Nutley Street U C i .
LEGAL. DESCRIPTION: 391E 08AD TL 5600
2~
APPLICANT & OWNER: LAND USE PLANNING:
Christer Cederroth Urban Development Services, LLC
180 Nutley Street 485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION
R-1-7.5 (7,500 square feet minimum lot size)
TOTAL LOT AREA:
21,764 square feet ('/2 acre)
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
Single Family Residential District, Chapter 18.20
Partitions, Chapter 18.76
Variances, Chapter 18.100
ADJACENT ZONINGIUSE:
WEST: RR-.5; Rural Residential District
EAST: R-1-7.5; Single Family Residential
SOUTH: R-1-7.5; Single Family Residential
NORTH: R-1-7.5 & R-1-10; Single Family Residential
SUBJECT SITE: R-1-7.5; Single Family Residential
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The following information has been provided by the applicants and land use consultant to help
the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors understand the proposed project. In
addition, the required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets
the Criteria as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), Sections 18.76.050 and
18.100.020.
Property Description: The property is zoned R-1-7.5 and is located on the corker of Scenic and
Nutley Streets. According to County records, the home on the property was constructed in 1900
and is a 989 square foot single story structure. The property is generally rectangular in shape
measuring 75' along Nutley Street and 244' along Scenic Drive. The property slopes
approximately 18% to the east and has a number of trees scattered around the property, none of i
which are proposed to be removed with this application.
To the south of the primary structure, a 957 square foot guest house was recently completed
which replaced a small 540 square foot residential cottage (apparently rented by previous
owners). The guest house is two-stories in height and sits 10'-6" from the side property line and
38' from the rear property line. A new driveway is to be installed with the guest house which
will extend from Scenic Drive. Parking is also available on-street and within a new driveway
3~, -t
along Scenic Drive, south of the existing house. A driveway, termed "private alley" does exist
from Nutley Street, but that driveway is encumbered by an access easement serving the parcel to
the west (Tax Lot 5200) and parked cars need to maintain clearance for access.
Recent History: The current property owner has recently replaced the small 540 square foot
single-story residential cottage and replaced it with a new two story 989 square foot residential
cottage (see photo below and attached Existing Conditions Survey and Partition Plan). Both
plans identify prior conditions as well as current conditions and illustrate the old and new
cottage's location, orientation and relationship with the site's property lines. During the
permitting process for the removal and construction of the guest cottage, there apparently was a
miss-understanding by the applicant's architect who apparently didn't understand that the city's
setback requirements "change" with corner parcels if the cozier parcel is ever proposed to be
partitioned. Although this has caused some confusion and frustration among the various parties
involved, it is the intent of this submittal to clarify that the miss-understanding was not
purposefully done and was an honest mistake.
Partition: The property is zoned R-1-7.5 with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The
property is 21,764 square feet and, according to the lot size standards, could easily be divided
into two parcels. In the applicant's case, he desires to divide the property into one 12,326 square
foot lot (Parcel 1) and a 9,438 square foot lot (Parcel 2), both of which exceed the zone's
minimum 7,500 square foot lot size by approximately 65% and 25%, respectively. In fact, it
should be noted that if the property had an additional 736 square feet, it could possibly be
divided into three parcels (not the applicant's intention or desire).
Other than a Variance request for a rear setback exception as further discussed below, the
proposed Partition request meets all of the R-1-7.5 zoning standards, including lot size,
maximum building floor area, lot coverage, lot depth, lot width, solar access, hillside
development, etc.
Variance: A rear yard setback exception is being requested in order to allow the second floor of
the recently built two-story guest cottage to be within 20' of the "new" rear property line.
Currently, the subject property line closest to the cottage building is considered the "side" j
property line and a 6' side yard setback is required, regardless of the number of stories or a j
building's overall height. In this circumstance, the cottage building is two stories and has a 10'- }
6" side yard setback and clearly meets the 6' minimum standard. However, as defined in the
Ashland Municipal Code, once a property line is installed dividing a corner lot, the corner lot
may continue to have the same "front lot line", but the interior lot will have a "new" front lot line
and rear lot line. In this particular case, the front lot line on Parcel 1 remains Nutley Street, but
the front lot line for Parcel 2 becomes Scenic Drive and what "was" the side property line for
Parcel 2 is now a rear property line and thus its setback switches from a 6' side yard setback to a
10' per story rear yard setback. In this specific case, the first floor of the existing cottage at 10'-
6" meets the rear setback standard of 10' per story, but the second floor of the structure does not
as it is also 10'-6" from the property line.
