HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-082 Findings - 163 Hitt Road PA 2010-01622
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
June 7, 201l
IN THE MA TIER OF AN APPEAL ON THE RECORD OF THE PLANNING.
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION #201 0-D1622, A
REQUEST FOR AMODIFICA T10N OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
OPTIONS SUBDNISION FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR P A #2003-D20 FOR
THE STRAWBERRY MEADOWS SUBDNISION. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
INCLUDE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO
THE APPROVED BUll...DING ENVElDPE AND THE AlLOCATION OF A
PORTION OF THE IDT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDNISION'S "OPEN
SPACE 'A' "TO ALLOW INCREASED lDT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6
lDCATED AT 163 HIIT ROAD.
APPLICANTS: R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse
)
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) & ORDERS
)
)
)
)
) ,
This matter came before the City Council as an appeal on the record pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
. ,
(ALUO, or AMC, Ashland Municipal Code) 18,108.110. The Planning Commission approved a request for a
Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) for the
Strawberry Meadows Subdivision, The modifications approved included relocation of the subject property's
approved driveway entrance, changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the
lot coverage from the subdivision's approved "Open Space 'A '" to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6,
located at 163 Hitt Road. An appeal request was timely received on March 22, 2011 from Christian E. Hearn,
attorney for the appellants R, Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse.
SCOPE OF THE APPEAL: ALUO 18.108.11 0.A.2 requires that each appeal set forth "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." The four clearly and distinctly identified grounds for appeal in
this case were: 1) The Planning Commission essentially applied the Performance Standards Options twice, once
in connection with approvIng the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open space), and a second time when
analyzing the maximum lot coverage issues in connection with applicants' application; 2) The Planning
Commission acknowledged not counting the area covered by a lot's driveway access as a component of lot
coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but arbitrarily declined to apply the same interpretation
to applicants' application; 3) The Planning Commission misconstrued the lot coverage statements made by the
original developers' planner in response to some neighbors' objections; 4) The Planning Commission
misconstrued the definition of 'open space' found in AMC 18.88.020, confusing it with lot coverage
requirements.
The appellants also proposed to incorporate several other unspecified additional issues detailed in 68 pages of
the two sub-exhibits provided with the appeal, suggesting that "The Planning Commission misconstrued and
misapplied the criteria in AMC 18.88.030 in a variety of ways in connection with consideration, of applicants'
lot coverage request, as detailed on following Exhibits 'B' and 'C'." The Council finds that this attempt to
. PA #2010-01622
June 7,2011
Page 1
incorporate additional appeal issues by reference to other documents is not a sufficiently clear and distinct
identification of lhe grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified based on identified
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity as required in the code, and as such any additional issues from these
sub-exhibits were not included as identified grounds for appeal. The Council finds that consideration of this
appeal is therefore limited to the four appeal issues which were clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal
request.
The City Council also allowed a limited re-opening of the record to allow the appellants to submit written
materials in response to comments in a February 8,2011 staff memorandum to the Planning Commission which
the Planning Commission had found to be a summary of materials already in the record which provided no new
evidence. The Planning Commission findings note, "At the February 8'h, 2011 meeting, the applicants attempted
to challenge a memorandum provided to the Commission by staff summarizing the materials received since the
close of the hearing, and asked for an opportunity to rebut this memorandum. The Planning Commission rejected
this challenge, finding that the staff memo was a summary containing no new information (PeRee 152)." The
Planning Commission further found, ".,. that the applicants' challenge that the memorandum prepared by staff
on February 8'h, 2011 included new information and should be subject to rebuttal has no merit. The
Commission finds that the information provided by staff on February 8'-h was a summary of information
received into the record subsequent to the close of the hearing, contained no new information, and was not
subject to rebuttal (PCRec 157)." The Council ultimately allowed the re-opening of the record to permit the
applicants to provide additional written testimony rebutting the February 8th staff memorandum as provided in
AMC 18.108.11 O.4.8.c as the most expeditious means to address the procedural challenge.
A. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION, RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA and COUNCIL
PROCEEDINGS:
I. The subject property is identified as tax lot #506 of Map 39 1 E 08 AC and is located at 163 Hitt
Road, within the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR-
.5-P) and is located within a 1hformance Standards Overlay zone.
2. The applicants requested a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final
Plan Approval (PA#2003-020) _ for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The proposed
modifications include relocation of the approved driveway entrance, changes to the approved
building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's
approved "Open Space 'A'" to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6, located at 163 Hitt Road.
The proposal is outlined on the plans on fie at the DepaJtment of Community Development.
