HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_963 (PA-2010-00840)
August 27,2010
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Christopher Holzshu
538 Parks ide Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
Notice of Final Decision
On August 26, 20 I 0, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved your
request for the following:
PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00840
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 963 C Street
APPLICANT: Christopher and Molly Kingsley-Holzshou
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to Exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area (MPFA) within a historic district by 9.5% or 176 square feet, and a request for a Variance to
the required 20-foot front yard setback. The applicant proposes a new single family residential
home to be located 10-feet, 2-inches from C Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09AD; TAX
LOT: 3301
The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the Notice of Final
Decision is mailed.
Prior to that date, anyone who was mailed this Notice Of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of
the action by the Staff Advisor as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
18.1 08,070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in the ALUO
18.1 08.070(B)(2)( c).
An appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Oregon law states that failure to
raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford
the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that
issue, Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of
appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the
issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available
for review at no cost at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way,
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Department of Community
Development between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Urban Development Services
Suncrest Homes LLC
Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel; 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00840
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 963 C Street
APPLICANT: Christopher and Molly Kingsley-Holzshou
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to Exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area (MPFA) within a historic district by 9.5% or 176 square feet, and a request for a Variance to the
required 20-foot front yard setback. The applicant proposes a new single-family residential home to be
located 10-feet, 2-inches from C Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-
3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 09AD; TAX LOT: 3301
SUBMITTAL DATE:
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE:
STAFF APPROVAL DATE:
FINAL DECISION DATE:
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE:
July 2,2010
July 28,2010
August 26, 2010
September 8, 2010
September 8, 2011
DECISION
The subject property is a vacant parcel located on the north side of C Street within the Railroad Historic
District. The parcel is approximately 5,000 square feet in size. The parcel has a slight slope to the north
at approximately three percent. There is a small, ten inch in diameter at breast height, apple tree in the
northeast corner ofthe parcel, which is proposed to be removed. There is a twelve-foot wide park row
and five foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of the parcel. The parcel is oriented north to south and
fronts on C Street.
The request is for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel
located at 963 C Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPF A) allowed within a Historic District by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the
parcel is 1,844 square feet, while the proposed residence is 2,020 square feet or 9.5% greater than
allowed by ordinance. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to the required 20- foot front yard
setback to be reduced to 10-feet, 2-inches.
The Railroad Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the subject
property is located at the eastern most end of the district. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area
provisions of the zoning ordinance apply to Ashland's Historic Districts to address the mass and the
scale of new structures and to protect the historic architecture of existing buildings through the
regulation of t100r area. The ordinance incorporated a provision allowing for a 25% increase to the limits
established when it can be demonstrated through the Conditional Use Permit process that the additional
floor area would not have an adverse impact on the architectural compatibility of the historic
neighborhood. In reviewing the historic development pattern in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property, staff found that neighborhood consists of various types of architecture with varying heights and
roof forms. At 42-feet in width, the scale is compatible with the adjacent structures. The front fac;ade of
P A #2010-00840
963 C Street/adg
Page 1
the structure has staggered setbacks, which are historically compatible with structures in the vicinity, the
staggered setback also breaks up the mass of the fayade and is compatible with the historic development
pattern and the varied rhythms of openings found on the adjacent properties. The property has adequate
capacity for utilities and was connected to city services.
The proposal also includes a request for a Variance to the front yard setback. In the multi-family zoned
areas of the Historic Districts, the required front yard setback is 20-feet. The applicant is proposing to
reduce the setback to 10-feet, 2-inches. The front fayade of the porch will be 10-feet, 2-inches from the
front property line, the fayade of the residence at 16- feet and the recessed single vehicle garage is
proposed to be 26-feet, 6-inches from the front property line. C Street is designated as a neighborhood
collector street. Typically, neighborhood collectors have a 50-60 foot wide right-of-way. C Street, at 70-
feet has a considerably wide right-of-way width. C Street was recently improved from gravel surface to a
22-foot driving surface, 12-foot parkrow and 5-foot sidewalk. There is an additional five feet of right- of-
way behind the sidewalk to the front property line. The width of C Street is unique and was not self
imposed by the applicant. Additionally, with the wide right-of-way, the visual impact will give the
impression that the setbacks are larger due to the area behind the curb and wide parkrow. In the
immediate vicinity of the proposed structure, six residences have a front yard setback of less than 20-
feet.
Overall, Staff believes that the applicant has proposed a design the effectively reduces the mass of the
home, preserving the streetscape of the neighborhood. The proposed home volume' does not appear to
be overwhelming because the second story is within the roofline and the front fayade has varying offsets.
Staff believes that the applicants proposal is justified and that all applicable criteria have been met. The
Ashland Historic Commission reviewed the application and noted that the proposed reduced setback
help to better establish a sense of enclosure on this section of C Street given the right-of-way width, and
that the staggering of the setbacks on this side of the block seemed historically appropriate.
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.104.050, as follows:
A, That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the
use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies
that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program,
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. '
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone.
When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage,
2. Generation oftrqffic and e.ffects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity offacilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4, Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors. or other environmental pollutants.
PA #2010-00840
963 C Street/adg
Page 2
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
The criteria for a Variance are described in AMC Chapter 18.100.020, as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; andwillfitrther the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan o.lthe City. (Ord.242581, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely se{f-imposed. (Ord.
2775, 1996)
The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances.
,"_=..~_..nG_""~""_"-"'-=_"",,"~.~.~"'_"""~_~_."O~""~_";","'--==;'"~""_~~_,""""...~.;d___,"""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,...,~_,_..~"..._.....,.~~,"~.~..,-.._,,""",,,,..~_,,,,=""'''''____..=>>..~.;'''~.._
_"''''''''..,''"'~~...._,~''''''''',.",.,___..''''',.....=_....,_~<w''''.,~~,.'"""""""""...,,_..'._
Planning Action 2010-00840 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if anyone or more of
the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2010-
00840 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) That the plans submitted at the time of building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
the plans submitted for this approval.
3) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street
Tree Guide and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the
Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
b) That the proposed concrete driveway shall be stamped, colored, finished or treated in a manner
that will reduce the visual impacts of the driveway, in accordance with the applicants proposal at
the August 4, 2010 Historic Commission meeting.
(/
,
P A #20 I 0-00840
963 C Street/adg
Page 3
on
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Derek Severson
Derek Severson
8/5/2010 9:08 AM
Historic Recommendation on 963 C
Historic Commissioners noted that the proposed setback helped to better establish a sense of enclosure on this section of C
Street given the right of way width, and that the staggering of setbacks on this side of the block seemed historically
appropriate,
They recommended that the application be approved as presented, with a condition (proposed by the applicants agent) that
the driveway be colored/finished/treated in a way that would reduce it's perceived width from the street in keeping with the
construction of a single car garage, The commission noted that this treatment would likely need to include a color
treatment with Santa Fe buff concrete and darker colors at the edges, but might also include scoring, a brushed finish, the
use of bricks or pavers, etc, to minimize the appearance.
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
(541)552-2040 or (541)488-5305, TTY: 1-800-735-2900
FAX: (541) 552-2050
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for
disclosure and retention, If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2040, Thank you.
Planning Department, 51' ,..dburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY Of
AS LAN
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00840
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 963 C Street
APPLICANT: Christopher and Molly Kingsley-Holzshou
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to Exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPF A) within a historic district by 9.5 % or 176 square feet, and a request for a Variance to the required 20- foot
front yard setback. The applicant proposes a new single family residential home to be located 10-feet, 2-inches
from C Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 09AD; TAX LOT: 3301
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on August 4, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way,
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on August 5, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 28,2010
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: August 11,2010
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland,
Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m, on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a
notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period, After the
comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the
application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision, An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning
Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC
18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this
application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right
of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue, Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes
your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion, Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval
with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court,
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and
will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering
Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
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,
8, 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,
VARIANCE
18,100,020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor, Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the
property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a
statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere,
8, That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the
purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
(ORD 2425,1987),
C, That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(ORD 2775,1996)
G:lcomm-devlpl.nninglNotices M.iled\20 1 0\20 10-00840.doc
Easy Peel@ Labels
Use Avery@Template 5160@
391 E09AD 90003
A P GROUP LLC
317 N MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 2500
CRUMME SARAH H TRUSTEE FBO
670 GLENWOOD DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3500
HETLAND BARBARA I TRUSTEE ET
AL
985 MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3100
JOHNSON RICHARD C/LINEA R
130 8TH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 2900
KNOBLE PATRICIA A TRUSTEE ET AL
156 EIGHTH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3900
QUAST JERRY TRUSTEE
300 GAERKY CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39 I E09AD 3000
ROSTYKUS PAUL S
436 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3600
THOMSON KIMBERLY ANN
POBOX 718
JACKSON, WY 83001
Etiquettes faciles a peler
IJtiliC:P7 Ip n,.h,..it A\I!:RY@ "1I>O@
i
I
I
A
A -
~eed Paper --
i
Bend along line to , I
expose Pop-Up Edge™ l
391E09AD 2000
BURNS JOHN M ET AL
835 FOX ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 1800
ELLIS ROBERT J/DIANNE SMITH
1023 EAST MAIN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 2700
HIRSCH DANIEL C TRUSTEE ET AL
940-942 B ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 2604
JOLKOVSKY DAVID LlJUNGWHA
ANN
1205 DRAKE DR B
DAVIS, CA 95616
391E09AD 1900
MARKS MALIA ET AL
308 ILLAINA ST
KAILUA, HI 96734
391E09AD 3800
ROCO PROPERTIES LLC
496 CLINTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3400
SMITH CAROL TRUSTEE ET AL
PO BOX 3302
JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530
tv\ ~\(~ I<^'~>'
I
4<cCO \jJ. tJevo..J.c.- &\-.
~~~d, ct2- Q'1S-ZO
A
Sens de
I
Repliez a la hachure afin de I
..0\101?IOo.. In ...oh^..,I Dn",,_llnTM I
@ AVERY@ 5160@ 1
391E09AD 3802
CHARTER JOSEPH M
800 8TH ST
MEDFORD, OR 97501
391E09AD 3700
HARTLEY JAMES W
959 E MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3301
HOLZSHU CHRISTOPHER
S/KINGSLEY-HOLZSHU M
538 PARKSlDE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3200
KINNEBREW JAMES M/ELEANOR L
84952 NEWTON PL
EUGENE, OR 97405
39 I E09AD 3303
PRICE JOHN C/KELLER ERIN
2698 T AKELMA
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3899
ROCO PROPERTIES LLC ET AL
300 GAERKY CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E09AD 3801
THOMPSON WILLIAM TRUSTE FBO
20569 LINDA LN
COTTONWOOD, CA 96022
S~c.n.s\- r\orwA- LLG
\20 \0<1'/.+. &0 li-
ft' '6t:.tx \313
To.lev- t\ oe 0.. '1-SLto
www.avery.com
1_onn_t=r\ ^"CDV
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On July 28, 2010 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice
to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on '
this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2010-00840, 963 C
Street.
SignatyJ e of Employee
G:\comm.devlplannlng\T emplateslAffidavit of Mailing_Planning Action Notice.doc 7/29/2010
2:300
I
~~,~5(N),/ li~OO/ ' ' i
~~~~-~)6~ li&;800~~ /
_',_. ~ \l~
i
,I
i "-
u--_ ..
ir~...:J'~l". i" ..... .....
