HomeMy WebLinkAboutGresham_19_PA-2013-01208
4
C I T Y OF
ASHLAND
September 18, 2013
Notice of Final Decision
On September 18, 2013, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: 2013-01208
Subject Property: 19 Gresham & 374 Hargadine
Owner: Susan Springer
Applicant: Joyce Ward
Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing non-
conforming residential unit located at 374 Hargadine. The applicant has proposed to convert
the existing basement storage space to habitable space.
I
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13`}' day after the
Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of one year and all conditions of
approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a
reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
18.108.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO
18.108.070(B)(2)(c). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached.
The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Amy Gunter in the Community
Development Department at (541) 552-2044.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us _ _ s
SECTION 18.108.070(B)2 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals.
B. Actions subject to appeal:
2. Type I Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the
Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after
notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff
Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(c).
b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below.
i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may request
reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the
Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for
reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision.
Reconsideration regiiests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be
raised by letter or evidence'during the opportunity to provide public input on the application
sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a
decision.
ii. . Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor
shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the
Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor
shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff
Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any
party entitled to notice of the planning action.
iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff
Advisor shall. deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties
that requested reconsideration.
c. Appeal.
i. Within twelve (12) days.of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor's final decision,
including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning
Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the City
Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be
received by the city no later than 4:30. p.m. on the 12`h day after the notice of decision is
mailed.
ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing
shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by
neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries
include the site.
iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board
meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary
hearing required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal
shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed
by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties.
iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:,541-488-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01208
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 19 Gresham & 374 Hargadine
OWNER: Susan Springer
APPLICANT: Joyce Ward, Architect
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing non-
conforming residential unit located at 374 Hargadine. The applicant has proposed to convert the
existing basement storage space to habitable space. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 09BD TAX LOTS: 9000
SUBMITTAL DATE: August 8, 2013
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: August 23, 2013
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: September 18, 2013
FINAL DECISION DATE: October 1, 2013
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: October 1, 2013
DECISION
The subject property is located at 19 Gresham Street / 374 Hargadine Street on the west side of
Gresham Street, at the intersection of Gresham and Hargadine. The front property line is adjacent
to Gresham, opposite that it the rear, Hargadine Street is a side yard and opposite that is the other
side yard. The subject and adjacent properties to the west and south are also zoned R-2, Low
Density Multi-Family Residential. The properties to the north and east are zoned C-1-D,
Commercial Downtown. The subject property is located within the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic
District.
The property is 6,750 square feet in area. There are two dwelling units on the property, a single
family residence (19 Gresham) which was constructed in 1902 and a detached two-story garage
with second unit (374 Hargadine) above constructed sometime in the early 1950s.
The single-family residential home was constructed in 1902 and is known as the "Alice Foster
House" in the Siskiyou Hargadine Historic District inventory documents. The house has been
modified over the years and is considered non-historic / non-contributing. Behind the main
residence is a detached second dwelling unit which is on the Hargadine side of the property at
the rear of the property. The second unit is the structure proposed to be modified with this land
use approval.
The property and the second unit in particular have a number of non-conformities. The minimum
lot area for two units is 7,000 square feet in area; the lot is 6,750 square feet and is below the
minimum lot size for two dwelling units. The applicant provided evidence that the second unit
(374 Hargadine) was constructed in the early 1950s and pre-dates the land use ordinance
therefore 374 Hargadine is considered pre-existing non-conforming.
The Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFS) in the historic district for a 6,750 square foot lot is
2,376 square feet between the two structures. Based on the assessed sizes of the structures, 3,290
PA #2013-01208
19 Gresham /374 Hargadine /adg
Page I
f
square feet exceeds the allowed MPFA. The applicant is not proposing to add any additional
living area to either of the dwelling units.
When the structure was constructed it was built approximately three-feet from the rear property
line. The minimum setback in the current land use ordinance for rear yards is ten-feet per story.
The three-foot setback is an existing non-conformity. Due to this non-conforming setback the
change of the non-habitable storage space below the dwelling unit triggers a Conditional Use
Permit to expand / enlarge an existing non-conformity.
The conversion of the storage area to habitable space and the two units on a lot that is below the
minimum lot size also requires Conditional Use Permit approvals. The applicant is not.proposing
to add any additional square footage to the structures. The modification of the structure will
primarily be on the interior. The application has proposed to modify the exterior of the building
by adding 12-inch eaves on the south and west sides of the structure. Due to the structures
setback on the north and east side being less than three-feet from the property line, no additional
encroachments are allowed according to the building code. The applicant has also proposed to
add an entry door to the unit on the first floor of the unit. The existing door is on the west side
and is hidden from view. The applicant proposed two options for the entry; one with a gabled
porch cover on the east side of the structure and one without a cover but the door would face
Hargadine Street. The City of Ashland Historic Commission reviewed the proposal at their
September 4, 2013 regular meeting and recommended that the applicant install the east fagade
door with the gabled porch cover. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a double, wood door
with a three-foot deep deck on the second story facing Hargadine Street. New double hung
wood windows are also proposed for the Hargadine Street frontage to replace the existing double
storage room door.