3, The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in Olapter 18.88.030.8.5 as flllows:
Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline
plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased
open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be
transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline
plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor
PA #20]0-0]622
June 7; 20] 1
Page 2
modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when
comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that:
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the
approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in
the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%)
percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances
be reduced below the minimum established within this Title,
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline
plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more
than ten (10%) percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and
intent of this Title and the approved outline plan.
f That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the
outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to
. ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
4. The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on May 17, 20]] to
consider the appeal, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City
Council denied the appeal on all of the four identified appeal grounds. Council reaffirmed the
Planning Commission's approval, and approved the application for. Modification of the
Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) for the
Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The proposed modifications include relocation of the
approved driveway entrance, changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a
portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's approved "Open Space 'A'" to allow increased
lot coverage for Lot #6, located at ] 63 Hitt Road.
References to the Planning Commission Record will be described herein by page number, preceded by the
abbreviation 'PCRec".
B. COUNCIL FINDINGS ON APPEAL
] , Procedural matters.
a. Limited Reopening of the Record.
In ] 8.1 08, 11O.A.4.B, the Municipal Code provides that the "Council may reopen the record and
consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the
City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator
determines prior to the City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated:
a) that the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 20ll
Page 3
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. 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. "
The appeal request notes that the applicants attempted to submit their 'Exhibit I' at the February
Sth Planning Commission meeting in response to what they believed to be new evidence
contained in a staff memorandum provided'to the Commission after the record had been closed.
In response to the applicants' request, the Planning Commission determined as follows:
. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants' challenge that the memorandum
prepared by staff on February 8, 2011 included new information and should be subject to
rebuttal has no merit. The Commission finds that the information provided by staff on
February [fh was a summary of information received into the record subsequent to the
close of the hearing, contained no new information, and was not .subject to rebuttal
(pCRec 157).
The applicants have again raised this issue, now as a basis for a limited reopening of the record.
On the advice of the City Administrator, the Council allowed the re-opening of the record to
permit the applicants to provide additional written testimony rebutting the February Sth staff
memorandum as provided in AMC IS.10S.11O.A.4.B.c as the most expeditious means to address
this procedural challenge.
In reviewing the record in light of the request, the Council finds that there has been no
demonstration by the appellants that new evidence has become available or that a procedural or
factual errors occurred, or that, ifone had occurred, it in any way prejudiced the applicants'
substantial rights. The Council notes that the Planning Commission considered the staff
memorandum in question, found that it was limited to summary information and had no bearing
in their decision. Furthermore, the Planning Commission's decision ultimately approved the vast
majority of the modifications being requested by the applicants/appellants, and there was no
indication in the Commission's findings that information contained in the memorandum had any
bearing on the decision.
With regard to the February Sth, 2011 staff memorandum and the appellants rebuttal thereof, the
Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the record to support the
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 4
findings of the Planning Commission, and the Council hereby reaffirms the finding of the
Planning Commission that the staff memorandum in question was limited to summary
information, had no bearing on the Planning Commission's decision, and should not have been
subject to rebuttal.
2, Findings with respect to the grounds for appeal
a. Applicability of Performance Standards Options to the application
As noted above, there are four specific grounds for appeal in this case. The first appeal ground'
asserts that the Planning Commission essentially applied the Performance Standards Options
twice, once in connection with approving the Strawberry Meadows subdivision (50% open
space), and a second time when analyzing the maximum lot coverage issues in connection with
the applicants' application.
In considering the appeal request, the Council noted that the subject property was originally
. . created through a subdivision process under the Performance Standards Options Chapter of the
Land Use Ordinance (ALUO ] 8.88). The development of individual lots within the subdivision
remains subject to the original approval's conditions as well as the underlying requirements of
the Performance Standards Options Chapter which provide the basis for that approval. As such,
modifications to the approved development plans for the subdivision's individual lots, including
changes to the building envelopes, driveway locations, and lot coverages must be considered in ,
light of the applicable requirements of the Performance Standards Options chapter. As such; the
Council finds that while the Planning Commission did apply the Performance Standards Options
criteria twice, once with the original subdivision and once with the proposed modifications
comprising the current request, they were procedurally bound to do so as the modifications
requested remain subject to the requirements of the Performance Standards Options chapter
(AMC 18.88) because the subject property remains a part of the original Performance Standards
Options subdivision.
