HomeMy WebLinkAboutGranite_514 (PA-2009-01051)
CITY OF
-A..SHLAND
January 7,2010
Ron Rusnak
514 Granite Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Proposed Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Rusnak,
After discussing your proposed removal of three dead trees on your Granite Street property with you
here in the office, reviewing the materials you've provided to verify the trees' conditions, and visiting
the site to inspect the trees with you, staff would concur that the three trees are clearly dead and can be
removed under the exemption allowed in AMC 18.61.035.G.. Based on site observations, it appears that
the trees have died due to a recent and severe beetle infestation, and staff understands the need to
remove these trees to prevent the spread of this infestation. Based on GIS slope data and the number,
type and size of trees to be removed, these removals are not regulated under our hillside ordinance.
As noted on site, with the exception of the removal of these three dead trees, the requirements of your
land use approval remain in effect. In addition, and again as noted on site, given the proximity of these
trees to your nOlih property line it is incumbent on you to be certain of the property boundaries prior to
proceeding.
If you have questions, please contact me at 541-552-2040 or via e-mail to
Sincerely,
Derek Severson
Associate Planner
Cc: File
Community Development Dept.
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800.735-2900
~ ~i~~~~~
~ ~~il~~~
~ ~Ei~~~ffi
~ 5~ii:r~
~ ~I~~~~~
~ ~~~mn
- ~H:6a
tl '<l)>~
~ ~~~
{'} ~ ~H~~
.i~
~I.i~~,,~
!(l!R~IIf!ll~!R
. r'! I
; ~~~i~g
[; 8maggt3
(f) ~ ~~I~~f;
=i 6~~~g~ ~
m ~ 'r !j-i I I
"
~ ~Ui;a(llill3!
'"0 " ~;'ea~~ ~
r ~ ~~~~
)>
Z .'~~
!fr
.
~
~dm
/,
Ii
/
I
/
/
,
,
\
I \l )> (j)
en :t
"' m
x ...... ~
ffi 0"
N
Z
G>"
>^'
;of'
~Q
I~"
o
uJ~
~g ::
~iil n
g.. B~
~
/\
I
I
~
\,
r
,,-).
"
5~
0J~
,~
I
I
/
/
/
I
Ii
;
~
~
f
~
;g~~ :
~:Vifi (i)
!!!~~ ~
~~~ ~
8I~g :a
fi ~ m
~~1j
1:jr^,
~~m
~~.ffi
../
......, \;;
I~ )~;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_1-
- I
I
I
I
-h ~ ,.:/-
l':' ','i'-
: I \!':),'y
: I i\\ >)
I I
I I
-:- oJ...
I "-
I "-
I "-
! "-~\~"-l.,
-4 " "
~: _. ~ .r~__
l,\ I~
~))~
'<ilk
z ~)),
~ I)v
Z~ I REPLACEMENT RESIDENCE
USA ZlNGARElll & RON RUSNAK
~ Ag~~~~J20
;0
c: ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. 391E 17M TAX lOT NO.1105
~
o
z
I
,
r<'-'~
'~
<-<!iIk
~11>r
s'Rl:1>:
Carlos Delgado,;j-\ 2.r~
ARC HIT E C T c.i ~ ~
545 AStreel -Astdand Oregon 97520 ~ ~t ~;i:;
541.552.9502 541.552.9512 fax ~n.~ o,~
carIos@m1nd.net ....'Y . l.'J~)o'
I
DESCRIPTION DATE
'--~Db Ic-E=--'/C.-
("
~ub life ((v\ -~
5lL\ n v'LdtN \~ ~/,
'-I\'<sl-+ L~t;) D r ~
"
\ 1.-101
'-1~-~Sf~:-A-r (? -[1tE.~ ',l~:t~D--\-f e f? "'~
l01\~vi T--' '1v r e \tlA 0 'v) e I
-Tt\l'<; I'Je-e,~ 'I'D kx~ C OVt/LJF Co'fe S:)
A c;A.~:r_ t1e(0L( od~/l TNf'C,
~r f \ 0~'l'~~? Ci---EP-
c~ '-I\~ '- ! D"-,- hAAIC--E 'k- 'f.J0,:!\;-::yl c~ (~.
.....
Vv'\.L( C7 \ 11:= 17 lA~ '-rHAPr" \~i ft-{'(
, ,
be h-~ jt' (/IA,D 'vJt:p ,
-P(c^,,~\L>
CD ,~
N Vl ?21A~ (\5yt'L__
:::;Cff/ 259 - -sE8s ) CO^+A:cT-
lL/lZ,
\b(\\V\...S,0,4kcu ..ft-oL,_ c,(')~ *.::;;,. SOO(~
'\.::--- k7 r 0 s s. U <(
p"/
\ .S,.
'-/"'" , <:;kuJ,9 HM'C _. -Tttt'- 17~
P l c::>T~' -P(4~ O'~ -f1l --e ,- (
October 14, 2009
Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
514 Granite Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: RE: Planning Action #2009-0 I 051
Notice of Decision
At its meeting of October 13,2009, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Conditional Use permit for the property located at 514
Granite Street -- Assessor's Map # 39 1 E 17 AA; Tax Lot 1105.
The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on
October 13,2009.
Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of
approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and
evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community
Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed within 15 days ofthe
date this notice was mailed and with the required fee ($304), 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: Urban Development Services 485 W Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
rA'
SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type II decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section
18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as
jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered.
I. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision
should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the
Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4.
A.
Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.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 ofthe appeal proceeding.
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:
B.
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.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
rA'
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 18.1 08.070.B.5 .
F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as
the following:
l. 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.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
rA'
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 13t1a, 2009
IN THE MAITER OF PLANNING ACTION #2009-01051, A REQUEST FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A REPLACEMENT HOUSE
FOR AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING HOUSE TO BE DEMOLISHED AT
514 GRANITE STREET. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED
BECAUSE THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE (IMPERVIOUS SURFACES OF
THE EXISTING HOME, DRNEW A Y, AND SIDEWALKS) EXCEEDS THE
SEVEN PERCENT ALLOWED WITHIN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. WITH
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, OVERALL LOT COVERAGE FOR THE SITE IS TO
BE REDUCED BY 23 SQUARE FEET.
APPLICANTS: Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
RECITALS:
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
)
1) Tax lot #1105 of Map 39 IE 17 AA is located at 514 Granite Street and is zoned WR Woodland
Residential.
2) The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a replacement house for an
existing non-conforming house that is to be demolished at 514 Granite Street. A Conditional Use Permit
is required because the existing lot coverage, which includes the impervious surfaces of the existing
home, driveway, sidewalks and walkways exceeds the seven percent lot coverage allowed within the
Woodland Residential (WR) zoning district. With the current proposal, the overall lot coverage on the
site is to be reduced by 23 square feet.
3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in 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:
P A #2009-01 OS 1
October 13th, 2009
Page 1
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.
4) The criteria for modification of a non-conforming structure are described in 18.68.090 as
follows:
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed,
substituted, or structurally altered, except asfollows:
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(B and C),
a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more restricted
nature, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the use is
changed to a permitted use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18. 104. 050(B and C),
nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or the
footprint modified, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained
when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitated_if is not changed in
size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not changed except if in
conformance with the procedures of Section 18.68. 090.A.1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal maintenance and
repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration to a safe condition when
declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting public safety.
5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is damaged to an
extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be restored only if the damage
was not intentionally_caused by the property owner and the nonconformity is not
increased. Any residential structure(s), including multiple-family, in a residential
zone damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost by a catastrophe, such as fire
that is not intentionally caused by the owner, may be reconstructed at the original
density provided the reconstruction is commenced within 2 years after the
catastrophe.
P A #2009-01051
October 13th, 2009
Page 2
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on October 13,
2009 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission
approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a replacement house for an existing non-conforming house that is to be demolished at
514 Granite Street meets all applicable criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval as described in
Chapter 18.104.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that while a small area with slopes greater than 25
percent is to be disturbed, the slopes to be impacted were created through sitework associated
with construction of the existing home and driveway, and the natural slopes in this area are less
than 25 percent. A slope analysis prepared by project architect has been provided with the
application along with a supporting letter from a registered land surveyor that the areas to be
disturbed have a natural slope of less than 25 percent. The Commission therefore finds that no
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit is required.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that while two trees greater than six-inches in diameter
at breast height (d.b.h.) are proposed to be removed, because these removals are proposed for a
single family residentially zoned lot occupied only by a detached dwelling and associated
accessory structures and are not subject to a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review
Permit, no tree removal permit is required.
P A #2009-01 OS 1
October 13lh, 2009
Page 3
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that single family dwellings and associated accessory
structures are permitted outright within the Woodland Residential zoning district. The
Commission further finds that the subject property already contains an existing house which is
currently served by all necessary city facilities including water, sewer, paved access, electricity,
and urban stonn drainage.