The application is for a pre-existing, non-conforming structure that will not be enlarged in area.
With the proposed modifications the architectural compatibility will be enhanced. Eaves,
covered entries, double hung windows and two story residences are typical design features in the
impact area. The generation of dust, scale, bulk and coverage will not be impacted by the. The
conversion of the garage to habitable space is also consistent with the allowed density and the
target use of the property of four units. Additionally, the generation of light, noise, glare, dust,
etc. will be consistent with the permitted density of four units.
Four parking spaces are required. Three surface spaces at the rear of the property, between the
existing garage / unit and one space as an on-street credit are provided for. The parking spaces
are pre-existing and the applicant has not proposed to modify the parking spaces. They do not
comply with the required five-foot buffer between property lines and eight-foot buffer to the unit
as they pre-dated Ashland's land use ordinances. No modifications are proposed.
The application addresses that adequate capacity of public services already serve the site. No
changes to the existing electric, water and sanitary sewer lines is necessary. The site is
landscaped and irrigated and no changes are proposed. There are small trees in the vicinity of the
existing second unit but they are separated from the work area by retaining walls and will not be
impacted by the proposed construction.
No written comments were provided by the public during the 14-day comment period.
PA #2013-01208
19 Gresham /374 Hargadine /adg
Page 2
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.104.050, as
follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law
or program.
B. That.adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of
the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use
of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the
target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6 The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances.
Planning Action 2013-01208 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or
more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action 2013-01208 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to
the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit
are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an
application to modify the current Site Review and Conditional Use permit approvals shall
be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
PA #2013-01208
19 Gresham /374 Hargadine /adg
Page 3
3) That all conditions of the Historic Commission as detailed in their recommendations from
the September 4, 2013 meeting shall be conditions of approval where consistent with
applicable Site Design and Use Standards with the final approval of the Staff Advisor.
4) That the exterior lighting shall be directed onto the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent proprieties. Exterior lighting details shall be provided on building
e nit submitta .
Molnar, irector Date
Department Community Development
c;
f
PA 92013-01208
19 Gresham /374 Hargadine /adg
Page 4
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On September 18, 2013 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action
I
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 #2013-01208, 19 Gresham &
374 Hargadine.
Signature of Employee
G:Icomm-de4lanninglTemplateslTEMPLATE_Affidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Nodce.dot 9118/2013
~ t
PA-2013-01208 391E09BD801 PA-2013-01208 391E0913D70001 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9900
2929 LLC BEMIS ED TRUSTEE ET AL BLAKE ARCHIE E/GEORGI S
2929 29TH ST PO BOX 1018 8 BEACH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97210 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01208 391E09BDIO200 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9200 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD10000
BOARDMAN RANDY J CUTLER STEVEN A/PATRICIA J DE GROOT LARRY DEVIN
PO BOX 322 165 LITTLE PARK LN 425 ENA RD 504A
ASHLAND, OR 97520 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 HONOLULU, HI 96815
' i
PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9500 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD8800 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD8900
EPSTEIN FRED TRUSTEE ET AL GADBOIS LAURIE A ET AL GANGITANO FAMILY TRUST ET AL
PO BOX 613 54 GRESHAM ST PO BOX 318185
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 j
PA-2013-01208 391E09BD6101 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD6000 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD6300
HOBI ROBERT H MACRORY ANN K TRUSTEE ET AL MATTHEWS ROBERT/SANDRA
1810 NE STEPHENS 2666 TAKELMA WAY 3088 LAZY CR DR
ROSEBURG, OR 97470 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9390 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD5900 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9400
OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL PILOT ROCK PEAK LLC PRESTON JOHN R/KATHLEEN M
15 PIONEER ST S 38950 SW LAURELWOOD RD PSC 22 BOX 155
ASHLAND, OR 97520 GASTON, OR 97119 APO, AE 09421
PA-2013-01208 391E09BD2700 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD6500 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9000
PROVOST PROPERTIES LLC SOUTH RUTH E TRUSTEE FBO SPRINGER SUSAN E
6431 ADAMS RD 7831 SE STARK 103 19 GRESHAM
TALENT, OR 97540 PORTLAND, OR 97215 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9600 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD801 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9800
STOBER MARJORIE C WESTERN STATIONS CO #227 WILSON COURTNEY/CANNING
348 HARGADINE 2929 NW 29TH 6 BEACH AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 PORTLAND, OR 97210 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2013-01208 391E09BD10300 PA-2013-01208 391E09BD9100
WINCHESTER PATRICIA WRIGHT VINCENT
PO BOX 1893 25 GRESHAM ST
SANTA ROSA, CA 95402 ASHLAND, OR 97520
L
Planning Department, 51 Winuuin Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C Y F
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland"onus TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -P D
>f
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2013-01208
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 19 Gresham & 374 Hargadine
OWNER: Susan Springer
APPLICANT: Joyce Ward, Architect
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing non-conforming residential
unit located at 374 Hargadine. The applicant has proposed to convert the existing basement storage space to
habitable space. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09BD TAX LOTS: 9000.