The Council further finds that a modification of the lot coverage for the subject property cannot
be considered independently of the original approval, which the Planning Commission found had
not allocated additional lot coverage beyond the 20 percent allowed in the underlying zoning
district to the individual lots. The Commission's findings note:
2.4.... The Commission finds that in the original approval, the original applicants' agent
recognized in submittals in the record that the allowed lot coverage for the Strawberry
Meadows development was to be limited to a maximum of 20 percent, and that the
building envelopes shown delineated an area where a home could be built but not the size
of a specific building footprint. Materials in the record of the original subdivision
application emphasized that new homes would not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage
restriction of the zoning district, and this restriction was to have been included in the
subdivision's CC&R's as well. (See page 40 of LUBA record, copied in applicants'
PA #2010-01622
June?, 201]
Page 5
Appendix 5 on page 30 of the applicants' submittallPCRec 277].) While the subdivision
developers' agent has provided the current applicants with a letter indicating that the
application of lot coverage based on the individual lots was never their intent and that
had they known the coverage would be applied to the individual lots they would have
altered the open space configuration to increase individual lot sizes to. allow additional
coverage, the Commission finds that original application materials explicitly recognized
that building envelopes did not identify building footprints and that the lot coverage was
to be limited to 20 percent per lot. The Commission further finds that for the substantial
portions of the original parent parcels which have slopes in excess of 35 percent. those
areas are required to be protected as unbuildable both in terms of the Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review chapter, which excludes lands with slopes in excess of
35 percent from buildable areas in AMC 18.62.030.C, and the Performance Standards
Options chapter. which requires that significant natural features be included in open
space, common areas or unbuildable areas in AMC 18.88. 030.A. 4.c. (PCRec 155).
The Council reaffirms the Planning Commission's finding that the original application materials
for the subdivision explicitly recognized that building envelopes did not identifY building
footprints and that lot coverage was to have been liniited to 20 percent coverage per lot.
The Commission further found:
2.5... that the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88 provides for more
flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes in order to reduce the
impacts of development on the natural environment and the neighborhood. The
Commission further finds that this flexibility has previously been applied to allow for the
allocation of lot coverage at the subdivision level, looking at the coverage of the
development as a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis in order to allocate some
additional coverage from open space or larger individual lots to smaller lots, Such
allocations have historically been considered in light of the purpose and intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter and have accordingly been limited to the degree
deemed appropriate to minimize impacts to the natural environment, as well as to keep
development in character with surrounding neighborhoods.
The Commission finds that during the initial subdivision approval process it was
acknowledged that much of the 'Brown' phase of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was
proposed to be retained in private open space due to the severity of its slopes, and further
finds that at the time of the subdivision application, the original applicant s representative
stated that all new homes would not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage allowed within the
district.
The Commission finds that the current applicants' proposal would result in a total of 6.9 11
square feet of coverage, or approximately 56. 7 percent lot coverage on the approximately
12,200 square foot subject property. Of this proposed coverage, 1.433 square feet or 12
PA #20]0-0]622
June 7,2011
Page 6
percent of the lot is the existing paved driveway currently intended to serve the subject
property imd the two parcels to the southeast. The applicant is also requesting 4,356
square feet of coverage, or 35.7 percent of the lot,. to accommodate a future home on the
property, and an additional 1,122 square feet of coverage, or 9,2 percent of the lot, to
provide for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking areas on the site. The
applicants have proposed that this last portion of the coverage requested would be limited
to permeable paving or other porous surfaces. The proposal amounts to a lot coverage
totaling approximately 56. 7 percent in a zoning district where the standard lot coverage
allowed is limited to 20 percent.
The Commissionfurther finds that the standard permitted lot coverage for the parcel would
be approximately 2,440 square feet or 20 percent of the approximately 12,200 square foot
lot. The applicant is proposing that the base lot coverage allowed for the parcel be set at
20 percent of the standard minimum one-half acre parcel size allowed within the district, or
4,356 squarefeet. In addition, the applicants propose 1,122 squarefeet of pervious surface
treatments to accommodate patios, WJlkways, driveWlYs and parking areas on the site. lie
Land Use Ordinance does not have a provision to allow the exclusion of porous paving
materials from coverage; all paving is considered to be coverage by code and thus even
with the proposed porous treatment these surfaces are considered to be lot coverage.
The Commission finds that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed by the
applicants is merited. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre
parcel, which is the minimum lot size for the zoning district, and the Commission finds it
reasonable that this was seen as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a
lot within the district when the district and its coverage requirements wre established. lhe
Commission further finds that it is appropriate, and in' keeping with the intent of the
purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, to allow the subject
property 4,356 square feei of coverage in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of
coverage already in place with the shared private driveway serving the two adjacent
parcels as an allocationfrom the subdivision open space. This amounts to an approximate
coverage of 47.45 percent.