Solar Access: The proposed lot partition complies with Section 18.70.050 A. as the proposed
parcels meet Class "A" standards which allows a 21' tall structure to be built on either property'
41
that does not exceed 50% of the either lot's north-south lot dimension. The existing structures
have heights of 12' and 24' respectively and based on each lot's respective slopes over a 150' in
the north direction, Parcel 1 (Slope Analysis (A)) has a x006% positive slope requiring the lot's
north-south dimension to be at least 96' and Parcel 2 (Slope Analysis (B)) has a slope of .06%
positive slope requiring the lot's north-south dimension to be at least 82' (see Slope Analysis
Insert below). As such, considering Parcel A's north-south dimension is 148' and Parcel B's is
97', the lots comply with the Class "A" Standard noted in Section 18.70.050 A.
7 .#I
P _ - _ - -
i
~ l r
w
r"
L J
.3
- - North -w 1-
Slope Analysis Insert, City of Ashland Top raphic Maps
Further, the recently constructed arbor on Parcel 2, near the proposed partition line, is
approximately 6' from the proposed line. Based on this dimension as well as the slope analysis
for Parcel 2, the arbor would have a solar setback of 4'. As such, the arbor also complies with the
Solar Access Ordinance, Section 18.70.040 A. Note: based on the standard setbacks of the R-1-
7.5 zone, the arbor, depending on the final survey, may need to be modified in order to comply
with the 6' side yard setback requirement. However, this is to be determined at the time of the
survey and any necessary modifications to the arbor or property line will occur prior to signature
of the plat.
Lot Access: The subject property currently has two points of access, but once divided will have a
single point for each lot. There is a small "temporary" parking area along Scenic Drive, near the
intersection, where some excavation has occurred, but there is no apron or curb cut and is a 6"
curb. This area will not be used for parking and will be blocked with landscaping to insure the
i
5I
area is not used. However, on-street parking is likely in this area as it does allow for passengers
to comfortably exit a vehicle.
Hillside Lands: The subject property is subject to the City's Hillside Lands classification, Section
18.62.050 B 1 „ which requires a property to not only be within the Hillside Lands Overlay Map,
but also have "natural" slope greater than 25% slope. In this parcel's case, the property is within
the Hillside Overlay area, but does not have any area of the property that is "naturally" greater
than 25% slope„ The property has been historically teiTaced as with a number of parcels iii
Ashland with older homes (c1900), but in this properties case, as evidenced in the insert below
and identified in historical photos, the property has a natural slope between 18% and 20%.
Note: In 2004, the City Council of Ashland determined that the slope of property for the
purposes of developing land under the Hillside Ordinance, the natural grade of the property (i.e.,
the grade before manmade disturbance) must be used (PA-2003-118). This is because hillside
lands which have already been disturbed by manmade activities often contain terraces, retaining
walls, and other built site features which, if measured in their existing state, would produce
grades that differ significantly from the original natural grades which the Hillside Ordinance was
designed to protect. Using existing manmade features to determine slope would make application
of and compliance with the Hillside Ordinance infeasible on many properties, including the
subject property.
a -
r
18.5%T~
.
1
F t~ e
f - -200 o-"
k i
i
E
Slope Analysis - Hillside Lands (based on natural slopes)
61
`-'X""Y.._-max 11
• f _ i+.
x l' W-I. tF AT" 'L F1;4 ft'.-,Y _
fLGO V M .7t Ft; _
JC P,4? .CIXY
k- BNCf' • _
1- ~ 1- !i,/t .11 j _.4 ..N! i ' f FAY •
t4 n.a 1.'i IPf:SIL+ -
1 `~1i (-fij- J-.~- l1` [ uN E _
32c "a 1 C ✓ ✓evs i iJ
-►'ARCLL O.R 201037416 ?ner., - - c`et,.•-c'
- SU r .-__.C of Atrl,5:
r 21%
I 2 B A ` !n' 2J% iw r. J C •kxt f
"ten aced" _ , J'
j.2 . tE5 :no- a~ v' 74
7rc. - * f x _3
Slope Analysis - Hillside Lands (slopes w/ terracing)
Maximum House Size Ordinance: The subject property is within the Skidmore Academy
Historic District and subject to the Maximum House Size Ordinance 18.20.040 G.2, requiring
Parcel 1 at 12,326 square feet to have a maximum permitted floor area of 2,904 square feet and
Parcel 2 at 9,438 square feet to have a maximum permitted floor area of 2,689 square feet. As
such, both of the parcels comply as the residence on Parcel 1 is only a 989 square foot single
story house and the new building on Parcel 2 is a 1,057 square foot two-story house.