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 6:00
PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 23, 2013
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: September 6, 2013
y I
Ssi
HA R G A D I N E ST
1
F -
( -
I lIJ
- - i
L7
r
9
J I L J-
I
F- I
L/1
w % z:
cD
j - _
O 1530 60 Feet P oyarty 2ntas nre for .-cfer-~nce oniy, nor sc«in«U2a
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn
Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a
notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the
comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the
application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision.. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning
Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC
18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this
application, 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 Department 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. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
comm- ev p ammng annmg c ions o icing o er are o ices rgns - - ocx
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ,
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in
conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the
development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered
beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
I
F
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2013\PA-2013-01208.docx
m
4 c'
ca c;l
cn
r
71
n
iy
o-
E
~l t
93
t- 4-3
c~
G+
r
A
Q 9
r;3 01 n
n r= Yi 4 n SC
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 August 23, 20131 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 #2013-01208, 19 Gresham/374 Hargadine.
Signature of Employee
G:Icomm-devlplanning\Forms & HandoutslAffidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Notice.doc
loyce Christine Ward Architect
549 Auburn Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 a (541) 482 - 3004
s s,
i
f
3
j
P
FINDINGS
CondRional (a,- Permit Application
For Remudo~ of the Non-Conforming Apartment
At 374 r in Street
Ashland, Oregon
oust , 2013
Owner: Susan Springer
Architect: Joyce Ward
This is an application for two Conditional Use Permits and an Administrative Variance,
all of which are needed to remodel the existing two-story structure at 374 Hargadine
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The first CUP is required because the subject property is not large enough by
current zoning for two residences. The building at 374 Hargadine Street shares its
lot with the house at 19 Gresham Street. Each of these buildings is today a single
residential unit. The subject property is located in an R-2 zone. According to the current
i
zoning ordinance, the required area for two dwelling units is 7,000 sq. ft. The actual
area is 6,750 sq. ft.
A brief history of this property (from a conversation between Susan Springer and the
local historian, George Kramer): The original house, known as the "Alice Foster 1
House," was built in 1902. At that time, at the rear of the house, there was a carriage
house (currently the kitchen). In 1910 a remodel was done that changed the carriage
house into an attached second living unit. Prior to 1941, George N. and Beryl E.
Kramer (no relation to the historian) purchased the home. The Kramer family owned the
property for many years; they sold it to the Willis family in 1952.
Evidence of the second building begins to appear around this date. The current owner
found an electric permit identification card in the electrical panel of the detached
apartment, with "Mrs. George Kramer" noted as the owner. There is no date on the
card, but we can assume it was put there before the Willises owned the property, i.e.
prior to 1952. See attached copy of this card at the end of these Findings. We have
also discovered by looking at the Polk Directory that the building at 374 Hargadine has
been a residence since at least 1964. (In the same 1964 Directory a name appears for
378 Hargadine, likely the attached rental unit at the time.) A copy of the 1964 Polk
Directory page with reference to residents at these addresses is attached at the end of
these Findings.
In 1992 the current owners bought this property from the Willises. From 1992 through
1994 they remodeled the main house, incorporating the attached rental unit into the
main house. They also did a small remodel of the detached rental, changing the first-
floor garage into storage and up-dating the second-floor apartment.
We can conclude that there was in the past three dwellings units on this site, but since
1992, there have only been two. We can also conclude that the building we are
proposing to remodel was built before 1952, considerably prior to the incorporation of
current codes into the City's Ordinance.
The remodel we are proposing will happen within the existing detached two-story
structure. No additional area will be constructed, and no height added. However, the
current use of the first floor is storage. The second floor is a rental apartment. We are
proposing to abandon the storage use and include the first floor in the apartment.
The second CUP is required because the existing rear setback and one side yard
setback are non-conforming. The building we are proposing to remodel is two
stories. It sits six feet from the rear property line to the south and three feet four inches
from the side property line to the west. At the likely time of construction, i.e. prior to
1952, the.current setbacks were not law.
r
We are also requesting an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use
Standards for on-site parking space locations. The number of parking spaces
required for our proposed project already exist on the site. However, the required
distances between the parking and the side property line and the parking and the
building are non-conforming.