" ~17., ~Z'>"'I">"
/3500 I. . I L~..c.f1".2'1 (~11~'1
" t21({..' .' '.'...:.,.......\ "'U41
C,_", r" btl3n1~r ...1
, .. tt1~ r~" ..2;1001 ~1161
/ a.4OO I~~; tro4~' I '1
,/"---'-,~1~ L~ ,~11i6Ii . ". . I
/...,3300. !~.~-:;, ho. Si.'.:,'.! 1001 I
,I "~'---, I ~1ll.2101j I
i 1 3:WO "~~ hOOI"."'~l ... .... \ 1000
,/7:."..... ,Lr~.i, ?;~.;i.f F~-.~~OO' ,
""J/. 1.,81oq,~......'..i r "'211. ) .11 ..... :' - 'I 2:500\
-'~"'~---. ~1~. eODI I j.~~,L~J~~~~~.,~,
JACKSON COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
963 C
Front Counter Legend
Highlighted Feature
the Buffer
theBufferTargel
Tax Lot Outlines
1 ado
Tax Lot Numbers
"
,
l
"
"
300
1400
~
61
2.1
s.oo
301
501
BOO
900 700
T>-
,tJ,j!
12:500 i .~
1&
II
1.24~
_~o~~._.~._.~-l
12:300
.,~..,......"..J1~100
'I
II
U1b~
i
,1~1oo
1.2i01
I '
~600!
rool r~1
-"-~~~~_."_'__ "~_'_ . .II
1401
4100
5100
5'000
6OO(JI 6500
5600
611(]()
4.2:00
5500
6001
1 ().800
54(]()
MOO
11100
4300
:;t
~
$300
III
q,l
~
:;';i
11.200
4400
5200
11400
0000
6.200
1.2boo
...j
11~
11 ~()O
I
I
I
!
..J
45(1()
5101
11300
46-00 4100
4900
JACKSON
COUNTY
Oregon
4.,IlOO
BL....l~4 E
~};o~';~i! ~1)
! 3-3(H) !
l i
~4lOO31
@1'~'C"c"C
100
'Y'Jl~
This map is based on a digital database
compiled by Jackson County From a variety
of sources. Jackson County cannot accept
responsibily for errors, omissions, or
positional accuracy. There are no
warranties, expressed or implied,
Map created on 7128/2010 12:07:23 PM using web.jacksoncounty.org
Plaase recycle with colored olrica grade paper
Created with Map Maker
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING APPLICATION
963 "C" Street;
TAX LOT #391E 09AD 3301
PROPOSAL: A proposal for a Variance to the standard 20' front yard setback area to
allow a porch to have an 11' front yard setback and the house a 17' front yard setback. A
Conditional Use Permit is also proposed to exceed the zones Maximum Permitted Floor
Area of 1,844 square feet to allow an additional 176 square feet offioor area.
PROJECT INFORMATION:
OWNER:
Chris & Molly Holzshu
538 Parkside Drive
AsWand, OR 97520
Tel: 541-944-2899
LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-3334
CONTRACTOR AND DESIGN:
Suncrest Homes, LLC
Robert Scott
P.O. Box 1313
Talent, OR 97540
Tel: 541-944-4750
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Multi-Family Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-3
LOT & HOUSE DATA:
Parcel Size:
Max Floor Area (MPF A):
Max Floor Area wI CUP:
Proposed:
House Size:
5,002 sq. ft.
R-3 Standard: 1,844 sq. ft.
25% CUP 2305 sq. ft.
9.5% CUP 2,020 sq. ft. ((176 sq. ft. additional)
First Floor: 1,092 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 504 sq. ft.
Garage: 424 sq. ft.
Total Living: 1,596 sq. ft.
Total: 2,020 sq. ft.
LOT COVERAGE:
75% Allowed / 45% Proposed
House: 1,092 sq. ft.
Garage: 424 sq. ft.
Porch: 180 sq. ft.
Rear Porch: 85 sq. ft.
Side Landing: 9 sq. ft.
Driveway: 455 sq. ft.
Total: 2,239 sq. ft. (44.7%)
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
Multi-Family Residential, Chapter 18.28
Solar Access, Chapter 18.70
Variance, Chapter 18.100
Conditional Use Permit 18.104
Section IV of the Site Design & Use Standards
ADJACENT ZONING:
WEST: R-3, Multi-Family Residential
EAST: R-3, Multi-Family Residential
SOUTH: R-3, Multi-Family Residential
NORTH: R-3, Multi-Family Residential
SITE: R-3, Multi-Family Residential
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND:
A pre-application meeting was held on June 16th, 2010, at which time comments,
questions and observations were raised by the Planning and other City Staff. Since this
time, the applicants have discussed the application with various City departments and at
no time was there any indication there was concern regarding the proposal.
In 2004, a previous property owner received a Lot Line Adjustment (P A2004-060) that
modified three existing non-conforming lots and created three conforming lots to meet
today's minimum lot size and dimensional standards. Of the three lots, this lot is the only
remaining vacant parcel.
Property Description: The property is located at 963 "C" Street, is vacant and relatively
level (approximately 3% slope to the north). The property is roughly square shaped and is
approximately 5,000 square feet in area. The frontage of the property is complete with a
6' sidewalk and a 12' plant strip.
The site just sits within the City's Historic Railroad District with the boundary aligning
with the north/south section of Eureka Street. In addition, this area has a mixture of low
density multi-family zoning (R-2) and high-density multi-family zoning (R-3) creating an
eclectic mixture of housing from single family "detached" residential, single-family
"attached" residential, apartments and condominiums. Overall, with this mixture of
housing types, zoning differences and historic district boundaries, the newer
developments have done a fairly decent job at conforming with the older housing and the
integrity of the areas historic context has largely remained intact.