Lot Coverne: The maximum lot coverage (impervious surface) for the R-1-7.5 zone is 45% of
the lot (house, driveway, sidewalks, etc.). The lot coverage on Parcel 1 allows for 5,546 square
feet of lot coverage and it only has 2,289 square feet or 18%. Parcel 2 allows for 4,247
square feet of lot coverage and it only has 2,600 square feet or 27%. As such, both parcels
comply.
Utilities: Considering structures exist on both parcels and all utilities have been installed under
the permitting and review process of the Ashland Building Department, Ashland Electric
Department and all other service agencies, not additional utilities are necessary once the partition
is approved. All utilities are underground and will be identified in easements at time of the final
plat.
Street Exception: The applicant is requesting an exception to the City's Street Standards to not
install standard sidewalks and parkrows due to the physical constraints of the property directly
behind the abutting curbs (steep embankments, utilities, trees, etc) as well as the recent street
improvements installed by the City of Ashland through a Local Improvement District (LID),
called the Strawberry Local Improvement District, which included Strawberry Lane, Alnutt
Street, Nutley Street, Scenic Drive and Westwood Street. The Strawberry LID was approved in
2005 and improvements began in 2006. The LID was the largest LID ever in the City of Ashland
and cost over $1,000,000.
71
During the hearings for the LID, it was made clear the improvements planned in this area were
the most sensitive possible, but still provided the necessary level of service to accommodate the
areas future growth. The City's Council agreed because of the area's steeper slopes, trees,
drainage basins, utilities and the limited development potential, that sidewalks would be on one
side of the street, streets would not have planting strips, streets would have narrower pavement
widths and in one case a one-way street (lower portion of Strawberry Lane) would be appropriate
in order to minimize cuts, fills and excessive retaining wall conditions.
In this same vein of sensitivity and reasonableness by the Council and neighborhood, the
applicant believes applying additional street improvements to an area that was recently planned,
vetted and constructed just six years earlier, is not logical or keeping within the intent of the
Council's decision. Nevertheless, the applicant is still willing to sign in favor of a future LID, as
permitted under AMC 18.76.090, with the understanding that with it, it too will provide
comprehensive analysis to the area's infrastructure and physical constraints.
Tree Preservation and Protection: All of the site's trees have been identified on the attached
survey in accordance with Chapter 18.61. However, it should be understood no trees are
proposed to be removed and all utilities have already been installed under permit from the City
of Ashland. As such, no additional site disturbances are proposed and no trees, regardless of size,
are planned to be removed and therefore Section 18.61.200 A.l. has been met. Note: If it is
determined sidewalks, planting strips and/or additional parking bays along Scenic Drive are
desired by the Planning Commission, approximately 17 trees would need to be removed.
Lot Width to Depth Ratio: In accordance with AMC 18.20.040 C., no lot shall exceed its depth.
The subject property will clearly meet this standard, but as submitted, the surveyor accidently
placed the proposed property line approximately two and one-half inches (97'.3" required /
97'.32" submitted). At the time of the final plat, the surveyor will modify the line in order to
insure this standard is met. Note: if it is determined the property line is two and one-half inches
too close to the property's arbor, the arbors eaves will be reduced by two and one-half inches or
the property line adjusted slightly to insure compliance.
j
Parking: There is a small "cut out" on Parcel 1 near the intersection of Nutley Street and Scenic
Drive that would be ideal for vehicle parking, but due to its close proximity to, the intersection
(approximately than 30'), the applicant intends to instead slightly widen the driveway off of
Nutley Street on Parcel 1 (see insert below on Page 18) to accommodate two on-site parallel
parking spaces. The small cut-out along Scenic Street would be replaced with fill material and
re-landscaped. The widening of the driveway will likely take less than 15 cubic yards of fill and
result in a short retaining wall of approximately 4' in height.