In similar applications in the recent past, involving driveways shared by adjacent
properties, the Planning Commission have been generally supportive of the exclusion of a
shared driveway's coverage from a lot's overall coverage when the driveway is required to
serve other properties and the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is
beyond an applicant s control because it would deprive adjacent property owners of
legally-established rights of ingress and egress. In this instance, the Commission finds that
the existing shared driveway serving the adjacent lots cannot be removed by the applicants
to reduce their lot coverage without depriving the neighboring lots of their legally-
established access. The Commissionfurther finds that the shared driveWlY coverage on the
subject property amounts to more than one-half of the standard permitted lot coverage for
the property, and accordingly finds that excluding it from the lot coverage calculations for
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 7
the subject property is appropriate to allow a reasonable degree of development on the
subject property.
The Commission finds that the additional 1,122 square feet of permeable coverage
proposed is not merited. The Commission finds that there is no basis to raise the lot's
coverage to 56. 7 percent, even with permeable surfaces, when the reques t is considered in
light of the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards, the character of the district,
or the additional impacts to the hillside lot. The Commission further finds that, while the
application does not include a home design, the conceptual site plan provided shows guest
parking spaces and walkways disturbing sloped areas when the avoidance of disturbance in
these areas provided a basis for the applicants to justifY relocation of the drivmy.
The Commission finds that without a specific home design, it is unclear that the
conceptual site layout shown will satisfy the Hillside Design Requirements, which limit
the length of walls without an offset, require a demonstration that disturbance of the site
has been minimized, and that as much of the site as possible be kept in a natural state.
The Commission further finds that while we support the 47.45 coverage to allow 4,356
square feet of impervious surfaces on the subject property in addition to the existing
1,433 square feet of shared driveway, we cannot support the proposed additional
coverage of 1,122 square feet of additional coverage. In addition, in order to find the
proposed coverage allocation consistent with the purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter 18.88, the Commission finds that if construction of a home on
the subject property involves disturbance fitting the definitions of development on hillside
lands with slopes of 25 percent or greater, the home to be built with this coverage, and
the associated site design, will be subject to all requirements for Hillside Development
and no variances to these standards will be considered in the final home design (PeRee
155-157).
Based on the approval criteria and on the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards
Options chapter, the Planning Commission ultimately found that the request merited a substantial
allocation of lot coverage from the subdivision's open space to the subject property, however the
Commission determined that the full magnitude of the coverage requested was not consistent
with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter, which call for
reducing the impacts of development to both the environment and the neighborhood, and could
not be granted, With regard to the first ground for appeal, the Council finds that the Planning
Commission was required to consider the request to modify the original Performance Standards
Options subdivision approval in light of the requirements for Performance Standards Options
subdivisions, and further finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole
record to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and hereby adopts the identified
Planning Commission findings from pages 155-157 in the Planning Commission record for the
current application, as referenced above, The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's
decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be
denied.
PA #2010-0]622
June 7,2011
Page 8
. b. Consideration of driveways as a component of Jot coverage
The second ground for appeal asserted by the appellants was that the Planning Commission
acknowledged not counting the area covered by a lot's driveway access as a component of lot
coverage for neighboring lots under AMC 18.108.030, but arbitrarily declined to apply the same
interpretation to applicants' application.
In considering this ground for appeal, the Council first noted that the referenced section AMC
18.]08.030 applies to "Expedited Land Divisions." Neither the current application nor the
original subdivision have been considered in light of this section, which is not applicable on
lands "designated for full or partial protection of natural features that protect open spaces,
physical and environmental constraints per Chapter] 8.62. (see AMC ] 8.1 08.030.A.l.c)"
In reviewing the Planning Commission's decision, Council noted the following finding with
regard to lot coverage and the consideration of driveway coverage therein:
2.5.... that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed by the applicants is
merited. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre parcel, which is
the minimum lot size for the zoning district, and the Commission finds it reasonable that
this was seen as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a lot within the
district when the district and its coverage requirements were established. The Commission
further finds that it is appropriate, and in keeping with the intent of the purpose and intent
of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, to allow the subject property 4,356 square
feet of coverage in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of coverage already in place
with the shared private driveway serving the two adjacent parcels as an allocationfrom the
subdivision open space. 1his amounts to an approximate coverage of 47.45 percent.