The Planning Commission finds that traffic impacts; the generation of noise, light and glare; air
quality including the generation of dust, odors or other environmental pollutants; and the
development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan remain unchanged
with the construction of the replacement house.
The Commission finds that the primary applicable criteria to be considered are similarity in bulk,
scale and coverage, and architectural compatibility as they relate to the proposed construction of
the replacement house on a property where the lot coverage already exceeds that allowed by
ordinance. The Commission finds that the applicants have provided conceptual elevations of the
proposed house along with an analysis which addresses the average living space for houses in the
vicinity (applicants' Exhibit A). Based on this submittal, the average square footage of living
area for homes in the neighborhood is 2,371 square feet with a range from 884 square feet to
3,866 square feet. This same submittal notes that the footprints of the homes, including living
space and garages ranges from 1,040 square feet to 2,900 square feet. The Commission finds that
the replacement home proposed with the application has a 2,040 square foot footprint, placing it
within the nonnal range of bulk, scale and coverage for the area. The Commission further finds
that the proposed replacement home is of a contemporary design, that it steps into the
embankment, and that the design emphasizes a southern orientation for natural heat gain and
light; the Commission finds the design to be architecturally compatible with the designs of other
homes found in the vicinity.
The Planning Commission finds that while the proposal involves modifications to a site with
non-confonning lot coverage, the proposal itself will not adversely impact the surrounding
neighborhood and that it will in fact result in a net 23 square foot reduction in the overall lot
coverage of the subject property.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a replacement house for an existing non-
confonning house that is to be demolished is supported by evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2009-01051. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2009-01051 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
PA #2009-01051
October 13th, 2009
Page 4
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modifY
this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3) That prior to demolition of the existing home, the applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit and
the necessary inspections to verifY that existing utilities are properly addressed during the
demolition.
4) That the building permit submittal materials shall include:
a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public utility or access
easements.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, and vehicular and
pedestrian circulation areas. Lot coverage on the property shall be limited to that
approved with this application, and any increase in coverage would require a modification
of this Conditional Use Permit approval.
c) Exterior building materials, paint colors and light fixtures shall be consistent with those
approved as part of the application and compatible with the surrounding area. Exterior
building color and material samples, and specifications of the light fixtures and any
necessary shielding or shrouding, shall be provided with the building permit submittals
for review and approval of the Staff Advisor.
5) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to site work including building demolition, storage of materials, or permit issuance.
The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the two Oaks to be removed and
the installation of tree protection fencing for the other trees that are to be retained. The
tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with
AMC 18.61.2oo.B and the approved Tree Protection Plan, and shall be inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including demolition, storage of
materials or permit issuance.
b) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including provisions for fire apparatus
access and associated angle of approach, easements, turn-around, and identification of
obstructions; firefighter access paths and work area; fire flow; hydrant distance; approved
addressing; and wildfire hazard area fuel breaks shall be complied with prior to issuance
of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Fire
Department requirements shall be clearly addressed in the building permit submittals.
Lj/d#1m~
Planning Commission Approval
October 13th, 2009
Date
P A #2009-01051
October 13111, 2009
Page 5
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 13, 2009
PLANNING ACTION:
2009-01051
APPLICANT:
Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
LOCATION:
514 Granite Street
39 IE 17 AA Tax Lot #1105
ZONE DESIGNATION:
W-R
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Woodland Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
October 4, 2009
120-DA Y TIME LIMIT:
February 1, 2010
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.14
18.61
18.62
W-R Woodland Residential District
Tree Preservation and Protection
Physical & Environmental
Constraints
Non-Conforming Uses & Structures
Conditional Use Permits
18.68.090
18.1 04
REQUEST: Planning Action #2009-01051 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
replacement house for an existing non-conforming structure to be demolished at 514 Granite Street.
A Conditional Use Permit is required because the existing lot coverage (impervious surfaces of the
existing home, driveway and sidewalks) exceeds the seven percent lot coverage allowed within the
W-R zoning district. With the current proposal, the overall lot coverage on the site is to be reduced
by 23 square feet.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
In April of 2003, a Boundary Line Adjustment between tax lot 1100 and 1105 was
minsteriallyapproved. At the time, there was a finding that while the subject properties were
non-conforming in terms of the lot sizes, the boundary line adjustment was proposed in a
manner that did not change either lot's pre-existing lot size and thus neither became more
non-conforming as a result of the boundary line adjustment.
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 1 of 7
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Site
The subject property is located at 514 Granite Street, on the west side of Granite Street
between Lantern Hill Drive and Ashland Creek Drive. The property is irregularly shaped and
has an area of approximately 26,741 square feet. The property currently contains an existing
house, a detached guest cottage, and a shed. A shared 12-foot wide driveway serving the
subject property and six additional properties traverses the site for a length of approximately
120 feet; this driveway is paved and covers approximately 1,695 square feet (or 6.3 percent)
of the subject property.
The application notes that the property is generally level at its west end, where the house,
driveway and guest cottage sit, but slopes downward from west to east at approximately 15-
35 percent. The portion of the property where the proposed replacement house is to sit is on
slopes of less than 25 percent, with the exception of a small area of man-made cut slopes
created with the construction of the existing house. A slope analysis prepared by project
architect Carlos Delgado, has been provided with the application along with a letter from
Surveyor Shawn Kampmann of Polaris Survey concurring with Delgado's analysis that the
areas to be disturbed have a natural slope of less than 25 percent, and explaining that this
analysis was based on "catch points of the previously existing natural grade prior to the
existing excavated cut and re-graded area that was done prior to construction of the existing
house and driveway areas within the proposed building envelope." Based on the slope
information provided by Delgado and Kampmann, it appears that while a small area with
slopes greater than 25 percent is to be disturbed, the slopes to be impacted were created
through sitework associated with construction of the existing home and driveway, and the
natural slopes in this area are less than 25 percent. As such, no Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit has been required.
The primary natural features of the site are its existing trees; a tree inventory prepared by
local arborist Tom Myers has been provided with the application, and it identifies a total of
25 trees on or near the subject property six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or
greater. These include oak, pine, cypress, cedar, madrone, and fir. The application proposes
to retain and protect all but two ofthese trees: a 12-inch d.b.h. Oak identified in the inventory
as Tree #2 and a 22-inch d.b.h. Oak identified as Tree #5. Both trees are located so that their
root zones are within the proposed building footprint. Because these removals are proposed
for a single family residentially zoned lot occupied only by a detached dwelling and
associated accessory structures and are not subject to a Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit, no tree removal permit is required.
Granite Street is considered to be a neighborhood street in this vicinity, and is paved with
curbs and gutters in place. Sidewalks and park row planting strips are not in place on either
side of Granite in this area.
The subject parcel and surrounding properties immediately to the north and west are zoned
Woodland Residential (WR). Properties to the east along the west side of Granite Street are
zoned Single Family Residential (R-I-I0), while Lithia Park on the east side of Granite is
zoned R-1-7.5. To the northwest, properties are zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5). Within
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 2 of 7
the Woodland Residential zoning district, minimum lot sizes are based on property slope,
with those properties having an average slope of less than 40 percent required to have a
minimum size of two acres, and those having greater slopes requiring greater minimum sizes
so that those properties with average slopes over 60 percent are required to have a minimum
size of ten acres, and those within the city limits but outside the urban growth boundary
required to have a minimum size of 20 acres. Lot coverage allowances throughout the WR
district are limited to no more than seven percent of the site.
Conditional Use Permit Proposal
The existing lot is only 0.61 acres, significantly less than the two-acre minimum lot size for
the WR zoning district, and the existing development ofthe subject property including the
house, guest house, shed, driveway, parking, patio and sidewalks already covers
approximately 18.9 percent of the site while no more than seven percent coverage is allowed
within the district. The existing lot coverage and the structures and impervious surfaces
contributing thereto are thus considered to be non-conforming.
The WR zoning regulations provide for changes to non-conforming uses or structures
through the Conditional Use Permit process, and refer to the additional requirements in AMC
18.68.090, where it is noted that "a non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered except as follows:"
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18. 104 and the criteria of Section 18. 104.050(8 and
C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more
restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained
when the use is changed to a permitted use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18. 104 and the criteria of Section 18. 104.050(8 and
C), nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or
the footprint modified, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be
obtained when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitated)f is not changed
in size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not changed except
if in conformance with the procedures of Section 18.68. 090.A. 1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal maintenance
and repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration to a safe condition
when declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting public
safety.
5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is damaged to an
extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be restored only if the
damage was not intentionally_caused by the property owner and the
nonconformity is not increased. Any residential structure(s), including
multiple-family, in a residential zone damaged beyond 50% of its
replacement cost by a catastrophe, such as fire that is not intentionally
caused by the owner, may be reconstructed at the original density provided
the reconstruction is commenced within 2 years after the catastrophe.