Neighborhood Outreach: At the time of this writing, a neighborhood meeting has been scheduled
to inform all adjacent neighbors of the proposal and any possible nuances, such as a possible
sidewalk installation along the frontage, will be explained. The applicant does not expect there to
be a concern with the neighbors as no changes to the property are proposed that do not already
exist. However, there may be a concern as to the use of the access easement identified on Parcel
1, but the applicant has no intention to use the driveway any differently than how it's utilized
now except to add a small amount of fill to ensure there is no parking interference with access to
t ;r
the adjacent property (Tax Lot 5200). With previous owners, this has been a concern and with
the slight widening, it should help resolve any concerns.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff,
Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the
required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the Partitions
criteria outlined in AMC 18.76.050 and Variance criteria outlined in AMC 18.100.020. For
clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline " form with the
City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also,
there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are
complete.
18.76.050 Preliminary Approval by the Planning Commission - Land Partition
An application for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
Although each parcel proposed will be larger than the zone's minimum 7,500 square foot lot
size, neither is large enough to divide further. As such, the remainder of either parcel will not
impede any urban purpose.
A The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
There are no remainder areas of the parcels to be developed and adjacent land to the subject
property already has access from the subject property. Further, all adjacent lands front onto
public rights-of-way and can obtain access specifically from those public streets.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
The tract of land has not been partitioned in the previous 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the
land.
To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the partitioning is not in conflict with any law,
ordinance or resolution applicable to the land other than the requested Variance to the rear
setback as further described below.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
~'r E
9
As noted, the applicant is requesting an exception to the street standards as noted above. The
request is due to the physical constraints of the property directly behind the abutting curbs (steep
embankments, utilities, trees, etc) as well as the recent street improvements installed by the City
of Ashland through a Local Improvement District (LID), called the Strawberry Local
Improvement District, which included Strawberry Lane, Alnutt Street, Nutley Street, Scenic
Drive and Westwood Street. The Strawberry LID was approved in 2005 and improvements
began in 2006. The LID was the largest LID ever in the City of Ashland and cost over
$1,000,000.
During the hearings for the LID, it was made clear the improvements planned in this area were
the most sensitive possible, but still provided the necessary level of service to accommodate the
areas future growth. The City's Council agreed because of the area's steeper slopes, trees,
drainage basins, utilities and the limited development potential, that sidewalks would be on one
side of the street, streets would not have planting strips, streets would have narrower pavement
widths and in one case a one-way street (lower portion of Strawberry Lane) would be appropriate
in order to minimize cuts, fills and excessive retaining wall conditions. j
In this same vein of sensitivity and reasonableness by the Council and neighborhood, the
applicant believes applying additional street improvements to an area that was recently planned,
vetted and constructed just six years earlier, is not logical or keeping within the intent of the
Council's decision. Nevertheless, the applicant is still willing to sign in favor of a future LID, as
permitted under AMC 18.76.090, with the understanding that with it, it too will provide
comprehensive analysis to the area's infrastructure and physical constraints.
Findings relating to the exception itself are below, in accordance with the Street Standards
contained in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options which are specifically spelled out
within the Street Standards Handbook (March 1999), within Section V, Hillside Streets and
Natural Areas.
R When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as
determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary
sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
Adequate public facilities do exist to serve the proposed parcels as they are "already" installed.
At no time during the pre-application or during conversations with the service agencies was it
determined additional facilities would be needed after the partition occurred. However, a second
address will be needed for Parcel 42 as well as a second electrical meter on the structure itself at
the time of the plat.
G. When there exists a 20 foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the
nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the
proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 feet with all work done under
permit of the Public Works Department.
1011
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition
when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20 feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial
street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required., the applicant shall
agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to
remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street
improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover
such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the
signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall
be denied.
Not applicable as both abutting streets are fully paved and include curbs and at sidewalks on at
least one side. As noted previously, the applicant is willing to sign in favor of a future local
improvement district.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from
the alley and prohibited f om the street.
Not applicable as no alleys exist adjacent to the subject parcels.
18.100.020 Application Criteria Variance
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show }
the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and
evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
c
i
The application includes a survey of the property which identifies the legal boundaries of the
existing parcel as well as grades, trees, structures, utilities and driveways. Elevations and photos
of the structures have been included within the application.
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere. i
There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere as the subject property is an oversized parcel on a corner lot within the R-1-7.5 zone
acid by dividing the parcel in accordance with the standard parcel sizes and various dimensional
requirements, existing structures on the site that are currently legal, become non-conforming j
based on the installation of a property line and the definition of what is considered the front, side
11 _ i
and rear yards and also combined with the definition of what constitutes a story (i.e. 1" floor, 2nd
floor, etc.).