In each of the Conditional Use Permits requested and in the case of the variance for
parking, we will endeavor to show that the criteria for approval as noted in Chapter
18.104 of the Ashland Municipal Code are met.
Conditional Use Permits for Expansion of the Second Unit in an R-2 Zone and
For Non-conforming, Existing Setbacks
18.104.050
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning
district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance
with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by
City, State, or Federal law or program.
Zoning District Requirements.
Zone: R-2 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). There are currently
two residential units on this site. Although the size of the site does not
legally support two units, the current and proposed use is supported by the
City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Goal 10. This goal reads: "Ensure
a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total
cross-section of Ashland's population consistent with preserving the
character and appearance of the city." The main house on this site is a
four-bedroom family home. The apartment will comfortably house one or
two people. The scale of the apartment is considerably smaller than the
main house, thus giving visual expression to the variety of housing
provided here. As there are many examples of R-2 sites with a smaller
home "behind" a larger, older home, including several in the immediate
neighborhood, this site is in conformance with the "character and
appearance of the city."
Landscaping Requirements: In this zone 35% of the site must be
retained in landscaping. The landscaping on the subject site is existing,
and mature. 55% of the site is dedicated to landscaping and outdoor use.
i
There are existing street trees, and an existing irrigation system for all of
the landscaped areas. None of this will be changed.
Trees: The existing trees, which are shown on the Site Plan, are all to
remain. The project is such that the most logical places to store materials
and stage the renovation work are in the existing parking area and the
brick patio adjacent to the building to be remodeled. Because all trees are
to be saved and all but one are located quite a distance from the building
to be remodeled, the Planning Staff has excused us from providing a Tree
Protection Plan. The one tree that is close to the remodel is in a raised
planter within the brick patio, and thus should be easy to protect.
The tree consultant for this Project shall be Upper Limb-It. In early July of
this year, Upper Limb-It did a pruning of the trees on this site. At that time
they found no, sick or hazardous trees. There is a tree inventory listing the
types and number of trees on the site at the end of these Findings.
Parking, Access and Internal Circulation: For the two dwelling units on
this site, there are 3.5 parking spaces required. In existence now are 3
on-site spaces accessible from Hargadine Street, and 1 allowable on-
street parking space on Gresham Street. The size of the on-site parking
allows for two compact car spaces and one standard space. The
Gresham Street on-street parking space accommodates the other
standard-sized automobile. Thus half of the parking spaces provided are
for smaller cars. (50% is allowable.) The access to the off-street parking
complies with Municipal Code Chapter 18.92. There is no internal
automobile circulation on this site.
The location of the parking relative to the property line and the building
housing the apartment are what necessitate an Administrative Variance.
See the discussion below of the variance for more details on the existing
parking spaces.
Setbacks: The non-conforming existing setbacks are what trigger the
need for the second Conditional Use Permit in this application. The
existing front yard setback for the apartment at 374 Hargadine is 22 feet,
which exceeds the code-required 20 feet. The rear yard setback is 6 feet,
which is too little (20 feet are required by the current code), and the west
side yard is 3 feet 4 inches, which is also non-conforming (6 feet is
required). The shortest distance between the two buildings on the site is
16 feet. Ten feet are required. The setback required for solar access is
not triggered by this application, as the building to be remodeled will not
change in height. As noted above, these setbacks were not required at
the time of construction of this building.
Eaves: Because of the non-conforming setbacks, the existing roof edges
on the south and west sides are legally too close to the property lines.
There is no eave overhang on this building at this time. Therefore, we run
into trouble when we propose creating 12-inch eaves in order to make the
building more compatible with the Historic District. The existing home at
19 Gresham has mainly 12" eaves. There are some upper gables with no
roof overhang, but they are above an eyebrow eave that extends 12".
Therefore, we are seeking permission as part of this CUP to extend the
building's roof 12" closer to the south and west property lines. This will
help the existing building to blend more appropriately with its Historic
District location.
Height: No existing structure is over 35 feet in height, and no additional
height is to be added.
Lot Coverage: Lot coverage is limited to 65 percent of the site. At least
eight percent of the lot shall be dedicated to outdoor recreational space.
The °existing coverage by structures on this site is 37%; coverage by
paving for parking is 8%. This leaves 55% for outdoor recreational use
and landscaping, which is well within the required amount. The area in
combined patio and porches for outdoor use is currently 871 square feet,
or 12.9% of the site area, not including the lawns on the north and east of
the site. These areas will remain unchanged in size.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. The need for utilities due to this proposed remodel is not
increased. The existing utilities for the subject property are as follows, as
determined by the Pre-Application map (see attached) provided by the
City.
Hargadine St. Gresham St.