In similar applications in the recent past involving driveways shared by adjacent
properties, the Planning Commission have been generally supportive of the exclusion of a
shared driveway's coverage from a lot's overall coverage when the driveway is required to
serve other properties and the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is
beyond an applicant's control because it would deprive adjacent property owners of
legally-established rights of ingress and egress. In this instance, the Commissionfinds that
the existing shared driveway serving the adjacent lots cannot be removed by the applicants
to reduce their lot coverage without depriving the neighboring lots of their legally-
established access. The Commissionfurther finds that the shared drivev.ay coverage on the
subject property amounts to more than one-half of the standard permitted lot coverage for
the property, and accordingly finds that excluding it from the lot coverage calculationsfor
the subject property is appropriate to allow a reasonable degree of development on the
subject property (pCRec 156)
PA #20]0-01622
June 7,2011
Page 9
The Planning Commission decision allowed 4,356 square feet of lot coverage in addition to the
existing shared driveway which crosses the applicants' subject property. The Council finds that
the Planning Commission's decision with regard to the allocation of lot coverage .from the
subdivisions open space to the subject property and its consideration of the existing shared
driveway as a component of that coverage was in no way arbitrary as it was clearly based upon
AMC 18.08.160 which defines lot coverage as the "total area of all buildings, parking areas,
driveways, as well as other solid surfaces that will not allow normal water infiltration to the
ground." (This definition was noted in the staff presentation to the Planning Commission at the
January 11,2011 public hearing on the matter.)
The Council further finds that by allowing the applicants 4,356 square feet of lot coverage in
addition to the existing ]ot coverage already in place with the shared driveway, the Planning
Commission's decision did effectively exclude the driveway from consideration because the
existing driveway's coverage was not counted against the 4,356 square feet of lot coverage that
the Commission had found appropriate to develop an RR-.5-P zoned lot, but rather allowed in
addition to that coverage. The Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within
the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and hereby adopts the
identified Planning Commission findings referenced above, and found on pages 156 of the
Planning Commission record for this application.. The Council concludes that the Planning
Commission's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal
should be denied.
c. Treatment of lot coverage in the original application
The City Council finds that with regard to the third ground for appeal, "The Planning
Commission misconstrued the lot coverage statements made by the original developers' planner
in response to some neighbors' objections," the appellants argue that it was not the intent of the
original developers that lot coverage be based on the individual lots, and that had they known the
coverage would be applied to the individual lots in this manner they would have altered the open
space configuration to increase individual lot sizes to allow additional coverage. The applicants
have provided materials both from the original developers and their agent to this effect.
In considering this third ground for appeal, the Council noted that the 'planning Commission had
reviewed statements. made in the record of the original Strawberry Meadows subdivision
approval by the original developers' planner as context to the original approval which the
applicants were requesting to modify. The Council finds that the Planning Commission's
consideration of these prior statements provided a contextual basis from which a decision could
proceed; the Commission needed to determine how lot coverage was addressed in the record of
the original subdivision approval before they could consider a request to modify the lot coverage
for one of that subdivision's lots. The Commission's specific finding with regard to this issue
was that:
2.4.... The Commission finds that in the original approval, the original applicants' agent
recognized in submittals in the record that the allowed lot coverage for the Strawberry
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 20] 1
Page 10
Meadows development was to. be limited to a maximum of 20 percent, and that the
building envelopes shown delineated an area where a home could be built but not the size
of a specific building footprint. Materials in the record of the original subdivision
application emphasized that new homes would not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage
resiriction of the zoning district, and this restriction was to have. been included in the
subdivision's CC&R's as well. (See page 40 of LUBA record, copied in applicants'
Appendix 5 on page 30 of the applicants' submitta/lPCRec 277]). While the subdivision
developers' agent has provided the current applicants with a letter indicating that the
application of lot coverage based on the individual lots was never their intent and that
had they known the coverage would be applied to the individual lots they would have
altered the open space configuration to increase individual lot sizes to allow additional
coverage, the Commission finds that original application materials explicitly recognized
that building envelopes did not identify building footprints and that the lot coverage was
to be limited to 20 percent per lot (PCRec 155).
Based on review of the statements found in the record of the original subdivision approval, as
shown in the applicants' Appendix 5 on page 277 of the Planning Commission record, the
Council reaffirms the Planning Commission's finding that the original application materials
explicitly recognized that building envelopes did not identify building footprints and that the lot
coverage was to be limited to 20 percent per lot. The Council further finds that while the
Planning Commission found that the statements in the original subdivision record were intended
to limit lot coverage on individual lots to no more than 20 percent, the Planning Commission
ultimately decided to allocate substantial additional coverage to the applicants' property in
response to the current application in a manner they found to be in keeping with the applicable
approval criteria and broader purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter.
The Council therefore finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record
to support the findings that the original subdivision developers' agent made statements during the
land use process for the original subdivision that eXplicitly recognized that the building
envelopes depicted did not identify building footprints and that lot coverage was to be limited to
20 percent per lot. The Council hereby adopts these findings, as referenced above and found on
page 155 of the record. The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with
regard to this appeal ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied.
d. Confusion of open space and lot coverage.
The City Council finds that with regard to the final ground for appeal, "The Planning
Commission misconstrued the definition of 'open space' found in AMC 18.88.020, confusing it
with lot coverage requirements."