Specifically, a rear yard setback exception is being requested in order to allow the second floor
of the recently built two-story guest cottage on Parcel 2 to be within 20' of the "new" rear
property line. Currently, the subject property line closest to the cottage building is considered the
"side" property line and a 6' side yard setback is required, regardless of the number of stories or
a building's overall height. In this circumstance, the cottage building is two stories and has a 10'-
6" side yard setback and clearly meets the 6' minimum standard. However, as defined in the
Ashland Municipal Code, once a property line is installed dividing a corner lot, the corner lot
may continue to have the same "front lot line", but the interior lot will have a "new" front lot line
and "new" rear lot line. The definitions within the Ashland Municipal Code relating to the front
lot line are noted in Sections 18.08.420 and 18.08.430 and state:
Lot Line Front, 18.08.420: In the case of an interior lot, the lot line separating the lot from the
street other than an alley. A corner lot shall have one (1) street line considered the front lot line.
The narrower street frontage shall be the front lot line except when the Staff Advisor determines
topographical or access problems make such a designation impractical.
Lot Line Rear, 18.08.430: A lot line which is opposite and most distant from the fi°ont lot line,
and in the case of an irregular, triangular, or other shaped lot, a line ten (10) feet in length
within the lot parallel to and at a maximum distance from the f font lot line.
side
~R
street side
street. 'B"
' I
Example: 1!'ot lines of a corner lot prior„ to a partition.
E
i
rear
side
Parcel's" Parcel',"
fras# street side
street .g
Example: Lot lines of a corner lot "a ter" a partition
12~
In this particular case, the front lot line on Parcel 1 remains Nutley Street, but the front lot line
for Parcel 2 becomes Scenic Drive and what "was" the side property line for Parcel 2 is now a
rear property line and thus its setback switches from a 6' side yard setback to a 10' per story rear
yard setback (see inserts below). In this specific case, the first floor of the existing cottage at 10'-
6" meets the rear setback standard of 10' per story, but the second floor of the structure does not
as it is only 10' from the property line.
Subject Setback
~N 0633 tg-. xy : y/
'9764.7
~ 496.4 -
sjto I
Alp,
r
ICA,
\\--2050 \y T--`--•-- 1~~'
PARCEL O.R. 201
9,438 SCj`>GT. _ --__0:5~-A
70
~ 2-• 10 FRUJF ~
2-8'A HE'S-10`
00'04.40., W
r, 705
j 2-8" fRUJ7'- tC._ 7T,r c": • 5.. ( -C~4
8" DIP S
T `J
Setback Area In Question
In the applicant's opinion, the circumstances with this parcel are highly unusual for a number of
reasons. First, the parcel is oversized and unusually wide (exceeds zones maximum lot depth of
150') for the R-1-7.5 zone. Although the property has two "existing legal structures" that comply
with all current code requirements, once partitioned, only the second floor of the unit on Parcel 2
becomes non-conforming whereas the first floor remains legal. However, if a second floor deck
above the first floor in this same space existed, it would be legal, but clearly more impacting to
the neighboring property to the west. In fact, as evidenced in the photo below, the second floor
wall facing the rear property line only has a very small window (see photos below) and was
purposefully designed to minimize visibility onto the neighboring property. Note: The closest
habitable structure on the neighboring property is over 70' in distance and 14' in elevation (at
base of house).
13~
` - - 4,--
01
a
f+' y
Recently Built Guest House
(approximate location)
The adjacent property to the west also has a different zoning designation of Rural Residential %2
acre minimum lot size and a wide natural drainage swale traversing through the property creating
a rural atmosphere which the structure, regardless of side or rear setback, has little impact on. In i
fact, it's imperative to explain that regardless of the outcome of the partition, the structure will
remain and any perceived impact associated with the additional 10' per story setback will still
remain.