Water 4" line 4" line
Sewer 6" line 6" line
Storm Drain NE corner at Gresham on east side
Electricity overhead full service
Paved Access yes
Transportation bus available one block away
on East Main Street
Fire Hydrant across Hargadine Street, 120 feet
from the center of the building
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on
the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the
subject lot with the target use of the zone. The following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use
of the zone:
1. "Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage." If the existing two-structures
on this site were built to today's code requirements, the bulk and coverage
would be a little smaller. Because the site is in the Historic District the
maximum permitted floor area for the two buildings today would be 2376
square feet. In some cases with a CUP, up to 2970 square feet would be
allowed, a 25% increase. The existing area, which will remain the same
after the remodel, is 3290 square feet, 38% higher than the basic
allowable amount. However, the lots in the impact area were also
developed largely before today's code. Thus, the built areas of the homes
in the adjacent R-2 zone could well be more than what is allowed today.
As one walks through the impact area, there seems to be consistency
between this lot and the others in scale, bulk and coverage. (Please see
the attached Map of the Impact Area and the keyed photographs.)
Across Hargadine Street to the north is a commercial zone, and across
Gresham Street to the east is the public library. Both of these uses allow
for denser site coverage than what is normally allowed in an R-2 zone.
Thus the non-conforming density of the subject property has less impact
than it would if it were totally embedded in a newer residential district.
2. "Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities." By today's codes, there would be only
one residence on this site (due to lot size). Therefore, there has been
since 1952 more traffic generated than that generated with the current
target use. (Target use: 9 - 12 vehicle trips per day. Existing use since
1992: 12 -19 vehicle trips per day.) Prior to 1992, when there were three
dwelling units generating traffic from this site, the number of vehicle trips
per day could have been more. The detached residence, however, has
been there since approximatelyl952, and any additional traffic generated
by the proposed remodel should be nothing to less than what has been.
The existing apartment is a one-bedroom unit. The remodeled apartment
will be a larger one-bedroom unit. Conceivably either size could house
one or two people. The location of the property close to downtown is such
that if there is one more person living there, there will likely be more
pedestrian, bus and bicycle traffic, rather than more automobile traffic.
The other consideration for generation of traffic is that Hargadine Street is
the border between a residential zone and a commercial zone. The
majority of the vehicle trips per day on this road are generated by people
who either work downtown or are looking for a parking space to shop or
eat or do other business on East Main Street. In comparison, the
residential traffic, no matter the number of people living on site, is a small
percentage of the actual number of cars driving on Hargadine.
3. `Architectural compatibility with the impact area." The building we are
proposing to remodel is compatible now with the eclectic nature of the
houses and other uses in the impact area. When we are finished,
however, it will be more compatible visually with the Historic District. It
is our intention to incorporate details from the older home on the site and
from the vernacular of other older homes in Ashland. (Please see the
discussion of eaves above and the photographs of neighboring properties
at the end of these Findings.)
We are also planning to change the existing entrance to the apartment
from the relatively hidden second-story location on the west wall to a
location facing Hargadine Street, on the first floor. We will then come into
conformance with the requirement in residential zones that the entry faces
the adjacent street. Also, the existing exterior stair is hazardous; the
remodeled building will have an interior stair.
In the attached front elevations, we have suggested two different options
for a front door on the street-side of the building. Option 1 has the entry
door literally on the north elevation. However, this location is awkward
because of the relatively narrow walk in front of the building and the
location and direction of swing of the gate in the fence that leads to this
house. Therefore, we are looking at Option 2, which creates a visual entry
with a new covered porch facing Hargadine Street. The actual door to the
interior would be located in that porch, on the existing east wall of the
house. This location flows well from the entry gate into the property, and
still lets people see from the street where to enter the building. See photo
#9 for an example of an implied entry (other than the front door) facing
Gresham Street.
4. 'Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants." The air pollutants created by the use of this site
are related only to automobile use. If there were one residence here (due
to the size of the site), there would be fewer vehicular trips per day than
there are now, although not many fewer. The second unit has only
added one bedroom to the site. Compared with the creation of pollutants
since 1992, there should be no change, except for the improvement
created by tighter regulation of auto emissions by the D.E.Q. (See also
the discussion of traffic in #2 above.)
5. "Generation of noise, light, and glare." Like #'s 2 & 4 above, any
additional noise, light and glare, would only be created by automobiles. If
one considers the target use to be one residence, there could be a small
increase in these pollutants over that created by the target use. However,
relative to the long-standing current use, there will be little to no change.
6. "The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan." The development of adjacent properties should not
be impacted at all. The proposed remodel is internal to the subject
property, and the use is basically unchanged.
7 "Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority of review
of the proposed use." Other factors that were noted in the Pre-application
Conference for this project include the number of units on the property, the
use and age of the second building, the maximum permitted floor area in
the Historic District, the non-conforming location of the existing parking
spaces, orientation to the street, and historic compatibility. All of these,
except for the location of parking which requires an Administrative
Variance (see below), have been addressed in the narrative above.
Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards Regarding Parking
The existing off-street parking spaces vary from that required by Ashland's
Site Design and Use Standards in two ways. The first is that a separation
of 8 feet is required between a parking space and an adjacent building.
The existing separation is 5 feet. This dimension, I believe, was the result
of the additive north-south dimensions of the depth of the parking, the 22-
foot depth of the building (originally a concrete-block garage, for which this
dimension was considered minimal), and the arbitrarily determined 6-foot
setback on the south side. The dimension between the parking and the
garage was low on the priority list. What helps the existing 5-foot.distance
to work is that there is a block wall at the back of the parking, which
creates a 27-inch elevation difference between the surface of the parking
and the brick walk in front of the building. This elevation difference,
would argue, creates a similar separation to the required 8-foot separation.
The second issue is that a 5-foot separation between a parking space and
the property line is required. The existing parking is adjacent to the
property line. In support of our request for the variance, I would suggest
that the location of the parking next to the property line works on this site,
not only because it is existing, but because it allows for the 5-feet-wide
landscaped area that could be between the parking and the property line
to be instead added to the major landscaped yard to the east. In this
location it is easier to maintain than a small strip, which would be at risk
between this lot's and the neighbor's parking spaces. In addition, the
neighbor to the west also has a parking space that abuts the common
property line, and thus the parking spaces on the subject property. See
photo below.
f
w
There are several aspects of the existing parking that conform to or
surpass requirements for off-street parking. They are as follows: The
surface is brick and a little concrete over a sand bed, thus generating less
heat than an asphalt parking area and allowing some water to permeate
the surface, rather than all of it running off into the street. The back up
space is nearly 31 feet, rather than the required 22 feet. (There is parking
on the north side of Hargadine, which results in a usable back-up space of
23 feet when there are cars parked.)
The Architect and Owner proposing this project have endeavored to comply as much as
possible with the pertinent standards in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan. When compliance was not possible because of existing
conditions, we have explained why we are requesting permission in spite of what is
there. Therefore, we respectfully request approval of two Conditional Use Permits and
an Administrative Variance to allow for a remodel of the existing building at 374
Hargadine Street, Ashland, Oregon.
b
it
CARD FROM ELECTRIC PANEL BOX
134 HARADIN STREET
Found in 2013 by Susan Springer
STATE OF OREGON-BUREAU OF LABOR
W. E. Kimsey, Commissioner Q , 4173:
ePermission is% hereby granted, to an electrical sawing agency to connect and
energize the electrIic wiring system' designated hereon, pending inspection and approval
-6y.the Labor Commissioner, and conditioned that blanks on these cards are ¢iroperly
ftlle4' in and signed, all as provided for by Chapter G, U. C. L. A,, as amended by
Chapter 83, Uregoii Laws, 1949,
v
~ ~ lpstl ess)
.
d
(Ot~ner or tcn 2nt e name) L
c ~d'ot em, rs arvcu) (City or twvn) (County)
fj': F ~f~ t - ,f~. :"c. "`r'` ✓ d''' ~r i~ , G r...,..-r'"f 'a1~G'jr//8~''~`r'L„~'
Ficctsic~a coatiacto c (License No.) (supervisor's sign4turg)
.inn _n A.N-^..!A„ s nn, ak9.+bc4^^~^-°.142'+=+R,S _ ax » .6 .Ra°'!M• 41
1964 POLK I
SUSAN SPRINGER CONDITIONAL U MIT APPLICATION
1101 Knox Geo W & 10VW2& 4 Bizlentine Jinn
'130 Davis Charlie E & '4 ,2-1.kT1W Street continued
Fairview intersects 318 McLariian Mary'
Aiiburn intersects SW Kendall Rex 462 4371
,14Z Bowman Tracy L O 40 t3d2 Wilson John
151 Jones Walter H O 402-11502 324 Sharp Phil
X1.,05 Stothers Culbert A G 402- 3W Kramer Foss G
1~3 B A C Mrs Zd Intersects J
aanman
yris X340 Baur,hman Bertha M O 482-
,185 Jack Macon S 460-27-95 04fre
1,8? Sawyer Wm 353 Bryan Elmer E O 462: 05-
IN Shepard Clifford G 13$4 Ellis Cath E Mrs 42-4104
2,00 Stults Wm K O 4OZ-10317' TWA Levison Robt L 4;W-W60
12,01 Ka g Shirley A Mrs '462- ST4 Ford Robt H 4'&2-49 3
= Center Harold
Iowa intersects Gresham Intersects
212 Sterrett Stanford S ,33'
21-5 Allen James W U 481240,401 HARMONY LANE - From
231 Norwood Vernon 'E O 462 Siskiyoti blvd south, 2 west of
269 Wright I'i.obt W O 462-226e Normal " = Toll John R 40240 Clark
Rowe interse~ets.