In reviewing the Planning Commission's decision ih light of this final ground for appeal, the
Council noted that the flexibility of the Performance Standards Options chapter was used to
PA #20]0-01622
June 7,2011
Page II
allow the allocation of additional Jot coverage (beyond the 20 percent coverage typically allowed
for a lot in this district) from the original development's open space areas to the applicants' Lot
#6. In applying that flexibility, the Planning Commission considered not only. the amount of
open space originally provided but also the broader purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options chapter and the impact that the re-allocation of additional lot coverage might
have in that context.
The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than
is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy
efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the
landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than
that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically
pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on
the natural environment and neighborhood. (AMC-18.88.010)
The Planning Commission's finding here were as follows:
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter
(AMC 18.88) provides for more flexibility than is permissible under the conventional
zoning codes in order to reduce the impacts of development upon the natural
environmental and existing neighborhoods through the preservation of natural features,
the use of architectural creativity and innovation, and .increased energy efficiency while
providing for greater aesthetics, improved quality of life, and more efficient land use.
The Commission further finds that a significant element of the review and approval of
'Performance Standards' subdivisions involves balancing the flexibility allowed versus
conventional subdivision requirements in order to reach an ultimate configuration which
can be found to benefit the applicants, the neighbors, and the community at large. In this
instance, the overall lot area of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision exceeds the
minimum lot area required, the open space provided was in excess of the minimum
requirements of the chapter, and the application of flexibility under the Performance
Standards Options Chapter allowed the clustering of lots around larger open space areas
which protected the large 'unbuildable areas of the parent parcels and allowed for
smaller developable lot areas than would be required for a 'standard' subdivision in the
RR-.5 zoning district (PCRec 153).
The Commission further found:
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the Peiformance Standards Options Chapter
AMC 18.88 provides for more flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning
codes in order to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment and the
neighborhood. The Commission further finds that this flexibility has previously been
applied to allow for the allocation of lot coverage at the subdivision level, looking at the
PA #2010-01622
June 7,2011
Page 12
coverage of the development as a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis in order to
allocate some additional coverage from open space or larger individual lots to smaller
lots. Such allocations have historically been considered in light of the purpose and intent
of the Performance Standards Options Chapter and have accordingly been limited to the
degree deemed appropriate to minimize impacts to the natural environment, as well as to
. keep development in character with surrounding neighborhoods.
The Commission finds that during the initial subdivision approval process it was
acknowledged that much of the 'Brown' phase of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was
proposed to be retained in private open space due to the severity of its slopes, and further
finds that at the time of the subdivision application, the original applicant s representative
stated that all new homes would not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage allowed within the
district.
The Commission finds that the current applicants' proposal would result in a total of 6,911
square feet of coverage, or approximately 56. 7 percent lot coverage on the approximately
12,200 square foot subject property. Of this proposed coverage, ],433 square feet or ]2
percent of the lot is the existing paved driveway currently intended to serve the subject
property and the two parcels to the southeast. The applicant is also requesting 4,356
square feet of coverage, or 35.7 percent of the lot, to accommodate a future home on the
property, and an additional 1,122 square feet of coverage, or 9.2 percent of the lot, to
provide for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking areas on the site. The
applicants have proposed that this last portion 'of the coverage requested would be limited
to permeable paving or other porous surfaces. The proposal amounts to a lot coverage
totaling approximately 56.7 percent in a zoning district whe~e the standard lot coverage
allowed is limited to 20 percent.
The Commission further finds that the standard permitted lot coverage for the parcel would
be approximately 2,440 square feet or 20 percent of the approximately] 2,200 square foot
lot. The applicant is proposing that the base lot coverage allowed for the parcel be set at
20 percent of the standard minimum one-half acre parcel size allowed within the district, or
4,356 square feet. 1n addition, the applicants propose 1,] 22 square feet of pervious surface
treatments to accommodate patios, Wllkways, driveomys and parking areas on the site. 'lie
Land Use Ordinance does not have a provision to allow the exclusion of porous paving
materials from coverage; all paving is considered to be coverage by code and thus even
with the proposedporous trealmentthese surfaces are considered to be lot coverage.
The Commission finds that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed by the
applicants is merited. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre
parcel, which is the minimum lot size for the zoning district, and the Commission finds it
reasonable that this was seen as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a
lot within the district when the district and its coverage requirements vere established. 'lhe
Commission further finds that it is appropriate, and in keeping with the intent of the
PA #2010-01622
June 7, 2011
Page 13
purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, to allow the subject
property 4,356 square feet of coverage in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of
coverage already in place with the shared private driveway serving the two adjacent
parcels as an allocationfrom the subdivision open space. This amounts to an approximate
coverage of 47.45 percent.