Finally, another unique circumstance with this property is that the subject building's "second
floor" is actually a very small 153 square foot "loft" space where the internal ceilings are floor to
ceiling and the loft tucked into the rear portion of the building. If the loft was located to the front
of the building, no Variance would be required. And, if the loft didn't exist at all, but the ceiling
height remained the same (i.e., no external changes), no Variance would be necessary.
i
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. 1
i
i
14~
f
i
I
i
Internal "Loft Space" Window - Note: The above photo is of the window that faces the property to
the west. The window is stained glass and is approximately two square feet in area. The window is
in the "loft space" which is technically a second floor.
r
The applicant contends the proposal is greater than any negative impacts on the development of
adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan of the City due to the fact the subject building's rear construction accomplishes the intent of
the 10' per-story setback standard as the building's first floor is roughly six feet below the
neighboring grade and the second floor's rear wall is essentially a solid wall, but for a very small
window. In this particular circumstance, the end result is far superior to a permissible design
where the floor area in question is a second floor deck where congregation and noise could be
generated from. Further, regardless of the decision, the subject building will continue to remain
as is" due to the fact without the partition, the building would sit along the side property line
and remain conforming as it currently does, but with the Variance, the partition could move
forward and the lot divided in accordance with the base densities and urban thresholds
established by the City's Zoning Codes, Comprehensive Plan and accompanying adopted
elements thereof.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
There has been a significant amount of discussion between the City's Planning Department staff,
property owner, property owner's assistant, contractor, architect and planning consultant
15~ e
regarding the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the proposal and the background of the
Variance request. Unfortunately there have been numerous miss-understandings by a couple of
professionals who have been hired by the property owner to represent his interest, but have done
a horrendous job which has led to a costly, unfortunate and irreversible error, but in no case
should this particular circumstance ever be construed as a "willfully or purposefully self-
imposed" act.
Based on conversations with the property owner, who speaks little English, it's been deduced
that everyone originally involved with the building's design and construction understood the
building's placement met setback dimensions, as evidenced with the issuance of a Building
Permit, but did not understand that if and when a partition of the property was ever proposed, it
would cause the switch in setback regulations and thus create a need for a Variance. It's a highly
irregular list of circumstances, but there is no doubt that if the zoning regulations were truly
understood, the placement of the building could have easily shifted an additional 10' and thus
eliminated the need for the request as there is plenty of space between the building and the front
property line.
Further, this mistake could cost the property owner hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the
value of the property being divided into two parcels with individual residences or a single parcel
with a single residence and a guest house. Although the property owner understands this fact is
not necessarily a basis for a decision, it clearly should overstate the fact that there was a miss-
understanding of the City's various codes relating to setbacks, which are obviously very complex
and can be confusing based on staff's own admission.
Section V, Ashland Street Standards, Exception (Criteria Outlined in AMC 18.88.050 F.)
F. Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the
Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street
Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
As noted, the applicant is requesting an exception to the City's Street Standards due to the
physical constraints of the property directly behind the abutting curbs (steep embankments,
utilities, trees, etc) as well as the recent street improvements installed by the City of Ashland
through a Local Improvement District (LID), called the Strawberry Local Improvement District,
which included Strawberry Lane, Alnutt Street, Nutley Street, Scenic Drive and Westwood
Street. The Strawberry LID was approved in 2005 and improvements began in 2006. The LID
was the largest LID ever in the City of Ashland and cost over $1,000,000.
During the hearings for the LID, it was made clear the improvements planned in this area were
the most sensitive possible, but still provided the necessary level of service to accommodate the
areas future growth. The City's Council agreed because of the area's steeper slopes, trees,
drainage basins, utilities and the limited development potential, that sidewalks would be on one
side of the street, streets would not have planting strips, streets would have narrower pavement
16~
widths and in one case a one-way street (lower portion of Strawberry Lane) would be appropriate
in order to minimize cuts, fills and excessive retaining wall conditions.
In this same vein of sensitivity and reasonableness by the Council and neighborhood, the
applicant believes applying additional street improvements to an area that was recently planned,
vetted and constructed just six years earlier, is not logical or keeping within the intent of the
Council's final decision. Nevertheless, the applicant is still willing to sign in favor of a future
LID, as permitted under AMC 18.76.090, with the understanding that with it, it too will provide
comprehensive analysis to the area's infrastructure and physical constraints.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
The applicant contends the result of the exception is equal to the transportation benefits of the
area as originally master-planned and adopted with the Strawberry Local Improvement District
as adopted by the Ashland City Council in 2005 (LID #83, Resolution 2005-029).
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
The applicant contends the request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty as the
installation of additional transportation facilities would be create additional retaining walls and
tree loss along the Scenic Drive frontage, an area that has its sidewalk on the opposite side of the
street which has been determined by the Ashland City Council, through the Strawberry Local
Improvement District, to have adequate transportation facilities. j
I
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter.