2M KIrsher Richd G & 46041,06 $ 301
Oft Bell Walter W C3 4<32-0417 02 Vacant Udw O 48!2-46W
sect Sunset intersects
C99 Grace's Beauty Salon 44 2-OAW M Fries Archie C O 4+24'
Holly intersects. 817 O'Bleness Donald M O 402-
Guthrle intersects 3199
922. Wilson Elmon H
GUTHRIE - Continuation of 031 Vacant
Gresham 'from Holly south 8232 Harmon Dale T O
347 Jenne Norman A'@ 402-T,1103. StO Grebner Kenneth W 8. 482-
►361 Bebher Ruth G 4&2-96W 211W
Alorrill intersects -M Houck Leland D G
43d Bill's Bug "E" Business •803 Fellers Alvin L G 4'SIN23M
exterminator 70-7'181 SfiO Ejork Clarence W G' 462-2553
Osborn Wm L U 402-=2M ,MLg Graves 14 R G 432-WM
4510 Sudborough Dana R O 462- 870 Maish Wm jr O 432-0=
01W 691: Forrest Chas W ibr whol 402-
Herbert intersects 0"
1550 Under constn 882 Mittag Vilas E G 402-3070
Ashland intersects 891 Gussner John G O 4 O86
;28 892 Jacobs Lawrence J O 402-3090
HARGADINF From S Fioneer Ross la intersects
east, 1 south of 4' Main '302 Bowdoin Willard E bldg eontr
(Numbers appear on street In 4192443
sequence listed) 903 Miller Clifford R O 402427
SO Paris Ruth Mrs O 462-4001, X O Craft Clifford A G 307
8,01,E McCalmon , Chas A 4=-03+79' 9,13 Sears Laura A Mrs G 462-
11,>3 Kincaid Eliner L 49220541 e065
Fork intersects 9243 Cullop Woodward ,D U• 4MI19
1-30 Beckwirth Merrill kM2 Wilkinson Arnold G 1462-
i4urt Arvil 462 41WO 0600
Polk Monte 402-008a 9055 Provost Dom S jr G 48 M
143 Savage Walter 342 Grimes Veatch M U 4W2-2M
;1166 Edwards Repr Shop 4924,106 945 Lagesen Haakon O 4024090
No return 950 Martin Jerald 402-22M
T07 Thomas Kenneth R 957 Trebil Richd L O
1'7x7 Peck Wm N 4,8240210 060 Burkett Clyde H O 402-27-1.7
1H l lliott Dave g61 Under constn
n 18W DeBoer Sidney B 4,W42103 •9.'64 Merrill John S 4SZ+NEO
1,34 3-4 ~ Ralston Mike Peachey rd intersects
1'90 Wright James M 129
1st intersects 11ARRISON From Siskiyou ~
2088 Beliveau Dorothy 4912-14,115- Boulevard south, 1 east of
Copeland Kent 1524V;9 Sherman
Davis Margt E Mrs 161- Lands Victor E O 462-12=
Johnson Lei h ~1W Rice Gerald W @ 482-4177
1220 Range A C 4132-06q.19
178 Mitchell Cleatis G 40219313
2-41 First Baptist Ch 40-243936 180 DeArvilla John S 462-OZ6t6
244 Vacant 14 3' Evans Nellie Mrs G- -M-21)7'0
TREEINVENTORY
SUSAN SPRINGER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
August 8, 2013
Tree Type Diameter Number on Site
Locust 4" 2
Crab Apple 5" 2
Mimosa 12" 1
Plum 8°1 1
Cedar 8" 1
Cherry 8°1 1
Dwarf Japanese Maple 4" 1
i
9
5
F
` NIAIIV
372N) -`M\~~
M r /
r I1 i V L
/
\I /
64 370 M M, 19
L J
M c:r, 1
25 i
t~
® OM M
31
M CM)
/ V
'If AV
12 -14
41
U M
M
48
M
19 Gresham Hydrant
Sanitary Sewer Utility features
Date: 3/1 /2013 Electric features
Storm Water Utility features
1:600 - Water Utility features Taxlots
1 inch = 50 feet CI Streets r
Building
Mapping is schematic. only and bears no warranty of accuracy. '
~ Public Utility Easement
All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations
should be independently field verified for existence and/or location.
S
J
_ 2 O
-EFT
Su~J
' p 00 pr~- z Y A-
~ ~ I
s
a, G 1.4
U
IN\
MAP OF IMPACT AREA
19 Gresham Street/ 374 Hargadine Street
~Jl
F
t
e
r
I
~I
j
~ ' III
t
0O r,4,ap'~a~~ f I 1 ~1~1 a
r IF i ` i t
1 ! y 9 L'
I I > t r 3 ,'Fr~ !