In similar applications in the recent past involving driveways shared by adjacent
properties, the Planning Commission have been generally supportive of the exclusion of a
shared driveway's coverage from a lot's overall coverage when the drivevvay is required to
serve other properties and the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is
beyond an applicant's control because it would deprive adjacent property owners of
legally-established rights of ingress and egress. In this instance, the Commissionfinds that
the existing shared driveway serving the adjacent lots cannot be removed by the applicants
to reduce their lot coverage without depriving the neighboring lots of their legally-
established access. The Commissionfurther finds that the shared drivev.ay coverage on the
subject property amounts to more than one-half of the standard permitted lot coverage for
the property, and accordinglyfinds that excluding itfrom the lot coverage calculationsfor
the subject property is appropriate to allow a reasonable degree of development on the
subject property.
The Commission finds that the additional 1,122 square feet of permeable coverage
proposed is not merited. The Commission finds that there is no basis to raise the lot's
coverage to 56.7 percent, even with permeable surfaces, when the request is considered in
light of the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards, the character of the distriCt,
or the additional impacts to the hillside lot. The Commission further finds that, while the
application does not include a home design, the conceptual site plan provided shows guest
parking spaces and walkways disturbing sloped areas when the avoidance of disturbance in
these areas provided a basis for the applicants to justifY relocation of the drivmy.
The Commission finds that without a specific home design, it is unclear that the conceptual site
layout shown will satisfY the Hillside Design Requirements, which limit the length of walls
without an offset, require a demonstration that disturbance of the site has been minimized, and
that as much of the site as possible be kept in a natural state. The Commission further finds that
while we support the 47.45 coverage to allow 4,356 square feet of impervious surfaces on the
subject property in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of shared driveway, we cannot
support the proposed additional coverage of 1,122 square feet of additional coverage. In
addition, in order to find the proposed coverage allocation consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88, the Commission finds that if
construction of a home on the subject property involves disturbance fitting the definitions of
development on hillside lands with slopes of 25 percent or greater, the home to be built with this
coverage, and the associated site design, will be subject to all requirements for Hillside
Development and no variances to these standards will be considered in the final home design.
(PCRec 155-157).
PA #2010-01622
June 7,2011
Page 14
The Council finds that the Planning Commission's decision demonstrated a clear understanding
of the difference in definition between "open space" and "lot coverage," and that the decision
represents a clearly reasoned balancing of the allocation of lot coverage from the subdivision's
open space' to the subject property in light of the purpose and intent of the chapter and the
impacts to both the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the hillside lot which the
Performance Standards overlay zoning is intended to protect. The Council further finds that the
Planning Commission specifically noted that the additional permeable lot coverage requested, as
illustrated in the conceptual site plan provided, was proposed for the placement of guest parking
spaces and walkways disturbing sloped areas of the property when the avoidance of disturbance in these
areas had been used elsewhere in the application by the applicants to justify relocation of the driveway
and found this to be inappropriate in light of the requirements and purpose and intent of the chapter. The
Council concurs with this fmding, and hereby adopts the findings of the Planning Commission as to
this appeal ground, as referenced above and found on pages l55-157 of the Planning
Commission record for this application, The Council finds that there is substantial evidence
contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission on this
matter. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with
regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied.
C. DECISION
Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, and on the finding; set forth above, the City
Council concludes that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the
finding; of the Planning COmrrllssion with regard to each of the four grounds fur appeal, and hereby adopts
the identified Planning Commission findings in their entirety, Those findings are appended to this Final
Decision as Appendix A. The City Council accordingly finds that the Planning Commission's decision
should be upheld, and denies the appeal as to all four of the appeal grounds, The Council reaffirms the
Planning Commission's approval of a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision
Final Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision with the conditions below
which were attached to the Hanning Commission's approval.
1, That all proposals of the applicant, and all requirements of the original subdivision approval
including the requirement for residential fire sprinklers, shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
2, That the lot coverage shall be limited to 47 percent, consisting of the existing 1,433 square foot
shared driveway and an additional 4,356 square feet ofJot coverage.
3. That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit will be required for the home
design and development of the site if the final proposal constitutes development of hillside lands
with slopes of25 percent or greater. Development, including tree removal on lands with slopes of
25 percent or greater is subject to, review under a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit as required in AMC 18.62. For the 47 percent lot coverage allocation to be found
to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, the
home design and all site development must demonstrate compliance with all applicable
PA #2010-01622
June 7,2011
Page 15
requirements for hillside development, and no administrative variances will be considered with
this additional allocation oflot coverage.