')
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Proiect Description: After considerable analysis ofthe site and neighboring area, the
applicants would like to propose two entitlements in order to improve their future
residence as well as make its appearance more contextually compatible with the
streetscape and neighborhood. The two entitlements are not mutually exclusive, but
dependant on each other in order to achieve the applicant's goal and to address the City's
Historic Design Standards. That said, the applicant proposes the following two requests
from the City:
//
/~
Variance: a Variance request to the 20' front yard setback and instead allows an 1 II front
yard setback. Approval of the request accomplishes numerous design goals that are
consistent with many of the homes in the area and within Ashland's residential historic
districts. Specifically, the Variance allows the applicant to accommodate a 6' porch at the
front of the property followed by the house at 1 (7f and then a recessed "single bay" garage
at 26'-6". With appropriately added design elements, the applicant contends the house
will be more fitting into the area than the standard alternative which is often a residence
with a large two-bay garage sitting prominently along the frontage.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is also being sought in combination with the
Variance in order to allow the proposed house to exceed its Maximum Permitted Floor
Area (MPF A). Based on the MPF A formula stated in AMC 18.28.040 I, the house and
garage's square footage can not exceed 1,844 square feet. The applicants desire a 176 sq.
ft. increase (9.5%) under the procedures allowed in AMC 18.28.040 K. with the
understanding the proposed design has been based on the context of the area as well as
Section IV of the City's Site Design & Use Standards (Historic District Development
Design Standards). The overall house size, including garage, will be 2,020 sq. ft.
963 "C" Street -looking east from "C" Street
3
Street Width: It should be understood that this section of "c" Street has a right-of-way
width that is common for the Ashland Railroad District, but its actual improvements are
significantly less. This discrepancy causes the street and its residential housing to appear
slightly different than the rest of the district. In this case, the street's "improvements" do
not extend to the actual property line and a 5' gap appears between the sidewalk and the
property line. In addition, the street's parlaow/planting strip is unusually wide at 12
which are typically only 6' to 8' wide. Nevertheless, the applicants contend this oddity
actually mitigates the applicant's setback request as the setback exception will clearly
appear less obvious to the typical observer.
Trees: There are a number of un cared for trees on the property and within 15' ofthe
perimeter of the property but only one (10" Apple) has a diameter greater than 6" at
breast height - located near the center of the property. Due to the trees location, un-cared
for condition and small stature, all of the site's trees on the property will be removed and
replaced with landscaping desired by the property owners. In accordance with Chapter
18.61.200, the project's site plan shows the one tree greater than 6" d.b.h to be removed,
but because of the property's level condition (2% - 3% slope) and the lack of trees
greater than 6" d.b.h. on or within 15' of the property, no formal tree protection plan has
been submitted.
Landscapim! and Street Trees: Two new trees will be planted within the planting strip
along the front ofthe property. Note: The parkrow along the front ofthe property is
unusually wide at 12' and is typically 6' to 8' in this area. Nevertheless, the parlaow will
be irrigated, landscaped and planted with trees at the time of the home's occupancy.
**NOTE: Section 18.104.040 #7 of the Ashland Municipal Code, Conditional Use
Permits, requires a "schematic" landscaping plan to be submitted with an application. The
applicants are providing a schematic landscaping plan, but desire the flexibility to
reconsider alternative plant species based on availability, weather or market conditions.
Because the application is for a single family residence and not a commercial
development or a multi-family project, the applicants contend some flexibility is not only
warranted based on practical home owner preference and circumstances, but also due to
the fact the municipal code appears to recognize there might be unique circumstances and
therefore require the plans to be "schematic". All landscaping will be installed at the time
of occupancy, unless other arrangements are made. Ifthere are significant changes
proposed, the applicants will provide a revised schematic landscaping plan for staff s
revlew.
Utilities: Considering the lot was created in 2004 and after review of the City's utility
maps, it appears all utilities are available to service the proposed residence. Utility lines
exist in both the "c" Street right-of-way as well as nearby Eureka Street. Fire hydrants
are located at the comer of "c" & 8th Street as well as along Eureka Street - both within
200' of the subject property. However, if determined by City staff additional utility
infrastructure is necessary to serve the proposed single residence, they can be completed
at the time of the home's building permit.
Solar Access: The home complies with the City's Solar Access Standards, Standard A,
and does not extend to the northern lot any greater than what a 6' fence on the shared
property line would generate. This is best illustrated on the submitted "left" elevation. At
4
the time of building plan submittal, the applicants will include additional solar access
information to verify this standard is being met.
Looking southeast from "C" Street.
Two new trees are to be planted
within the identified planting strip.
Note: the parkrow is unusually wide
at 12' wide and the sidewalk 6'.
Looking northeast from "C" Street.
The two houses shown sit on the two
parcels that were originally part of
this lot.
Note: Residence to the right (763 "C"
Street was granted a Variance to the
front yard setback as well as a Solar
Access Waiver.
Project Site
.-v,:
~
Vicinity Map
Neighborhood Map
5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The required findings offact have been provided to ensure the proposed project not only
clarifies the applicant's request, but also meets the Variance criteria as outlined in the
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), Section 18.100 and the Conditional Use Permit criteria
in Section 18.104. NOTE: For clarity, the following document 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 repetitiveness in the required findings of fact, there
may be a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of
fact are complete.
18.100.020 Criteria for Variance Approval:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not typically apply elsewhere.
The circumstances related to the Variance are unusual as the lot sits within a National
Register Historic District Boundary - without an alley. This is highly unusual when one
considers the lots small size and inability to access the property from any other direction
other than the front property line - directly off "c" Street. This is further compounded by
the City's on-site parking requirement of two parking spaces which must be "side by
side" and the fact that the City's Solar Access Ordinance requires the home's shadow to
remain on the property.
These issues noted above are often resolved by the existence of an alley which allows
homes to contextually appear as more human scale (historic) and less auto-centric
(suburban). Without the alley and the combination of the other City regulations, the
homes design could easily be "forced" into a design that is not compatible with the
neighborhood or the City's Historic Design Standards. With an alley, vehicular access is
from the alley and generally not visible from the street, the homes streetscape frontage is
not interrupted by a garage or massive driveway area and the home's shadow can fall on
the alley allowing the home to be taller and larger.
That said, the applicants appreciate and respect the Historic District's environment and
have gone to significant efforts to create a house that is still attractive and remains
contextually compatible to its surroundings regardless of these unique circumstances.