With the current application, the applicants are proposing to demolish the existing house and
construct a replacement house on the site. The application materials submitted describe the
existing house as "inundated with mold" and as having "various other integrity issues", and
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 3 of 7
explain that the type of mold found spread throughout the house is called stachybotrys, which
can be toxic and dangerous to humans. It goes on to note that other types oftoxic, but less
immediately dangerous molds have also been found to be present. A DemolitionlRelocation
Review Permit was approved by the Building Official on August 7, 2009 to allow demolition
of the existing structure. The replacement house proposed is not a reconstruction, as it will
involve a new design with an expanded footprint.
To address the non-conforming lot coverage, the applicants propose to remove the existing
111 square foot shed, to reduce the area of the existing paved driveway from 1,653 square
feet to 1,004 square feet, and to reduce the impervious surface dedicated to patio and
sidewalk from 184 square feet to 37 square feet. While the footprint is proposed to increase
from 1,156 square feet to 2,040 square feet this expansion is occurring in areas already
covered by driveways or structures, and the net result of the proposal is that the overall lot
coverage on the site is to decrease from 18.9 percent to 18.8 percent, a net reduction of 23
square feet which brings the subject property nearer to compliance with lot coverage limits.
II. Proiect Impact
The project requires a Conditional Use Permit because there is an existing non-conforming
structure on the site which is being modified through the demolition of the existing house
and the construction of a replacement house which includes changes to the size and shape of
the structure. The application was scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning
Commission due to ordinance requirements because the proposal involves a Conditional Use
Permit for a new structure, and not out of any concern over the proposal itself.
A. Conditional Use Permit
Single family dwellings and associated accessory structures are permitted outright within the
zoning district. The subject property already contains an existing house which is currently
served by all necessary city facilities including water, sewer, paved access, electricity, and
urban storm drainage. The issues to be considered are generally limited to the proposed
construction of the replacement house on a property where the lot coverage already exceeds
that allowed by ordinance, and the Conditional Use Permit process provides the means to
consider the proposal in terms of any potentially adverse impacts on the livability of the
impact area.
The application materials note that traffic impacts; the generation of noise, light and glare; air
quality including the generation of dust, odors or other environmental pollutants; and the
development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan remain
unchanged with the construction of the replacement house. The submittal materials focus on
issues of similarity in bulk, scale and coverage, and upon architectural compatibility as the
approval criteria most relevant to the proposal.
The applicants have provided conceptual elevations of the proposed house along with an
analysis which addresses the average living space for houses in the vicinity (see applicants'
Exhibit A). Based on this submittal, the average square footage of living area for homes in
the neighborhood is 2,371 square feet with a range from 884 square feet to 3,866 square feet.
This same submittal notes that the footprints of the homes, including living space and
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 40f7
garages ranges from 1,040 square feet to 2,900 square feet. The home proposed with the
application has a 2,,'040 square foot footprint, placing it within the normal range for the area.
The application notes that the proposed home is of a contemporary design, stepped into the
embankment, with an emphasis on a southern orientation to allow for natural heat gain, light
and ambience, and suggests that while modem the design is not significantly different than
the existing home or others found in the immediate vicinity.
Staff believe that the materials provided have adequately addressed the Conditional Use
Permit approval criteria, and demonstrate that while the proposal involves modifications to a
site with non-conforming lot coverage, the proposal itself will not adversely impact the
surrounding neighborhood and in fact results in a slight reduction in the overall lot coverage
of the subject property.
III. Procedural - ReQuired Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in 18.104 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 Gomprehensive 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. Arohitectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
5. Gerneration 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 criteria for modification of a non-conforming use are described in 18.68.090 as follows:
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli.Rusnak
Ashland Planning Departmenl- Slaff Report.dds
Page 5 of 7
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one
of the same or a more restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use
Permit need not be obtained when the use is changed to a permitted
use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), nonconforming_structure may be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed or the footprint modified, except that a
Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the addition or
extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitatedjf is not
changed in size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not
changed except if in conformance with the procedures of Section
18.68.090.A.1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal
maintenance and repair of a non-conforming structure or its
restoration to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe by any
official charged with protecting public safety.
5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is
damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be
restored only if the damage was not intentionally_caused by the
property owner and the nonconformity is not increased. Any
residential structure(s), including multiple-family, in a residential zone
damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost by a catastrophe, such
as fire that is not intentionally caused by the owner, may be
reconstructed at the original density provided the reconstruction is
commenced within 2 years after the catastrophe.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
As noted above, the proposal involves the construction of a house to replace one that is to be
demolished, and only requires a Conditional Use Permit because the existing lot coverage for
the subject property exceeds that allowed by ordinance. In staffs view, the replacement
home will have no more adverse impact on the livability of the area than does the existing
home. The subject property is already developed within an established neighborhood and
involves the construction of a replacement house in the location of the existing house, and
the proposal has been planned in a way that will reduce the overall lot coverage on the site, if
only slightly. As such, staff are supportive of the requested Conditional Use Permit and
recommend approval with the following conditions attached:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelll.Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 6 of 7
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 this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be
submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) All conditions of the Tree Commission as detailed in their recommendations of
October 8, 2009 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable
ordinances and standards and with the final approval of the Staff Advisor.
4) That prior to demolition of the existing home, the applicant shall obtain a Demolition
Permit and the necessary inspections to verify that existing utilities are properly
addressed during the demolition.
5) That the building permit submittal materials shall include:
a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public utility or
access easements.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, and
vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas. Lot coverage on the property shall
be limited to that approved with this application, and any increase in coverage
would require a modification of this Conditional Use Permit approval.
c) Exterior building materials, paint colors and light fixtures shall be consistent
with those approved as part of the application and compatible with the
surrounding area. Exterior building color and material samples, and
specifications of the light fixtures and any necessary shielding or shrouding,
shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval
of the Staff Advisor.
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff
Advisor prior to site work including building demolition, storage of
materials, or permit issuance. The Verification Permit is to inspect the
identification of the two Oaks to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing for the other trees that are to be retained. The tree
protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance
with AMC 18.61.200.B and the approved Tree Protection Plan, and shall be
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including
demolition, storage of materials or permit issuance.
b) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including provisions for
fire apparatus access and associated angle of approach, easements, turn-
around, and identification of obstructions; firefighter access paths and work
area; fire flow; hydrant distance; approved addressing; and wildfire hazard
area fuel breaks shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building
permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Fire
Department requirements shall be clearly addressed in the building permit
submittals.
Planning Action 2009-01051 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Zingarelli.Rusnak Page 7 of 7
Planning Department, 51 Winbul. ,ay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us lTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASH LAN
PLANNING ACTIONS: 2009-01051
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 514 Granite Street
APPLICANT: Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to reconstruct an existing non-conforming structure for the property located at
514 Granite Street. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the existing 18,9 percent lot coverage (impervious surfaces of the
existing home, driveway and sidewalks) exceeds the seven percent coverage allowed in the zoning district. With the proposal, overall
lot coverage on the site is to be reduced by 23 square feet to 18.8 percent. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland
Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 17 AA; TAX LOT #: 1105
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Notice Is her(lby 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.
Th$ ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning .thls
application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to r(lspond to the
issl.le, preclUdes your right of appeal to the Land Us.e BOard of APpeals (LlJBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion . the
objection Is b.as(ld on also precludes your right of appeal to LlJBA on that criterion. Failur(l of the appli<:ant to raise constltutiQnal or other Issu(ls
relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue preclud(ls an action for
damag(ls in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all dQcuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria.are available for inspectiQuat no cost ang
will. be provided at r(lasonable CQst, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will b(l available for insPection seVen days prior to the hearing andwill.
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials ar(l available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and
Engineering services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 975~Q.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from th(lapplicant and those In attendance concerning this requ(lst. Th(l ChalrshaU have
the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applic.able criteria. lJnless there is a continuance, if a
participant so requests before the conclusion of the h$aring, the .record shall remain open for at least SeV(ln daYS after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to participate in this m(leting, please contact the City
Administrator's office at 541-4S1J-60Q2 (TTY phone numb(lr 1-80Q-73S-29QQ). 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 I).
If you have questions or comrnents concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
G:\comm-devlplanninglNotices Mailed\2009\2009-0 1 051.doc
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.
G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices MaiIed\2009\2009-0 1 OSl.doc
"
...