The applicant believes the proposed street exception is consistent with the stated purpose and
intent of the Performance Options Chapter as well as the stated "street exception language"
found in the adopted Street Standards Handbook (adopted February 2, 1999) which is as follows:
Performance Standards Options (AMC 18.88.010): The purpose and intent of this Chapter is
to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning
codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use
the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life j
equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning
codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of
development on the natural environment and neighborhood
i
and
Section V- Hillside Streets and Natural Areas - #4: Generally, the range of local street types
makes it possible to construct or improve local streets in accordance with the street
standards. In certain situations where the physical features of the land create constraints, or
natural features should be preserved, exceptions may be made. Exceptions could result in
construction of meandering sidewalks, sidewalks on only one side of the street, or curbside
17~t_:
sidewalk segments instead of setback walks. In limited situations where topography or
natural features preclude the construction of a sidewalk, a pedestrian path may be
substituted on one side of the street at the discretion of the Planning Commission. A
pedestrian path is an area designated for walking which is constructed to a lesser standard
than the standard concrete sidewalk (i. e. asphalt, crushed granite). Exceptions shall be
allowed when physical conditions preclude development of a public street, or components of
the street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography, wetlands, mature
trees, creeks, drainages, and rock outcroppings. Exceptions to the Street Design Standards
shall be limited to situations where there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific
requirements due to the unique or unusual aspect of the site.
x- -~x x 6" FRor-B'
x•ro._.X
14 .83-2070
- ORIVEWRY _ [7
- r4~fi° fR` . ~.._6' O4K-8' s - _ `6" fIR 4'
- { r ( new parking bay with short 4' T~=
l
j retaining wall (2 spaces) t - - sb
tao NZriz~" rmtvc f PARCEL 1--~
12. 1' - - 8" CEDAR=6, • . q,::..
f
12,326 SQ. FT " chi
6 OECiDUOUS-4
O.R. 20I0-37546
+a-50- ~MES ~ - general area to be :
10" APKE-8' backfilled and landscaped
22' CMAR-* 16'
5-10' 3-10" OAKS-10' 3--10' OAKS-6'' 1
" 147,73' 7070¢'40" w ~x-- °xw-- 3 - OHP ® 4
ONP ONR r T - Y
AR B
T- 8" CED
~0`
rv--~-- -
CONCRM' CURB s, "CEDAR
OS~
8 Dip
G ~ G ~ G - G G G G G
• I
Parcel 1- Off-Street Parking Improvements
i
18
i ,
4 121 t._
i6`it..
4 .rS~~,n tll '+'sl.j.j. "H U, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
E 43,04 Map Maker
Application
4 Property Data Wine Legend
# Highlighted Feature
_ Tax Lot Outlines
f j p~ T I j~ E, :I J Tax Lot Numbm
1rs lid r~ u- j Buildings
Q24* f _ mat"
L
67411
L-1~
LT {
f h
i
{ I
aP.L.YC~ ( y~.••, t
if, m4 a
r {
i ( J
r
a F` A
3 i 0't
I-IJ
r 'b
I NO
02
,
a
1
r-f
r
,
~ ~1FI siY
j` JACKSON
r
COUNTY
' l This map is based on a digital database
~~22 qYm° I i compiled by Jackson County From a variety
of sources. Jackson County cannot accept
responslbilyforerrors,amissions,or
positional accuracy. There ere no
1 a l warranties, expressed or Implied.
Created with MapMaker Map created on 7/17/2012 11:05;30 AM using web.jacksoncounty.org
zt~ Pieria c cycle with rolered ofnce grade paper
o
U~ LC
C( I 4„ DIP ! 1
N E T R E E T
6° D!P I r ! r fi" DIP 4 S so sD 18 ~D SO
6" CLAY; cc. m - - -
441 J r fs
SD O D 18" 5[7 a ~o o
! 24° DIP I ! x 1 t;a ! ! f ! 1 o
00
ffi 4HP ONP NP-- O of ~l ONP DHP oHP
00'SL C
774/M1380N0O
lL e-r, -r~- C ~ 1 I~` i`•. 11 I I~F~ 5 - T U
%
`
9 1~ 1 I l ~
l N
on 1J F
a
oo~ x I J I I a
I
a z_
h~ l o
r I o
.1 v-
3 _ I
1~ pp I U
} k- z ti
1.0
j - lip" O .a ti c 4
%
ot I o
k f I ~ N ,
111 ~ ~ 1 ~ J ; ~ ~I
LLJ IL;
f I
V, 0
z~~~
ar
Co m
ti ;~I "t raCA~
E' ~D
r J ~I T Y 3
7 r r R,
LL
r
I-W
OOEZ 71
N I q LL - q` 4j CC f ay 86 l q7 6£ d'VN SXOss3ss6'
- 0055 7L D' 20'
G y So YI 6£ dyN S2 Issas v
I
i
i
I
a
4~
i
E
i
I
o
F,l
Q ~ m W
o
~i
wl
a ~
o I
H i
b
u ~
u
+ o ~
i
a !
o !
a E" 1!