~ f I ~3 j
~I .rw
N r
t E Y 11111 k; h~ ~ ~
_ Y If 'A` CFFF
_ II
x
r
f l
,
fi.
r _
f. i
j eau s
NO'
z n:;
y Um s E
370
I ~
I A.A.~ z I
I^ f I - d Y
~ gym
M
3G44 Hurgadino
111
Y
3
f
s R
I
i ~ rf
1
-1 Gresham S)ireet
if
i
r
14
_Ai
I
I
}
1
a
k
Z
~bxG4
I
I
I
s
h t
it
I I[{r
J V ~ f W 4~ 1~ 4a~,.
p t G
G, r~e~ G, i u r~' ,fit, ntr i 1
{ Vkf
Vl~~~ _
s
i
k -
u
Vic es J ~ ~t1 ~ ` I n d r »i~~~ ~3) truct
a
999"` 'x. ~1+ '-k
F
x -
G
-41
3
s E
cY.
\ t
12
tl' Lo%wrr~:. ~_>t I nq C--Iar oic9ino it rn t
44,
i
T
AV
13
s~
~y lie y ,
IT,
innour o f Zone to the Worth of Subject Property
I i
I
i 23K~ - ~ rc .
1: a F
nZ ^Y~ '
t ,
1
15
F'
-
_ f
WOV,
w- Aw
U~..~
i f
I
i
i i.
Ashland Public Library
A\A
PROJECT LOCATION
Co
eel 99
PAW F~
~U
StM ~ ,.tr . hqr ~c
x
Gi y fiLENVIEW DR. ~xsHO
caeteirv
PEARL
~ ~ su►Marr ~'vqy~/ srsr
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
INFORMATION
PROJECT OWNER: Susan Springer
(541) 601-6406
PROJECT ADDRESS: 374 Hargadine Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Township 39, Range lE 9131)
OF PROJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot #9000
ZONING: R-2
ARCHITECT: Joyce Christine Ward
(541) 482-3004
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remodel of existing two-story, concrete block
apartment and storage building "behind" the
existing "Alice Foster House"
AREAS: Site 6750 sq. ft.
Gross Area, Two Structures 3290 sq. ft.
DWELLING UNITS: Historic Home to remain, 4 bedrooms 2234 sq. ft.
Rental Unit to be remodeled, 1 bedroom 1056 sq. ft.
Landscaping and Outdoor Use 3703 sq. ft.
% COVERAGE: Structures 37%
Three Parking Spaces 8%
Landscaping and Outdoor Use 55%
AREA TO BE REMODELED: 1056 sq. ft.
NOTE: (E) = existing
(N) = new
i
•FH
~I rClrl~~# M CN ~c~I ~ ,`6 P rL 1,,0 (66H owe)
ALL
cep r~~~~ r® ~~M~M
` r UTi~,TY Pa~-~ pro SIGN
T iV- -
7
r
12-
i LAW I~H
qLl
E: F7 ~-l
140
,~~U I r ~Ja'9rG YY( 8 - a - I~
fN-~- AloFr.,® CN PtY
n.i ~oN`f
Y~l~: ~~I►-I~LC✓
177
r4c
E _ N
W
PAN ~'M l 1NP.R►'~'~, - - le,) wp, ' ii.a
?
~Yr~Y- xT
10
r To C)~- YPI M, TY
To r LT rff~ H6
~'t"'"' ~ i' ~ 4./ 1._ ! ® 4e/ 1 ~ (w ~D ~ H~ 1. _ ~ V P la 1 ' I'~
r r
ZONING MIT APPLICATION
r ` Planning Division
51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 9752.0 r
CITY o F 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE
ASHLAND
i
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ® YES ❑ NO
Street Address 3 d 571
Assessor's Map No. 39 I E Tax Lot(s)
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name Phone ( E-Mail
- i ~
Address City Do. I-,- Z e
PROPERTY OWNER
Name r : Phone E-Mail
Address - r f C- - r
Zip City -
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
I 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 suflicient 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 fumished 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, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance,
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in his request, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Property Dwner'2ignature (required) Date
[To be completed by City Staflj
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ t I
OVER F1
GAcomm-devlplapningXFar= & AaodoutslZoniog Permit A.pplicatiomdoc
Job Address: 0 TBA Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
A C
P Owner's Name: SPRINGER SUSAN E O Phone:
Customer 07309 N State Lic No:
P SPRINGER SUSAN E T City Lic No:
L Applicant: 19 GRESHAM ST R
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: T Address:
N Applied: 08/08/2013 0
T Issued:
Expires: 02/04/2014 R
Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Address is 374 Hargadine
CUP - Administrative 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
Conditional Use Permit Type 1 998.00
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
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF
ASHLAND