I,
\
\,
I
"
"
\
"
\
,
~,,~~"-'-
\
:"00
-'~~~-~-__~~rr "
I
I
000
\ \ \
" \ \
\ \ \
\ 103 __-.--\ \
I, _..- _..- \ \
.\-----..'. 800. ' ' N.~ \
, ".",.::d'~ ..j, ,
~_~..__j..---.r.r\\~:.~;~..._~':', \~lI # 1'&~\'
.{~ - """"'it I )'1 --~.- ~.~- ,
._ ..r" ,IMI" 1.-'" -' , \
'I.... ___..u...r-..',.... i I \ OO~F~-, ..-\ d
" 008 ;, I' \.-."--- _.~..F\ ~
,r--....---..,. } ........ \ ,\
I "'" l I) ',"""" \ 004 \....:,
I '.," ,'ISV~, , ,.-
I 009 ..-:.,.__.j \ j .-----1, \
I ___ '. _-,.,. ,.F \ 'I
II ,"FF' . v-\ I'
I"~ -- __. 005" I"
\ 910 \-- ~__~FL___.:~:=j I (
I, \ ~.~ ._/....-1.001 I I
'-"'-"---~-l I
.........lOO "
~-~.~.-:-.=7
?
,
"
i'
.._._~-.)
i
301 i
...
\,
"
i
\
104
't.....
, ,,105
\
"
..
006
2300
."..
1113
'.
.\
I
I
\
I
"
.F.J\ 1\1110
,. \.....'0,
~'~n.
L__._.~~_:. ,',
F.r, 1107 .
._--~.=~-~~~.~.~,-~_.~.~_~.~~r"~~
l
I'
1\ 1300 ,r
\ 600
\, \..-
'<
\
\
\,
\..
\.
1\
"
\, i"
"
t..",
600
"
I
,
/
"
"
i
/
1'"
"
r
!
uAGKS0N G0UNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
Highlighted Feature
the Buffer
theBufferTarget
CI Tax LotOuUlnes
Tax Lot Numbers
.~..,
.....
JACKSON
COUNTY
oregon
ift'I.,.
~ <,c'/f
This map Is based on a dlgilal delebase
.. complied by Jackson County From a varleiy
_ t." of sources. Jackson County cannot accept
+',ji5e~' "ii//' ;J'~ ~~k)':~i~~~~~~~:~~~~ or
warranties, expressed or Implied.
Created wIIh MapMaker Map croated on 9/21/200910:50:05 AM using web.jacksoncounty.org
@ Please recycle with cotored ofllce grade paper
PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 600 PA-2009-01051 391 E17AA 1106 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 900
BENNETT JANI/HARVE CALLANAN DAVID AlE LIZABETH CITY OF ASHLAND
445 GRANITE ST 518 GRANITE 20 E MAIN ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-01051391E17M 1129 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 1127 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 400
CLINTON STEPHEN T/JUDITH M DE WIT ELISE M IRVIN BARBARA L
628 ASHLAND CREEK DR 644 ASHLAND CREEK DR 433 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-01051 391E17M 2100 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 500 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 1130
KENNEDY JAMES P LEMANNE DAWN TRUSTEE ET AL LEVITT RICHARD M/ELlZABETH
506 GRANITE ST 435 GRANITE ST 620 ASHLAND CREEK DR
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-01051 391E17M 1133 PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 1131 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 1600
MORRISON DOUGLAS P NELSON GORDON 0 - TRUSTEE NIX ZAN E
532 GRANITE ST 612 ASHLAND CREEK RD 512 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 800 PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 1100 PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 1105
PHELPS ESTHER M PITBLADDO RICHARD SR RUSNAK RONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL
3300 UNIVERSITY BLVD 218 6949 BENT GRASS DR PO BOX 258
WINTER PARK FL 32792 NAPLES FL 34113 SONOMA CA 95476
PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 1140 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 1700 PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 2000
RUTTER TIMOTHY J/JOANNE M SALNERS EDWARD A JR SANTEE MARY ANN
516 GRANITE ST PO BOX 781 508 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 HATBORO PA 19040 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-01051 391E17M 1128 PA-2009-01051 391E17AA 1300 PA-2009-01051 391E17M 1109
SHAHIN HABIB M TRUSTEE ET AL STAMPER VIOLA E STRUM STEPHEN/STRUM MIWHA
PO BOX 111 524 GRANITE ST 538 GRANITE
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2009-01051
Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
514 Granite St
Ashland, OR 97520
P A- 2009-01 051
Urban Development Services LLC
485 W Nevada St
Ashland, OR 97520
PA-2009-01051
Carlos Delgado
545 A Street
Ashland, OR 97520
PA-2009-01051
Shawn Kampmann
P.O. Box 459
Ashland, OR 97520
PA-2009-01051
Tom Meyers
P.O. Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
28
9-23-09
514 Granite
;$'\::-C\ . IVO~ ~~u't~b~'~sS~'t~ Z096'Z9S'~\79
J! Q ~ Q:O OZ916 uoBwO puel4s\;f. JaaJI8 'if StrS
<c;i:l ~o
~ ~ f! g;- 1:J31IH8C1rt
~S'~ \$' ope2pG sOIlBJ
'ol'd . S
::llva
I SOH'ONJ.ol XI;I.l V\ilJ 3~6~ 'ON dVVIl S.C10SS3S8\1 I @ m 0 I
'" I .. ~
0;:;91,6 tlO ONV1HSV ~8 ..m :3 l-
18 311N':f1j8 V~S w'" w W ..-
)IVN8nJ:i NOH "i/ 1ll3eJV8NJZ VSIl >-"'- W
""", '" (f)
z "", (1j I
38N30lS3Cl .lN3l^138'1ild3Cl ~~ z CJJ <( ~
N 0
~':C-~,J
I
I
\
'" '\",,'
'. '... '\ ','
\ \, \
, \, " \
m~~I;
N - - 00"
~LI
,..:.Z o.=>
~I ~~~~ "
~l ~~~~~~~
3 ~g~i~i~ .;
~ OWl::eU~:U ~
U.Ul>-~OI-
~~~~~j
~~~ 5rn~~~g
0 ~6~E5~6 0
Wg~ 0 ~~~*3* 0
0 0..1-0.1-0..0. 0
~S~ o!!?o~oo
" :iiD:H,):n:: "
~ S tJ
" -<
i" o ~ ~~~~~il~
'" ~~~
w
>- ~~N
~ ~*~
__t"'lW
0 W ..u
zo.o:
0-<-<
'" N:>o.
I W
~
~ @
~ ~
~
9 ~
0
z
C ~
~ ~
I
I
"I
~I
~i
I
I
V
U
t.:/
i
RI
'I
/
,
i~A
, z"
1
\~
!n
'%:
--:!
"-
J-.-C;-
~ <:
" ~
~....
-0. 'l,
Z ~ z:
<( ~ \1~
...J
Cl. '\-<,
w ~2
l-- \t:
,!
CJJ l~~
z: ~ 'VIl'v' 1 P:Bl: 1 ~ 600Z:fL/a
CITY OF
ASHLAND
August 19, 2009
Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
514 Granite Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: PA #2009-01051, for the property located at 514 Granite Street
Incompleteness Determination
Dear Mr. Rusnak & Mrs. Zingarelli-Rusnak,
I have reviewed the August 7th, 2009 submittals for your application for a Conditional Use Permit to
reconstruct the existing non-conforming structure for the property located at 514 Granite Street. After
examining the materials presented, I have determined that the application is incomplete because the
information listed below was not provided. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance
with ORS 227.178. The application cannot be further processed and deemed complete until the missing
information is submitted or the applicant indicates that the missing information will not be provided.
Slope Analysis: The application involves the disturbance of land with slopes in
excess of 25 percent within the Hillside Overlay. While the materials provided
indicate that these slopes are mannmade cut slopes, no evidence is included to
support this assertion. For staff to make a determination that no Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review Permit is necessary with the application, a
slope analysis prepared by an Oregon-licensed surveyor needs to be provided
indicating that the slopes to be disturbed are either less than 25 percent or are
man-made as the result of cut slopes associated with previous development of
the site.
Tree Inventory/Tree Protection Plan: No Tree Protection Plan has been
included with the application materials. All planning actions are required to
include a Tree Protection Plan addressing the requirements of AMC 18.61.200
(These plan requirements are included as a separate attachment).
To continue the Planning Department's review of your application, you must select and complete one of
the following three options:
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552.2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 80CH35.2900
seversod@ashland.or.us
1. Submit all of the missing information;
2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division
written notice that no other information will be provided; or
3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no other
information will be provided.
Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the application submittal
date (August 7th, 2009) will result in your application being deemed void. The application will be
deemed void if the additional information is not submitted by February 3rd, 2010.
I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Applicant's Statement of Completeness". Please review the
enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting. Your application
will not be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and
received by the City of Ashland Planning Division.
If you have questions or if I can provide any further information or assistance, please contact me at 552-
2040 or seversod@ashland.or.us.
Sincerely,
,~IZ,J2 ,)-c~A/J-J~
Derek Severson
Associate Planner
Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness, Tree Protection Plan Requirements
Cc: File; Knox
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552.2040
Fax: 541-552.2050
TTY: 800.735.2900
seversod@ashland.or.us
Date Received
(to be completed bv staff)
Applicant's Statement of Completeness
(To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division)
Re: PA #2009-01051,514 Granite Street
Date Application Expires: February 3, 2010
Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, I, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elect one of
the three options below by initiating:
(-)--
(fjlWiJ}BiitiiiIJ
1. Submit All of the Missing Information
I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter.
Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information
within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30-day review
for completeness period for the new information preseNes my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it
be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: the 120-day period for the City
of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional
review for completeness period is completed.)
o I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the
information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of
whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff toe be incomplete.
I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the
material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material information is missing
from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met and the
application will be denied.
Planning Division
20 E, Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552.2040
Fax: 541-552.2050
TTY: 800-735.2900
seversod@ashland.or.us
( -) 2. Submit Some of the Requested Information: Decline to Provide Other Information
(lllI1lll111)
I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other information requested in the
Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland
believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a
Denial will be issued or recommended.
( _) 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information
(I.lilllll)
I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development Department
may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended.
Date
Planning Division
Department of Community Development
Attn: Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland
. 20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWN.ashland.or.us
Tef: 541-552.2040
Fax: 541-552.2050
TTY: 800.735.2900
seversod@ashland.or.us
SECTION 18.61.200 Tree Protection
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition
work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the
City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be
drawn to scale and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and
other utility Iineslfacilities and easements;
d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for
implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an
inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment
for each tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set
forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited
to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion
of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet
apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater,
and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that
abut the parcel being developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff
Advisor for the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to
dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or
parked vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as
paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess,
construction debris, or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree
protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building andlor grading permit has been issued by the City.
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552.2040
Fax: 541-552.2050
TTY: 800-735.2900
seversod@ashland.or.us
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A PROPOSED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REPLACE THE EXISTING
HOUSE LOCATED AT 514 GRANITE STREET.
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE
LOT'S EXISTING NON-CONFORMING LOT COVERAGE WHICH
IS CAUSED BY THE LOT'S NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE.
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ASHLAND, OREGON
BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
Pnm" 1 A+' 1 ()
.c; 111 ~...n""t", <;:!t...",,,,t
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 514 Granite Street, 391E17AA Tax Lot #1105
PLANNING ACTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to replace the
existing house located at 514 Granite Street. The subject house is inundated with "mold"
and is scheduled to be removed as soon as procedurally legal (Demolition Permit). The
proposal is to replace the house with a new house that will generally sit within the old
house's footprint and generally be similar in size.
The CUP is necessary because the "existing" house's lot coverage (impervious surface
area for its footprint, driveway and sidewalk) exceeds the zone's maximum allowed
amount. This is predominately due to the fact the lot's .61 acres (legally created) is three
times less than the zone's 2 acre minimum. As such, "any" ground floor expansion or
even sidewalk improvement would be subject to a planning action and discretionary
reVIew.
OWNERS/APPLICANTS:
Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli- Rusnak
514 Granite Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-2575
LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-3334
ARCHITECT:
Carlos Delgado
545 "A" Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-552-9502
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: WR - 2 acre minimum lot size (87,120 sq. ft.).
LOT SIZE (per survey): .61 acres (26,741 sq. ft.) "Legal-Nan-Conforming"
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
Chapter 18.14 W-R, Woodland Residential District
Chapter 18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints
Chapter 18.68 General Regulations
Chapter 18.104 Conditional Use Permits
p".,.", .., ,.,..f 1 (\
"1 A n.."...~t", ~t..",,,,t
ADJACENT ZONINGIUSE:
West: WR
East: WR and R-1-10
South: R-I-7.5
North: RR.5
Subject Site: WR - Woodland Residential District
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION:
Background: A pre-application meeting was held on June 10th, 2009, at which time
comments, questions and observations were raised by the Planning and other City Staff.
No other planning or historical information pertaining to these parcels appears within
City records other than various Building Permits for the additions to the house and site's
accessory structures.
Property Description: The subject property is located at 514 Granite Street and has an
existing house, guest cottage and shed. The property is .61 acres (26,741 sq. ft.) in size.
It is trapezoidal in shape, size and slope - similar to its surrounding parcels. The property
is generally level at its west end, where the house, driveway and guest cottage sit, but the
slopes downward from west to east at approximately 15% - 35%. The portion of the
property where the replacement house will sit is on slopes less than 25% grade, except for
"cut slopes" that are "man made" and created with the construction of the existing house.
Traversing through the property is a "shared" driveway serving the subject property as
well as six additional home sites (four with existing houses and two vacant). The
driveway is now paved, but up until a few years ago was dirt and compacted gravel. The
driveway is "T" shaped, measures 12' in width and extends approximately 450' in either
direction. The shared driveway traverses through a number of the parcels via easements
which include approximately 120' oflength and 1,695 square feet of area of the subject
parcel. The portion of the driveway, solely on the subject property, is approximately 100'
in length, 10' to 30' in width and covers 1,653 square feet in impervious surface area.
Existing House Description: According to Jackson County Assessor Records, the
existing home was constructed in 1950.The home is two-stories with a basement and is
approximately 2,362 square feet in size. The home sits above Granite Street looking over
Lithia Creek and neighboring houses. The house does not have a garage, but does include
an extended driveway that can easily accommodate up to five vehicles.
As noted previously, the existing house is subject to demolition due to mold and various
other integrity issues. The type of mold found spread throughout the house is called
Stachybotrys which is very toxic and dangerous to humans. In addition, there were other
types of mold found that are also considered toxic, but less immediate and dangerous as
the Strachybotrys species.
Po",o '1 A+ 1 ()
" 1 A n..on~to ~t..oot
West Elevation of House
Mold - Main Floor (prior to recent incasing)
Proposed House Description: The submitted plans illustrate the new home as being
contemporary in style with an emphasis on southern orientation for natural heat gain,
light and ambiance. Similar to the existing house, the new home will step within the
property's embankment with the ground floor being a basement garage accessed at the
same level as the existing driveway. The main floor is the predominate volume providing
the majority of the home's living space, but with a smaller second floor recessed back
from the downhill elevation minimizing the home's mass. The home will sit generally
within the location of the existing house as well as a portion of the existing driveway and
sidewalk area. The home's footprint will be 2,040 square feet in area and measure 34' X
60'.
NOTE: Once the demolition decision occurs (application submitted 7/31/09) and the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) herein is approved, the applicants intend to finalize the
new home's architectural plans. The plans submitted with this CUP application identify
the exact proposed footprint of the house, the revised driveway design and "generally"
accurate elevations of the home's exterior. However, due to costs associated with
complete architectural plans (floor plans, footing designs, roof designs, mechanical
systems, etc.) mixed with the discretionary process of a CUP, the applicants have
submitted the minimum necessary in order for staff and neighbors to fully evaluate the
"lot coverage" elements of the proposal.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The applicants are subject to a CUP process primarily
due to the fact the parcel size (.61 acres) is significantly less than the WR zone's
minimum 2 acres which creates a non-conforming lot coverage issue. This is a significant
discrepancy as the WR zone's lot coverage allowance is 7% where as if this .61 acre
parcel was in a Y2 acres zone (RR-.5), the lot coverage would be 20% and the existing
house, as well as the proposed house, would comply. This factor has caused numerous lot
coverage problems for a number of the property owners within this area which also have
undersized parcels within a large lot zoning designation. The history on the area's zoning
is unclear, but considering the number of parcels that are Y2 acre in size or less is an
indication the zoning's initial designation wasn't correctly applied (see Exhibit A).
However, this is not surprising considering the technological limitations
compared to today's advanced mapping abilities.
P,,""a A ",f' 1 ()
"1 A n.."...,ta
Compounding the lot coverage issue is the long private driveway that serves a total of
seven parcels. Because the driveway meanders through various parcels, each parcel
having the driveway on their property must include its impervious surface area within the
maximum lot coverage calculations. Although these are "definition" constraints within
the Municipal Code, the resolution would be to convert the narrow driveway to a public
street where lot coverage is not counted against the lot, but the end result would be far
more earth disturbance and impervious surface coverage.
As such, when one considers the undersized lot compared to the zoning's lot coverage
requirement and the definition of lot coverage, any "modification" to the home's
footprint or impervious surface area is going to be subject to a CUP procedure. However,
in this application's case, significant effort has been put forth to not increase the lot
coverage, but to work within the already existing non-conforming amount. The existing
and proposed lot coverage is as follows:
Existing Lot Coverage: Proposed Lot Coverage:
Building Footprint: 1,156 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 2,040 sq. ft.
Shed Structure: 111 sq. ft. Shed Structure: removed
Guest House: 262 sq. ft. Guest House: 262 sq. ft.
Driveway to Residence: 1,653 sq. ft. Driveway to Residence: 1,004 sq. ft.
Shared Driveway: 1,695 sq. ft. Shared Driveway: 1,695 sq. ft.
Patio and Sidewalk: 184 sq. ft. Patio and Sidewalk: 37 sq. ft.
Total Existing Coverage: 5,061 sq. ft. Total Proposed Coverage: 5,038 sq. ft.