.I
a
~ I
ro i
m
~ I
! I
I
.6-,c ucnux;xc{9-~
El
a
A
ti
O
0
P
2
N
b
M
O
}
V
o a
cd
Q)
w
0
z
Trill
U~
I
I d
a
w
m
m
f ~
f w
I ~
1
p,
I ry
U
I o v I
e ° Il
I WI
I a~
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I I
6Il9 , II
I
I
I I
e ~i
a
mo
2
b
m
W
Q
Q
ct
-y W
~a
FEM
I
r
~QOC
-4 '1 x ZC Z :I ~ l r ~ ~ ~Q ~
Q ~~'~~7: uSwnT''c Q U ~ k~ C N k ?
Z ~~<zti a~pzxu a r z? a"N x, urx m om
z 7"
~ c a L^ o ~ Cg
z a i
L "}ss^zx~.•i~aFS z Y ~?~x`iz~ I o ~Q~~ TO
J x 4 C v l p ti w C t l K v U V
TI ~ y z az ,z QU r
} k U u ro Yrp V w o r
❑H0@8(33Z7a $ n0.
4
N
~ ~ I crv I I I
n 6" OIP UI UI .D_Y 6, fuP 1 C L h
~ n
~I SO so f ra 6' CUr I
2, vp
N. N.
, X1Y 15 ~ i ;r~ M'IYA(3Qf n ~
Q4 L-n ❑ F 0 P ONY GNP DWP
77YM 311X,71V0.7
~ 1 ! 1 F. al r; -
t a I
E- W J:~~ ,
nq e W 4 4 a i 1. I( a °I{{ II V ` M` mf*~ z N
l~4 1~ ~ W x~ C ~ h D / ~I%\. I I 1 1 } I ` ~n I li II
~LZ rC f f-~,'~ ~'1~I`
p z ° o - I~ 11 - I ,r6zel l,, QI , > > z
y
Q III f ^l I I 1 N z
qft
~ s I Ir 4 $ h ~ I o
~ I v ~ I w~ ~r
~ ~sf q 1 ~ .L8f6 fl 1 ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~
IJ I W
j o l f I
ti I / J
/ C w / 0 1 / ~
" soar ' ti -I Lj
e
gal, ~ ~ p~.
'(^Y2y~ [IiLZOa 'Yt7~~;. r f•V) U~-~n
r A ry°~ a'zc{~ I ri ! h "°a n
114
'.~xl'y$~> F1•^~4?ice'-~¢ ! 4 ~ ~ ~ n Vi~i ` "f
x znpq y
no~zuz< csH`a~za.~ '
o ~ I
b I I k Za_
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
C I T Y OF 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520
-AS"LAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO
Street Address (9
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 0 . Tax Lot(s) D 4)
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT ~~f9c l L C
Name C/A / .S %,r-CL C~-)~~o Phone _<4/ E-Mail K4 0 X 0
Address u d1= " °r City >!rj14,, l Zip Vii' 7_CZ0
PROPERTY OWNER r A~
Name Phone E-Mail
Address 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. 1 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. 1 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
be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, 1 am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner the pr perty Uved this ~re ave read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
i
Property ® ner's Signature (require) Dat
[To be completed by City Staf<J
Date Received` Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ j
OVER
GAcomm-dev\planning\Porms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc
Job Address: 180 NUTLEY ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
A Owner's Name: PLUSPOWER BUILDING INC 0 Phone:
P Customer 07008 N State Lie No:
P PLUSPOWER BUILDING INC ~ 1- City Lie No:
Applicant: 180 NUTLEY ST R
I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 482-2420 -T- Address:
N Applied: 10/05/2012 C
T Issued:
Expires: 04/03/2013 Phone:
State Lie No:
Maplot: 391 E08AD5600 City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: MLP and Variance
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description " Amount
Variance (Type 1) 982.00 Land Partition (type 1) 1,112.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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
I
CTY OF
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
ASHLAND