This is illustrated in the attached exhibits which show a variety of efforts such as: 1) The
single car garage door sitting 16' -6" "back" from the home's front porch; 2) An
articulated wooden garage door; 3) A 22' X 6' deep classic front porch with oversized
posts and articulated features.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The applicants contend the benefits of the setback Variance will be greater than any
negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose
and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City, Unfortunately,
without the Variance or the proposed Conditional Use Permit, it's very likely the home's
6
design would look far different than what is currently proposed and not at all in-keeping
with the City's Historic District Standards compatibility standards or the Comprehensive
Plan's policies,
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed.
The applicants purchased the property in 2010 and the circumstances with the missing
alley and conditions regarding the areas context have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. The applicants and property owners recently began contemplating the
home's design which eventually led to issues such as maximum house size, solar access,
historic district architecture, parking, etc. In fact, the applicant's are proposing a design
that wasn't even considered in the City's Historic District Design Standards.
Regardless, because of the complexity of issues, the applicants, designer and planning
consultant have met on a number of occasions in an attempt to address these issues and
create an attractive and contextually fitting home. These issues, in combination with the
missing alley in a nationally recognized historic district, are factors that have not been
willfully or purposefully self-imposed by the applicants, but circumstances that were pre-
existing their ownership and circumstances any applicant would be confronted with.
18.104.020 Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit Approval:
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 proposal is for a single family residence on a 5,002 square foot lot in a low density
multi-family residential zone. Due to the property's size, no additional units would be
permissible. Other than the setback exceptions noted herein, the proposal does conform to
all standards within the zoning district and is in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive Plan policies.
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 applicant has completed a pre-application and has received feedback from the
various City departments and private utility companies that provide utility services. At no
time was it indicated to the applicants that any of the facilities were at capacity or could
not be provided to the proposed unit. That said, adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, and adequate transportation can 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
7
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.
The proposed house was largely designed to be compatible with its surroundings and in
conformance with the City's Historic District Design Standards (Section IV of the Site
Design & Use Standards). The home is 2,020 square feet in size, including garage, with a
small 504 square foot second floor area which is designed to be "within" the gable
volume of the roof. Both the size and the height are very similar to the scale, bulk and
coverages found within the nearby vicinity.
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.
No additional traffic will occur on the surrounding streets as the zoning regulations for
the subject property is one single residence and that is what is proposed. Furthermore, the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) estimates that a single family residence generates 10
vehicle trips in a given 24 hour day, but it is the applicant's contention the actual
numbers are likely to be less than "a national average" as the subject property is close to
the Downtown core as well as many day-to-day services, so there is a sound possibility
the resident's of the home will seek out alternative mode of transportation such as
walking, bicycling or utilizing mass transit services which are within a 1.:1 mile distance to
the property.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
Again, the proposed house was largely designed to be compatible with its surroundings
and in conformance with the City's Historic District Design Standards (Section IV of the
Site Design & Use Standards). The proposed home has many architectural features that
are found on many of the historic homes within the neighborhood such as the porch,
porch columns, multiple roof volumes, articulated pediments and change in exterior
materials. These features do not overwhelm the house or appear as too gaudy and are
done simply to not call out attention. Furthermore, and most importantly, the addition of
the porch and the recessed garage are significant design elements that make the home
compatible with the area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
The proposed single family residence will not generate dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants beyond what a 176 square foot smaller home would generate.
The application meets the criteria.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
As with the criteria noted above, the single family home will not generate noise, light or
glare that typically isn't generated by a 176 sq, ft, smaller single family home. The
8
Conditional Use Permit is for a single residence and not a business or commercial
operation that may have periods of noise, light or glare as part of their use. It's the
applicant's opinion the residence will not have noise, light or glare impacts beyond what
is typically found in a common residential home.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed house in no way would effect the potential development of adjacent
properties. The applicant has gone to significant strides to make sure the residence fit
nicely into the neighborhood.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
The applicant is not aware of other factors that may be of concern to staff or the hearing
authority. The applicants believe the proposal is consistent with past decisions regarding
an exception to the zone's Maximum Permitted Floor Area and would suggest the
proposal clearly meets the intent and purpose of the ordinance as the proposed house is
significantly more compatible with its surroundings than if the proposal was not subject
to Conditional Use Permit process.
Attachments:
Building Elevations
Proposed Site Plan
Schematic Landscaping Plan
First Floor Floor Plan
Second Floor Floor Plan
Site & Neighborhood Photos
Assessor's Plat Map
Utility Map
9
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING APPLICATION
"ADDENDUM"
963 "C" Street;
TAX LOT #391E 09AD 3301
For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline" form
with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in
regular font. Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure
that the findings of fact are complete,
Section 18.72.070 Site Design Review Approval Criteria:
A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
To the applicant's knowledge all City regulations are or will be complied with. The
applicants are requesting a Variance in an attempt to further help the new design "fit" the
contextual pattern of the neighborhood and the surrounding historic district. This is
further elaborated upon in the Findings of Fact, Page 6, of the original submittal on July
2,2010.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
As noted below, all requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter (18.72) have or will
be complied with. Specifically, the landscaping will be irrigated and maintained, and
light and glare concerns will be addressed with down lighting and screening where
necessary. Verification of each is possible at time of the home's occupancy.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
The proposal complies with all applicable Site Design Standards originally adopted
August 4th, 1992 and all amendments since by the City Council. The standards regulate
height, scale, massing, setbacks, etc. in an attempt to maintain the streetscape's
compatibility.
D. 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. All
improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
Considering the lot was created in 2004 and after review of the City's utility maps, it
appears aU utilities are available to service the proposed residence. Utility lines exist in
both the "c" Street right-of-way as well as nearby Eureka Street. Fire hydrants are
located at the corner of "c" & 8th Street as well as along Eureka Street - both within 200'
of the subject property. However, if determined by City staff additional utility
infrastructure is necessary to serve the proposed single residence, they can be completed
at the time ofthe home's building permit.
SECTION IV HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
A. Develovment in Ashland's Historic District
Ashland's Historic District is very important to all of the City's residents. Not only
does this area contain the City's beginnings, but it is also the area of some of the
most prominent landmarks in Ashland, excluding the Plaza, East Main Street
commercial area, Lithia ParI\., and many important residential districts. For the
most part, the main architectural themes have already been laid down, and must be
considered in the design of any new structures or renovation of existing structures.