Percent (5,061/26,741) 18.9% Percent (5,061/26,741) 18.8%
As evidenced in the above table, the applicants have been diligent in their efforts to not
exceed the existing lot coverage which would add a "Variance" to the application which
would be significantly more costly and add additional discretion which are both beyond
the abilities of the applicants to absorb. As such, in order to accommodate the new
house's footprint, the applicants removed the small shed structure, shifted the house
"over" the existing impervious driveway area and eliminated small portions of the
driveway. These changes are best illustrated on the attached Site Plan (sheet AS1.0), but
the overall impervious reduction is generally equal to the gain of the new house.
It's important for the Planning staff and Planning Commission to understand that the
shared driveway serving the other lots has been in place since the 1950's and it alone
absorbs 33% (1,695 sq. ft. / 5,061) of the total amount of lot coverage attributed to this
parcel. When removed from the calculation, the lot coverage would be approximately
12.5%.
Finally, the subject parcel, as well as numerous other parcels in the vicinity, is far less
than the WRzone's minimum lot size of2 acres. In the applicant's case, the subject lot is
only ~ (26,741 sq. ft.) of the required minimum acreage, therefore allowing only 1,871
square feet of lot coverage. If the parcel was two acres, the 7% coverage would result in
generous 6,084 square foot lot coverage. Conversely, if the subject ~ acre parcel was in a
RR.5 zone (~ acre minimum), the lot coverage would be 20% and allow a lot
PC"T"" " At' 1 ()
,,1 A n...,n;t"" ~t..""""t
5,348 square feet which exceeds the applicants proposal - even with the unusual
circumstance of the shared driveway.
III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
NOTE: For clarity, the following 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, due to repetiveness in the required
findings of fact, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of
fact are complete.
18.104.050 Criteria for Conditional Use Permit:
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.
The residential use and residential structure are permissible outright and comply with all
Comprehensive Plan policies. The CUP only relates to the "modification" of the non-
conforming status of existing lot coverage which the house's footprint is a part of.
Section 18.68.090 #2 of the Municipal Code States:
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
2) When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18. 104. 050(B and C),
nonconforming_structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or the
footprint modified, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained
when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
The technical reality of this application is the fact the structure's footprint, along with the
shared driveway area, private driveway area and miscellaneous sidewalk and patio areas,
exceed the maximum amount of lot coverage for the lot's WR zoning designation which
is only 7%. Any modification of the lot coverage (impervious surface area), because it is
legal non-conforming, require CUP findings and approval.
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 proposed house will not have an increase on City facilities for water, sewer, access,
electricity, urban storm drainage or transportation beyond what it currently has today
with the existing house. Furthermore, there are no existing capacity issues with the City's
infrastructure in Granite Street.
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
P"n-a h "f" 1 ()
,,1 A n.."....'ta ~hoaat
the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be
clfnsidered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
The proposed home is similar in scale, bulk, and coverage when compared to not only the
target use of the zone (one residential unit), but also the homes within the immediate
vicinity as described in the table above. The illustrations attached (sheets ASI.O and
AI.O) represent where the future home will sit (coverage) and generally what it will look
like (scale and bulk). There is likely to be changes to the elevations, but these will
primarily deal with window patterns, roof line orientation, exterior materials and possibly
a minor wall adjustment, but nothing that would be constituted as a significant alteration
from what has been submitted as part of this application.
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.
Again, the existing house will be replaced by a new house, primarily due to the fact of a
significant mold issue. Nevertheless, the traffic generation will remain the same.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
The proposed home's architecture is slightly modem in appearance, but not too different
that other homes found in the vicinity. As such, the home's architecture is compatible.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
Again, the existing house will be replaced by a new house. The air quality of dust, odors
or other environmental pollutants will be no greater than what was typically generated by
the existing house or any other typical single family residence.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
No additional noise, light or glare will occur with the new house that is not normally
generated by a typical single family residence.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designation for this property as well as the neighboring
properties is Woodland. The proposal does not propose to alter the Comprehensive Plan
nor does it propose to impact adjacent lands in such away they would alter the
designation. The proposal is simply to replace an existing house with a new house.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
If for any reason the Hearing Authority believes there are other factors to consid1:t.',. t;bx
applicants are more than willing to participate in their resolution or mitigation. HoweYxr,
P" 0-'" '7 At' 1 ()
;;: 1 A n.."...;+", <;;!...."''''+
t:\ ~J
as stated, the circumstances related to this proposal primarily relate to the fact the parcel,
and its adjacent neighbor( ~re likely zoned incorrectly as the va~ ljority ofthe lots in
this area are significantly It:SS than the required size and to the applIcant's knowledge, all
of the lots pre-existed zoning.
IV. CONCLUSSION:
The applicants have met with most of the surrounding neighbors to explain the
circumstances with the Conditional Use Permit and the Demolition. To the applicant's
knowledge, none of the neighbors appeared to indicate a concern and welcomed the
proposed changes.
The applicants look forward to taking the next few steps which include finalizing the
architectural plans for the new house, demolishing the existing house, constructing their
new house and living in Ashland.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A" Granite Street Lot / House Size Summary
Exhibit "B" Granite Street Context Map
Exhibit "C" Granite Street Zoning Designations
Exhibit "D" Site Plan
Exhibit "E" Preliminary Elevations
P'HTA Q ^+ 1 ()
"1 A n"'''''';+A ~+"'AA+
House & Driveway Photos:
Top of Shared Driveway looking Northeasterly
Shared drive down toward Granite St.
Mid point of shared driveway looking
North Northeast
House viewed from Granite Street
PCHTO Q "f" 1 ()
"1 A n.."n~to ~t..oot
Small shed structure to be removed (Note: The tree in front of the
shed is to remain and indicates where the front of the house will
extend to.
Existing concrete and bricks to be replaced to eliminate tripping hazards.
view from back of house (looking south)
P'HYA 1 () "'+ 1 ()
"111 n..<>...~tA <;;1t"AAt
01
I: '0
'S; .s
:J <I>~
0 01>-
... III !U
<I> L- ~ '::R '::R cF. cF. cF.
N III Q) 0 0 cF. '::R '::R
en 01> ~ "<t '<I: LO CD 0 0
'i: ..- C'? CD
... (3"0 ..- oj CO r--: 0 0 oj r--:
0 ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
...J 1:"":
.- U
.... ~ .:
0
0 III
+:l a.
III oo
a:::
~ 0 0 0 CO "<t CD "<t N
~ 0 0 0 0 N "<t C'? 0>
... <I>
I: 01 "<t "'- CD. CO 0>. "'- a ..-
.;:: ~ N N N N
a.
... III
0 01
0 VI
LL :J
+J Q.
LL 01
ci-I:
oo 'S;
oj( :J
~
ro >- CD CD LO N ..- ..- "<t 0> ..-
E 'E CD CD 0> 0 C'? ..- 0 LO ......
LO CO N. LO <X!. ..- 1'--. I'-- C')
E <I> 0 N (') N (') N N N"
N it::
:::::l en tT
CI) <I> oo
<J) E <I>
0 :c
N ::I: III
CI) >
<J) :J
oo
<( :::::l <I>
0
!:: I :c I: "'C
.E III 0
> <I> 0
m o<S .E a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. 0 a.. :J .!::! .c:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..- ~ L-
:r: 0 ~ , <I>OO 0
I I , ) ) I ..- ) ..c
>< :p I: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: , 0:: 01<1> .c:
ro :J 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: ~ E
W 0::: 0 <I> 0 '0;
U OI::I:
+-' ~ Z
0
--1
+-' Q)
<J) 01
<J) I: a.. a.. a.. LO ::c
'2 0 0 0 a..
.... ~ ~ ~ r--: ..- ..- ..- ~ ..!!!
+-' 0 ) I , >- '(ij
CI) ) I I , ,
N 0:: 0:: 0:: ..- ..- ..- ..- 0:: <I> >
, ) I , C
<J) ~ 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: <1l
~ C3 :::J -
IJl a
C <I> I:
ro - IJl
.... ... 0 CD N 0 LO ..- 0 N '00 <1l
<.9 LL co N ..- "<t 0> CD co co "'C :s:
0 1'--. ~ I'-- CD N 1'--. 1'--. CD I: III
cO cri cO Lei <1l -
oo ..- ..- ..- ..- <1l
N ..- C'? ..- ..- N ..- IJl ~
I: a.
<1l <I>
<I> :2 tl
01 ~ ~
III
l!! (3 :::J
U IJl
<( >. IJl
'E :::J
a
:::J '2:
<I> a
01 CD N I'-- CD 0 <I>
III LO N ..- LO a.
l!! N 0> "<t N C'? I: .s
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
u IJl
<( .>0:: >-
U ~
<1l
-, <I>
E >
.;:::
L- a "'C
<I> .::: C>
..c "'C I:
E C'? 0> co 0 0 0 ..- 0 <I> :a
C'? 0 0 0 U
:J 0 0 0 0 '- :::J
Z ..- ..- ..- co CD LO C'? CD :::J (3
..- ..- ..- ..- a
... IJl .!:
0 <1l -
...J - a
<1l Z
0 ~
~ ~
\...,.,...4,),
ros
900
."''"."''."
:ti1.tLr
2:300
1n1
00'Ii
h~
a
Exhibit 8
JACKSON COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
Highlighted Feature
Tax Lot OUtJiM5
Tex Lot Numbers
;/ Buildings
JACKSON
COUNTY
OreGoll
,~
@
This map is based on a digital database
compJled by Jackson County From a variety
of sources. Jackson County cannol accept
responsibily for errors, omissions, or
positional accuracy. There are no
warranties, expressed or impl1ed.
Map created on 8f7/2009 1:03:38 PM using web.Jacksoncounty.org
@ PieaSB rec;,'cle with colomd office grade paper
Created with MapMaker
10S
\
.g;G1
OO{)
2. UJi)
1131
112:1
1112:4
11125
11120
11122
1I12;G
112:3
,l1UOO
WR
1112:1
11111
1113 1116
1115
RR-.5
11.32: 111311 11I31j}
11129
11138
UOll
111111)
11114
llfMW
8U(J,
111113
.","" , p..' ~ HNL
~'uv U', HI? p~...",. !
I':/;''/.J
":<lh ..
.<j,.,X- .
, l.,
'~'4"..
'.
1100
,~i>J
,"-
,~
,
,i-
"d~-
;:;~
JW.J"
...)~
R-1-7.5
.-J
/!
J.~
,{ ./
;f/'
'3:
.'t:.
.f 13(K)
1300
JACKSON COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
Highlighted Feature
Tax Lot Oulllnes
Tax Lot Numbers
Ashland Zoning
0 c.t
0 C-t.D
0 E.l
0 HC
0 M-1
0 NM
0 R.t-IO
0 R-I.3.5
0 R.I.5
0 R-t.7.5
0 R.2
0 R.3
0 RR..5
0 RR-t
0 SO
0 WR
0 WR.20
// Buildings
-I
AI
-~..
,=
JACKSON
COUNTY
oregon
N
L
N
LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
September 4th, 2009
City of Ashland
Attn: Derek Severson
59 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: 514 Granite Street; PA# 2009-01051; Addendum
In response to your August 19th, 2009 letter, regarding the application submittals for 514 Granite
Street (Conditional Use Permit), attached is the requested information regarding Slope Analysis and
Tree Inventory/Tree Protection Plan. Further, I've attempted to address staffs questions below and
suggest this correspondence be included in the record as an addendum.
Slope Analysis: Although the property does exist within the boundaries of the Hillside Overlay
District and there are portions of the property that "naturally" exceed the Overlay's 25% slope
threshold (area near Granite Street), the area where the existing house sits and the area where the
proposed home will be constructed are on lands that are naturally less than 25%. Of course this area
does include a "man made" retaining wall and cut embankment when the house was originally
constructed in 1950, but its original slope prior was less than 20%. These "man-made" cuts are
fairly evident to see in the field (see pictures below), but as suggested in your letter, I've requested a
licensed Surveyor, as well as the project Architect, to re-asses the slopes in question and they have
both concluded the "natural" slope in the area of the new and proposed house is actually less then
20%.
A letter from the Surveyor, Shawn Kampman, Polaris Survey, dated August 24th, 2009, is enclosed
and essentially states he concurs with the Slope Analysis prepared by the project Architect (see
Exhibit D, Site Plan of 8/7/09 submittal) which identify cross slopes that, at the most, are only 20%.
The Surveyor adds that his slope analysis was actually less than the Architect's 20% slope figure -
all of which are based on surveyed topography and natural landmarks. Again, this is best illustrated
on the submitted 8/7/09 Site Plan, although faint, where three random cross slopes have been
provided which were delineated from a group of mature trees above the house to a group of mature
trees below the house that show a 17%, 18% and a 20% slope - all of which are significantly less
than the 25% threshold.
Tree Inventory/Tree Protection Plan: A Tree Inventory and Tree Protection Plan are also
attached per 18.61.200. The inventory and plan were completed by a licensed Arborist, Tom Myers,
Phone: 541-482-3334
Fax: 541-482-3336
who will be retained during the demolition and construction process as required. The Arborist will
monitor the activities and recommend, if necessary, any special preservation techniques and
mitigation suggestions where needed in order to ensure the survival and health of the trees. The
applicants desire to retain the property's trees, but two trees are proposed to be removed based on
their health or their direct location within the footprint of the proposed house. These two trees
would likely have been removed already under the Municipal Code's exemption provision's
18.61.035 B. or 18.62.030 T., but the applicant's desire to retain them as long as possible and to
verify that the Demolition Permit and Conditional Use Permit are approved.
Nevertheless, because the application does include the request for a Conditional Use Permit and
desire to be thorough and help expedite the process in order to minimize seasonal construction
issues, Findings have been provided below that address the two trees that are proposed to be
removed with this application:
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposedfor removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to
applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff
Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate
verification of the permit application; and
The subject trees site very near the proposed home's new footprint. This footprint has essentially
been determined due to the limitation of the lot coverage provisions and circumstances associated
with the lot's existing impervious driveway. In an attempt to comply with the lot's coverage
limitation, the applicants were forced to pull the new home towards the west and "sit" on top of the
existing driveway in order to not "increase" the lot coverage more than what exists today. In doing
so, the two trees in question are proposed to be removed due to their direct or close proximity to the
new home.
As noted above, there are "exempt" tree removal activities in the Municipal Code that would allow
the subject trees to be removed and therefore the proposal is consistent with the Site Design and Use
Standards and the Physical and Environmental Constraints standards.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
According to the project Arborist, the area is plentiful of tree canopy and existing vegetation to
protect the site's soils and remaining tree's from excessive winds.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
Phone: 541-621-8393
Fax: 541-482-3649
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen
the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
Again, according to the project Arborist, the area is plentiful of tree canopy and existing vegetation
to protect the site's soils and remaining tree's from wind or other possible negative impacts.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval
pursuant toAMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the
permit.
As described above, the applicant's contend the proposal shouldn't be subject to mitigation
(replacement or payment in lieu of) due to the fact the trees in question are permitted "outright" to
be removed under the existing provisions of the Municipal Code. However, in order to minimize
further delay, the applicants are willing to accept a condition of approval if it is deemed necessary
based on the criteria and findings associated with the Conditional Use Permit.
If for any reason there are any questions relating to the above two matters or items relating to the
previously submitted application materials, please do not hesitate to contact me at 541-821-3752.
Sincerely,
Mark Knox
Urban Development Services, LLC
cc: Applicants
Phone: 541-621-8393
Fax: 541-482-3649
v
1
L,
August 24, 2009
Urban Development Services
585 West Nevada Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Attn: Mark Knox
Re: Rusak / Zingarelli - 514 Granite Street
Assessor's Map No. 391E 17AA, lax Lot 1105
Dear Mark,
Per your request regarding the above referenced project, I have reviewed the slope
analysis performed by licensed architect Carlos Delgado around .t.he proposed building
envelope on his plan dated August 8, 2009, and concur that the slopes shown on the
plan are less than 200/". My analysis actually was less than one percent of .t.he average
slope that the architect denotes on his plan. Ihe area of the slopes analyzed were
between the catch points of the previously existing natural grade prior to the existing
excavated cut and re-graded area that was done prior to construction of the existing
house and driveway areas within the proposed building envelope.
Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments.
Yours truly,
Shawn Kampmann
Professional Land Surveyor
t):\6Utveys\546-09\Kt1ox Slope analysl6 letter 2009-08.24.doc
P. O. [lox 459, Ash/fllId, G,'ego/J 97520 PItOIl": (541) 482-5009 Fax: (541) 488-0797
Mol,;;,,: (541) 601-,3000 w,'/w./,o/;'/';"';//l"voY,(;OI1l
Box 881
Ashland, 97520
Phone: 541-601-2069
Mark Knox
485 W. Nevada St.
Ashland, OR 97520
9/03/09
Tree Protection Plan for 514 Granite Street
The Tree Protection Plan for 514 Granite Street is designed to address the needs of all existing
trees within the project. The trees are identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered tag
attached to the tree in the field. The specified tree protection zones (as stipulated in the enclosed
tree inventory) will be drawn on the plans as well as delineated on the site by approved fencing.
Two trees with protection zones that extend within the foundation lines of the building (tree # 2 and
tree #5) will need to be removed. All other trees within the building project boarders will need
protection. The enclosed specifications detail exactly how the trees are to be protected. The building
contractor and subcontractors will meet with a certified arborist before and during construction to
insure that the correct measures are in place. A certified arborist must supervise any work done
within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inspection of the trees
during and after construction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call
me at 601-2069.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
fpi ,11' Jl. .'1 Jl4
I Tr~e - .