This does not mean that all new structures must be a lavish imitation of an
architectural style whose hevdav is vast. but sensitivity to surroundin2 buildin2s
and the existin2 land use vatterns is essential to the successful develovment
(emphasis added).
Illustration of Proposed Home - 963 "C" Street
IV-C-1 Heiaht
RECOMMENDED
~~\\1/?0
n~
~~!~~
90000QO~ 900
14:-
~
~
~~
009
Construct builcJin~IS to a hei~lht of existing
buildings from the historic period on and
across the street.
Avoid construction that greatly varies
in height (too high or too low) from
older buildin9s in the vicinity.
The proposed building height is approximately 23' -6" at its peak with lower roof points
of 18' and 15'. Although the neighborhood has an eclectic mix of houses with varying
heights, some of the houses have heights of 28' (houses directly adjacent and behind -
973 "c" Street and 1001 Eureka Street - compare above illustration to photos). The
proposed house complies with this standard.
IV-C-2 Scale
[[]J
Relate the size ane! proportions of new
structures to the scale of adjacent buildings
Avoid buildings that in height, width, or
massing, violate the existh1g scale of
tile mea.
The proposed building's scale is compatible with the adjacent neighboring residences as
its' width is only 42' wide, but approximately 50% of the width is stepped behind the
front fayade and porch by 16' In general, the houses within the vicinity have less and
mor~ :wiclJ:h then the proposed home. For example, the house at 973 "c" Street is at least
as wide, but taller than the proposed home (compare above illustration to neighborhood
photos),
IV-C-3 Massina
RECOMMENDED
Break up uninterestin~l boxHke forms info
smaller, varied masses which are common
on most buildings from the historic period.
Avoid single, monolithic forms that are
not relieved by variations in massing.
The proposed home does have one principal roof form, but that factor alone is common in
historic residential homes. Regardless, building's mass has various secondary roof forms
as depicted in the above "recommended" illustration. In fact, its mass is not only broken
with multiple roof forms, but also differing fayade planes to further reduce its mass.
IV-C-4 Setback
RECOMMENDED
Maintain the historic fayade lines of
streetscapes by locating front walls of new
buildings in the same plane as the facacles
of acljacent buildings.
Avoid violating the existing setbaer\
pattern by placing new building in front
or behind the historic falfade line.
The proposed home's setback is consistent with the two adjacent homes as both lots are
on comer lots with one havin~ an approximate 10' setback and the other a 20' setback.
The home on the comer of st and "C" Street also has an attractive accessory structure
built on the front property line. The home on the comer of "C" and Eureka has a 10'
setback .'. and short retaining wall along the sidewalks edge giving the home a very close
"presence" to the street making the proposed home's setback easily compatible with the
n~ihbrQ hood. Again, compare the above home's illustration to neighborhood photos.
IV-C-S Roof Shapes
,~~
~U:z-
1h1~\''Z
Relate the new roof forms of the building to
those found in the area.
~E='
'1~\"
ITIJJ
Avoid introducing roof shapes, pitches,
or materials not traditionally used in
the area.
The proposed home's roof shape, pitch and materials are very traditional and common to
the surrounding homes and neighborhood.
IV-C-6 Rhvthm of Openinas
RECOMMENDED
Respect the alternation of wal! areas with
door and window elements in the fac;;ade.
Also consider the width-to-height ratio of
bays in the fac;;ade.
Avoid introducing incompatible fa~ade
patterns that upset the rhythrn of
opening established by the
surrounding structures.
The surrounding homes within the neighborhood are somewhat eclectic primarily
because the homes on the other side of "C" Street predominately face E. Main Street.
However, the homes that are along this side of the street have porches and recessed or
"down played" garages that do not overwhelm the streetscape. In general, the proposed
homedomplies with this standard.
IV-C-? Platforms
RECOMMENDED
The use of a raised platform is a traditional Avoid f}fingrng the waHs of buHdings
sitin!;;l characteristic of most of the older straight out of the ground without a
buildings in Ashland. sense of platform.
The homes in this neighborhood do not have predominate platforms or consistencies
thereof. The one adj acent house that does have a relatively tall platform (18" +/ -) is the
recently constructed home at 973 "c" Street. Nevertheless, the proposed home is
designed with a slight step-up from the street and in no way is dramatically different then
its neighbor and clearly is not as depicted in the "avoid" illustration.
IV -c-a Directional Expression
RECOMMENDED
:lt~
?if, \ \\'\-
Relate the vel1ical, horizontal or
noncHrectional fayade character of new
buildings to the predominant directional
expression of nearby buildings.
:-;: 111.
~
7f/~~
1lJt_ rea
------.:.-=:::::::::-..--
-------
Avoicl horizontal or vertical facade
expressions unless they are
compatible with the character of
structures in tl'le immecliate area.
The proposed home's design complies with this standard as the home's width will be
consistent with the width of the newly constructed house at 973 "c" Street as both have
the same lot width and depth. Both are attractive and compatible with their surroundings.
IV-C-g Sense of Entrv
RECOMMENDED
Aliiculate the main entrances to the build!ng
with covered porches, pOliicos, and 01l-ler
pronounced architectural forms.
Avoiel fagades vi/itll no strong sense of
entry.
The proposed house has an attractive and inviting "sense of entry". It includes a garage in
the background and an articulated front porch in the foreground creating an inviting
fayade typical of the homes along this side of the street and the historic district in general.
IV-C.10 Imitations
Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually
compatible additions to, existing buildings.
For new construction, traditional arctlitecture
that well represents ollr own time, yet
enhances the nature and character of tile
historic district should be usee!.
AvoId replicatIng or-imitating the styles,
motifs, or details of older periods. SUCll
attempts are rarely successful anel,
even if v"ef! done, present a confusing
picture of the true character of the
historical area_
Due to the fact that the street was recently improved to City standards, but was
historically used like an alley, there are numerous homes along its frontage with garages
and facades that give the street and eclectic or "stralley" (a phrase "coined" by Planning
Director, Bill Molnar, which refers to a street that looks and feels somewhat like an alley)
appearance. Because of this fact and the fact the home is within a historic district, the
proposed building is architecturally designed to be compatible with the neighborhood, but
'/!
because. of its recessed attached garage, it will clearly read as a home that was
constructed in 2010 and therefore represent its own historical period of significance.
Additional Variance Findin2s:
For clarification purposes, the applicant would like to include an additional response why
the Variance for a reduced front yard setback meets the applicable criteria, specifically
ALva 18.100.020 A. which states "That there are unique or unusual circumstances
which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere".
In this case, the fact that this section of"C" Street has a right-of-way width of 70' but an
improvement width significantly less that causes a discrepancy that is unusual for the
streetscape and historic district which generally has housing between 15' to 20' from the
sidewalks edge. This discrepancy causes the street and its residential housing to appear
slightly different than the rest of the historic district as the setback from the sidewalks
edge would be 25' and from the curbs edge 43' because, in this section of"C" Street, the
street's "improvements" do not extend to the actual property line and a 5' gap appears
between the sidewalk and the property line. In addition, the street's parkrow/planting
strip is unusually wide at 12' which is typically only 6' to 8' wide.
In this case, the applicant's contend the proposal for a 9' front yard encroachment (11 '
setback) for a porch and 3' encroachment for the house (17' setback) would be very
consistent with the rest ofthe district and contends the proposal actually mitigates the
applicant's setback request as the setback exception will clearly appear less obvious to
the typical observer. That said, if one considers the additional 5' of right-of-way behind
the sidewalk, the porch setback will appear as 16' and the house at 22' - both of which
are very consistent with the district's housing setbacks.
00'L9 "<t
-q-~ 0
0(0 0
(00 cO
No "<t
0<'>
0<(
(Ogj
No
/
/
/ ------.. f..-,-
------.. V)
/
------.. ------..
------..
------..
------..
------..
----.. ------..
~
fS ------..
No 0
0 (V)
C? 08'~9 cO I
0 ......
I'--
......
N
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
r/l ~
r/l
oo'ga
..
~
..
~
..
~
\
:)
-:)
~
~
~
;:J
~
to 0 ~\ U)
,
N . U 0)
~~ /i (
to 0) -r-<'> \
N ..- ~/ 00-(
0<'> 0;:: (
<:::)'<( - 00 -r- 't'- "l
to NN ..- No a::/i l"-
N No
l"- e
..- ~ <D-C
I'
~ ~ T
~ ~ ~ l()
~ ~
r/l r/l "<t
to ('i)
...... 8 ~ '08 ~
"<t
~- ..- C
to N ('i) -e
N 0<'> <D N
..- 0
-E)~ ("i')
to o~ ~
N CIJ' N
No 00'08 ~ U ..-
..-
0
-----..
lJ..L 1-r I'\
)r,.. _
-'--,'
'-, I
\
I
I
I
- '---. '--- ,
I
1
r---"
1
.:.....,..-""\J
I
J c:
!e
. t
I-<
~
r/l
~
j
t:O
Neighborhood Photos
"C" Street - directly west of proposed house
"C" Street directly east of proposed house
"C" Street directly east of proposed house (behind)
North of Property
East of Property
East of Property
West of Property
')
"C" Street - across the street
"C" Street - across the street
"C" Street - across the street
"C" Street - across the street
1
ffi ,,8-,\:9
0 <0
I I
in ixl
"O-,t\: "Z-,9l
---
f- -t:.:,-
w
w I f-
I
0:::: \ w
f- W
(f) 0::::
f-
U (f)
to U
(0
(J)
c
} 0
0::
ic~
- + "t-,ZG ,,9-,tL ,,9'-.ZZ ,,8 ,9Z ~
L
LO
00
OLL
LL-o
+-,C
(fJ0 LL "'<t-
L 0 Ul LL G)
..~~ CDtnUlLLtnn gtn
(fJ LL OJ LO Ul N L
CUlLLLL--CDOJ n ~N
o Ul(f) -- OJ"'<t- G) 00
:,=; N CD O'1U 0
om"'<t-"'<t- "'<t- 0 LO
~ 0 0 N -5 ...c ...c ..:Y ~ G)
O--LO"'<t-LOO >01
- OLL>.OOOQ3
o "0...00 5 +-'
U G) G) 0... 0... ~ U c.J:::!
0'1+-, m >,_ G) Ul
o(fJ OCG)L"-'LOO
G) ~ L 0 -0 o.~ +-' +-' L +-'
L 0 0 L.- G) L cOG) 0
<r::I C)LLUlCt:OWl-o...--.J
~
n
LLCD
Ul"'<t-
\ ,
\ '
,---- \
\
\
\
\
963 C STREET
+
o
_-----:-1-'1
18'-0" 14'-0" 0
- -
- -
LO
I
-
..-
N
CD
I
~
ill1 '
CD
I
N
N
Garage
~
cD
\
\
.5)
~
C STREET
,
,
---\.
,
5' -0"
5' -0"
5' -0"
8' -6"
o
I
~
t")
CD
I
~
CD
~
N
\
---'3
o
I
N
963 C STREET
tic
c
i
+
LO -J{
i
- I
..--
N
l..
(0
I
..q-
I
-
(0
I
N
N
1----
00
C STREET
f'I~T{:..
?~O\I'
1/
,r
:r f,"\:,. t:\ :"~ '~;; '.~~ F)~.
-;
~;,)
~'L
j,
5'-0"
8' -6"
o
I
-.;;t
I"')
c.o
I
-.;;t
(0
~
M.
'-
.-S>
5' -0"
5' -0"
o
I
N
s
<
t+
!r (e
7
1tc~
u
~
~
l:'.n
(U
E
o
:r:
~
l:'.n
(U
~
u
~
:j
(/)
o
N
If'''\
t'-..