PO Box 881
^"hlon.' "D
~;~
Tree Inventory for 514 Granite St> 9/3/2009
Tree
Crown Species Protection
DBH in Height Radius in tolerance to zone radius
Tree # Species inches In feet feet Condition construction in feet Notes
1 Quercus kelloggii 23 48 25 good moderate 23
2 Quercus kelloggii 12 44 12 poor moderate 12 remove, (trunk wound)
3 Calocedrus decurrens 12 38 9 fair moderate 12
4 Quercus kellogaii 15 40 16 fair moderate 15
5 Quercus kelloggii 22 50 30 fair moderate 22 remove (inside building footprint)
6 Quercus kelloggii 20 45 24 good moderate 20
7 Arbutus menzlesii copse 12 41 24 Door poor 15 Multi trunk (I stem dead)
8 Quercus kelloggii copse 17 40 24 fair moderate 17 Multi trunk
9 Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 48 14 fair moderate 18
10 Cupressus arizonica 9 36 7 fair good 6.75
11 Quercus kelloggii 10 42 15 fair moderate 10
12 Quercus kelloggii copse 12 42 19 fair moderate 12 Multi trunk
13 Arbutus menziesii 8 22 8 fair poor 10
14 Pseudofsuga menziesii 7 34 8 fair moderate 7
15 Quercus kelloggii 16 39 15 fair moderate 16
16 Quercus kelloagii 12 38 14 fair moderate 12
17 Pseudotsuga menziesii 9 36 8 fair moderate 9
18 Pinus ponderosa 10 30 9 fair good 7.5
19 Pseudoisuga menziesii 7 28 6 fair moderate 7
20 Quercus kelloggii 11 32 12 fair moderate 11
21 Quercus kelloggii 13 33 14 fair moderate 13
22 Pinus ponderosa 7 30 5 fair good 5.25
23 Quercus kelloggii 17 45 30 good moderate 17
24 Pinus ponderosa 8 32 5 good good 6
25 Quercus kelloaaii copse 13 43 33 laood moderate 13 Multi trunk
Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction
1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all
work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for
each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may
not be relocated or removed without the written pennission of the consultant.
3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone.
If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree.
5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within
the tree protection zone (fenced area).
6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified
arborist and not by construction personnel.
7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that
use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water.
8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as
possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is
expected to encounter tree roots.
10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be detennined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the
soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches.
11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be
installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone.
12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any
trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone
by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench
and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.
13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly
with a saw.
14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6
inche~ of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection
zone, either temporarily or permanently.
16. No burn piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or
garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone.
17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or
smoking is allowed near mulch or trees.
Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing
1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work
to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures.
2. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field.
3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy oftree(s) to remain must be
removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified
arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree( s) and under story to
remam.
4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated
equipment.
5. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling
and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first
severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting
through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.]
6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist.
The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out.
7. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with
equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out,
not by skidding it across the ground.
8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches
9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the
smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall
be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity
10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications
11. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree
protection zone
12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six
hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health.
13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6
inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
Specifications for Tree Pruning
1. All trees within the project area shall be pruned to:
a) Clear the crown of diseased, crossing, weak, and dead wood to a minimum size of 1 1/2 inches
diameter.
b) Provide 14 feet of vertical clearance over streets and 8 feet over sidewalks.
c) Remove stubs, cutting outside the woundwood tissue that has formed around the branch.
d) Reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter
branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches near the ends of the scaffolds.
e) Remove any mistletoe.
2. Where temporary clearance is needed for access, branches shall be tied back to hold them out of
the clearance zone.
3. Pruning shall not be performed during periods of flight of adult boring insects because fresh
wounds attract pests. Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of infestation is past.
4. All pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist.
5. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree-Pruning Guidelines (International Society of
Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Pruning Standard (American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI Z133.1.
6. Interior branches shall not be stripped out.
7. Pruning cuts larger than 4 inches in diameter, except for dead wood, shall be avoided.
8. Pruning cuts that expose heartwood shall be avoided whenever possible.
9. No more than 20 percent of live foliage shall be removed within the trees.
10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perfOlID an aerial inspection to identifY defects that require
treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the consultant.
11. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees within the tree protection zone
to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch.
<:ese\ . NO,9
#~ ~ ~
~ = :-~ g;
~~ i~
<5'0'hi. s"\'?-
lau.pU!w@sojJ~
XE?j Z~96.ZS9'~PS Z096.'ZS9.~V9
OZSL6 uo6aJO pue]LJSV. ~aaJ~S V 9VS
-..--.------ I g{)WON .101 X'V.l VVL~ 3~6t: .ON dV~ S.~OSS3SSV I @ '" 0 I
= I .. ~
OZSL6 lIC GNV1HSV ~8 ..'" ::: I-
1S 3.lINVClt) v~9 we;> w W ..--
>fVNsntJ NOli 'S 1113't1\f8NIZ VSIl ~~ '" w Cf)
z << I
38N30IS3CllN3V\i38'v'ld3Cl ~~ <9 (f) <(
z ~
N
~"3UH8lJ\f
OP1315PG SOTJ13J
"""."J
,n
I
I
\
m~~I~
" ~-.,.: on.
-- j'
~~~
~~~
u::....J~
~g~
~ ~
o ~
~~~
-~N
~~~
..MW
W..U
ZILa:
0<<"
N"IL
1fj
II Jiiil&
<h ~~~,- ~~
10 ~~~~~~
v uwm;o~
9 ~ffig~~:;
Q 8~8~~~
o :st;;~~:5~
n: g:[jg:[j:[ii
www~"wl:;'
. ~..,.: '"
I
I
,I
~l
gi
,
,
v
f::I
"I
i
!J
'1
/
/~flI&
1 zW
1
z
<(
...J
a.
wi
I-
(fJ
c
!i
~~~
~:~
t-:t-
<'0
O-'t-
CJ'<1l
~'~
~,t5
o
-
:0
.c
X
W
n 'IW WBnl600ZILle
~'i-C\ . NOO ~au'pU!W@SOlJeo I go1VON.lOl X9'.l WH 3~6~ .ON dYl^l8.~OSS3SS\f I ~ = I I
~g 6 ~ XSJ Z~96.Zg~nj:>g Z09a.Zggo ~ v9 -""',--- We 0) ~J .. 0
5f ~ ~~ 0 02916 uooaJO pUeILlS\f~ +6i3JlS \f 91>'9 02916 ~o aNY1HSY f-
.lS 3.lIN~8 v~9 DC,,) wS:> w w
~ ~ ~-~ ~ .l::J 3 U H::J" \I >fVNSn~ NO~ ~ 1l1~Y8NIZ VSIl ~~ a:: w T"""
OPB13PG SOFBJ z <( I <(
~1i .0 38N30iS3~ IN3l1\i38'1fld3~ ~~ <9 CJJ
S'0,,~. s"\'t- 3.l~a NOJ.ldJ!:I~S3a z :5
N
z
o
I-
<(
>
LU
...J
LU
z
o
I-
<(
>
LU
-'
W
I
I-
0:::
o
Z
r- z
0
Z I-
0 <(
>
I- LU
<( -'
> LU
LU
-' I-
LU (f)
I- <(
W
I (f)
I LU
I S
I
.J
Ll.J
-
:0
..t:
X
Ll.J
I
I-
:J
o
(f)
\
z:~ 'VIId O~:~f::9 6oaZ/vlS
~..
IF_~
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Department
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
CITY OF
AS H LAN D 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
FILE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
(,Or/lJ: to/')""'( rJr..~,-
1--11- I'" . ,)..
J-, )\.-tv ) j.- 7
toT G Vi- (\.-
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address S I 4-
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 17 Ii It
04ANI.k
~'T.
l~
Tax Lot(s)
1 \ oS-
~hiL
Zoning
uJ{L-
Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name
S;~h
~Y>
Phone
E.Mail
Address
City
Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name
Phone
E-Mail
Address
City
Zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address ~;c.L /fW('l,..:o 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. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground,
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
(.;p~~~~~~ I ,moowsad 10 seakrompelenl pro,,::: ad,.. 8;Z;;:9
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner. .
c_._
Date
8 /~/u Cj
! .
[To be COf1'4lle1ed by City Stall]
Date Received
~
Zoning Permit Type
)
Filing Fee $
ell 7 ,
OVER ~~
n \('"mn1~rl"l'\nl::!nnjnlt\J:(lrnU IV H~I1(t""h\7nnlnu I)f>,.-mil ^nnlir~lirHl Fnrm rfn.r
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
Sub.Contractor:
Address:
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Conditionai Use to reconstruct a non-conforming house
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main 51.
Ashiand, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
CITY OF
ASHLAND