0\
~
o
~
~
cti
.,.......j
..c
l:'.n
~
~
(U
(U
~
~
(/)
U
~
\.D
0\
+-i
l';I:)
<U
~
u
t::
::1
CI)
o
C"\I
lr\
l:'-
0'\
0:::
o
l';I:)
<U
E
o
:r:
.-a
t::
~
.........
....c
l';I:)
<r::
..;
<U
<U
~
+-i
CI)
U
('(')
\..D
0'\
u
~
~
(/j
lU
E
o
:r:
.4-J
CI.)
lU
~
U
~
;j
(j)
o
N
lr'\
t"'-
0\
~
o
-ci'
~
~
...--.l
....r::
CI.)
~
....
.4-J
lU
lU
~
.4-J
(j)
U
m
\.0
0'\
~W
UN
~~
II'lL
~~
~
<(
~~
Z~
Q~
If\O
5~
.l~
<(~
"0
z 28
[
~ ~~
.1
0
II I
7 @~
D W WW
Z [ ~~
If\
~ ~ ~~
" b l'lW ~
~ IU{\] "1
'x II IJ[L T
r
;7606
ftl,.",..-I'.".., ~,.,.~
tJj~
g
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
1 I
H
, I
, I
, I
, I
, I
, ,
rl
,
,
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, [
,
I 0
,
,
I +=
,
, 0
,
, >
I
, Q)
,
, W 9
I
I
I +-
j' [ eo
0 '"
ill
I- '5
LL /J,
~ ~ co l'l ~ " ~ .I D z J: If\
L W ~ d ~ ~ " [ ~ ill
~ D ~ <( Il :l (i:
:l 5 2 ~
z iii z ~ ~ & ffi 1lI@ w
I z T 1 OJ!2 !Y11l[i " II ~ ill
If\ ~ If\ ~ ~o ill ~ ~
l!' l!' u I{I a z :l
~ ~ ~ it ~z l'l S "
ii1 m ii1 a u ~
\) 2 \' If\~ II 5 z
~ '" l'l dl Q
L 0 L 0 ~ ~t!l ~ u
\) l'l () 0 .1 wCl X
II 1l II 0 l'l00
U, lI\ o U ()
0 w ~ ~ 6~
~
~ \'l x ll~
ill Dz
, _I o Will
~ ~ ~ ~~
-, -,
~ ~ ~ ~~
II II
W ill W[l[11I
, \Y:Ulltl
I I ~l Uti:
II II
> ~ \'l
~
> l'l
~ ~
~ ~
(\
"' <'1
>[-OVI'<\3C115.S
----------------------- ::::NII ),J..:;::::::;dO<=ld
,..
~
~
M
~
I
5
"
"
i
~
W
,,'
'"
\')
W
(l
HI
.0009
ti
;;:3
~9
(lQ
L ~ ~~
""
G~
wi'~
Z5~~
~~~
~~~
~2R
0"'"
t,~~
&wQ
~~~
8ffi~
~m
~@
LU '"
JL l[)S
U "Cl
"mw
ill"'"
lllS~
tlIl"ff)
IIll! q
~ ~ "
~~~
'K~
~~,..
~~~
c
o
+-
o
>
Q)'1
W"
'"
+-~
.....n
Q)~
-.J/J,
"'\t
w
~
Lt
\')
~
w
~
'"
?1
o
: i "',
I 7'
I '
,
I
I
I
,
I ' I ,I
il
'I
I
I
.
[1
01
+=:
o
>1
~i
Wi
I
-+-1
.c!
,Q),
~i
(\/
11
, ,
, I
I ,
I ,
,
I ,
I ,
, ,
I ,
I I
, I
I I
, ,
, I
, I
, ,
, I
, I
, ,
, I
, I
, ,
, 1
, 1
, , I
, 1
, I
, ,
, ,
, I
, 1
, ,
, ,
, 1
, I
I LJ
, ,
, 1
, ,
I. , ,
, ,
II , 1
, 1
I 1
,
,
I
I
,
[I I
I
I
,
,
,
,
I
, ,
,
,
,
,
, ,
,I I: . -~ ~
I , cI
II I ,
'"':.. I ,
, ,
, , 0'
, ,
. , , +-
, , 0
, I
, ,
, 1 >
, ,
:. I 1 Q)
, ,
. , 1 W
- , 1
, ,
;. I , I...
, 0
Q)
~
:J7606 ('I')
-~---/=-
----;I~y-
'"
,
1/'
,
, ,
>---"'----::-:1
I i-I,
, "
:l
--===/;!
, "
, "
/___1 _~I
, "
, "
, "
, "
\\. ----
,
,
,
,
/.
,
;
;
,
,
,
,
,
;
,
,
\\ :
, :
,
\ H l
-------~~~J :
-----~-_-_-_-~~_J
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
----1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE# PA - ~OIO,- ()t)g~()
Planning Department
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
CITY Or
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Street Address
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Cllv3
C
Clef A 1>
<r; T/l/l:X-
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E
Tax Lot(s) #$50'
Zoning
1'L ~ '3
Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name
Phone
E-Mail
J
Address
City
Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name
~~ ~i"'\ if.z-.
Phone
E-Mail
Address
City
Zip
SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. OTHER
Title
Name
Phone
E-Mail
Address
City
Zip
Title
Name
Phone
E-Mail
Address
City
Zip
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.
'esaltm st-likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
~ny '. bts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
7/2 /10
Applicant's Signature Date
. volved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
,""
'-~,-===;y,/""
Property Owner's Signature (required)
(
1 /z It ~
Date I
[To be eompleted by City Staff]
Date Received
7-- /) ~ 0 Zoning Permit Type
\) (LA('CU~
I
~GlP
Filing Fee $
./
I 8'3L/.
Planning Action Type
4-,
OVER ~~
C:\DOCUME~l\hanksa\LOCALS......l \Temp\Zoning Pennit Application Fonn.doc
Contractor:
Address:
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
Sub-Contractor:
Address:
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main Sl.
Ashland, 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