4. That no development is to occur on lands with slopes in excess of35 percent.
-'
5. That prior to combustible construction, fire apparatus access, including relocation of the Hilt
Road gate and any necessary improvements to city standards to accommodate fire apparatus
access above the existing gate location shall be provided to the proposed driveway location.
6. That the applicants shall provide a sign below the gate placement indicating that there is no
outlet. The sign's design and placement shall be approved by the Public Works and Street
Department. The Engineering Division shall review and approve all Civil Improvement Plans
for any improvements within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to utility
installation, gate relocation, signage or street improvements to accommodate fire apparatus
access, Any right-of-way work will-require a Public Works Department Permit, and inspection
and approval by the Public Works Department.
June 7.2011
Date
o Stromberg, Mayor
City of Ashland
PA #20]0-0]622
June 7, 20]]
Page] 6
APPENDIX A.
Adopted Findings
of the
Planning Commission's.
.March 8t\ 2011
Decision
PA #20]0-0]622
June 7,201]
Page 17
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 8'h, 2011
IN THE MAITER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-01622, A REQUEST FOR A
MODIFICATION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SUB-
DIVISION FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR P A #2003-020 FOR THE STRA W-
BERRY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
INCLUDE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, CHANGES TO
THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE ALLOCATION OF A
PORTION OF THE LOT COVERAGE FROM THE SUBDIVISION'S "OPEN
SP ACE' A' .. TO ALLOW INCREASED LOT COVERAGE FOR LOT #6
LOCATED AT ] 63 HIIT ROAD.
APPLICANTS; R. Scott Dixon and Joan Cresse
----------------~._-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
RECITALS;
)
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) & ORDERS
)
)
)
)
)
I} Tax lot #506 of Map 39 IE 08 AC is located at 163 Hitt Road, within the Stmwbeny Meadows
Subdivision, and is zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5-P) with a Perfonnance Standards Overlay.
2} The applicants are requesting a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision
Final Plan Approval (P A#2003-020) for the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. The proposed
modifications include relocation of the driveway entrance, changes to the approved building
envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the subdivision's approved
"Open Space 'A'" to allow increased lot coverage for Lot #6, located at 163 Hitt Road, The
proposal, including the design for the proposed home, is outlined on the plans on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Pinal Plan approval are described in Chapter 18.88,030,8.5 as follows:
Criteria for Final Plan Approval. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substanlial
conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling
units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units
shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline
plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate Ihe minor modifications from
one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with
the final plan shows that: .
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the
approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted In the
outline plan.
PA #2010-01622
March 8,2011
Page I
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10"10) percent of
those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below
the minimum established within this Title.
c, The open spaces vary no more than ten (10"10) percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten
(10"10) percent. .
e, The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of
this Title and the approved outline plan.
f, That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan
approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance
level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved,
g, The development complies with the Street Standards.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January Illh,
2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Catherine Dimino, one of
those speaking at the hearing, requested that the record remain open for seven days to allow the
submittal of additional written comnlents, and the applicants requested an additionat seven days to
submit written arguments, The Planning Commission continued the matter to their regular meeting
on February 8th, 2011. While the record was open for new submittals, Mrs, Dimino submitted new
materials, as did the applicants and the staff, During the seven days following the closing of the
record to new submittals, the applicants also submitted argument in responsc to the materials
submitted subsequent to the hearing. At the February 8,h, 20 II meeting, the applicants attempted to
challenge a memorandum provided to the Commission by staff summarizing the materials received
since the close of the hearing, and asked for an opportunity to rebut this memorandum. The
Planning Commission rejected this challenge, finding that the staff memo was a summary
containing no new inforlnation. The Planning Commission approved the application for a
Modification of the Perfoffilance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA#2003-
020) for the Strawbeny Meadows Subdivision to allow relocation of the driveway cntrance,
changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage
from the subdivision's approved open space "An to allow increased lot covcrage for the subject
property (Lot #6) 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 I. 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"
PA #2010-01622
March 8, 2011
Page 2
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2, I The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the staff report, pnblic hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 TIle Planning Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC
18.88) provides for more flexibility than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes in
order to reduce the impacts of development upon the natural enviromnental and existing
neighborhoods through the preservation of natural features, the use of architectural creativity and
innovation, and increased energy efficiency while providing for greater aesthetics, improved
quality of life, and more efficient land use, The Commission further finds that a significant
element of the review and approval of 'Performance Standards' subdivisions involves balancing
the flexibility allowed versus conventional subdivision requirements in order to reach an ultimate
configuration which can be found to benefit the applicants, the neighbors, and the community at
large. In this instance,. the overall lot area of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision exceeds the
minimum lot area required, the open space provided was in excess of the minimum requirements
of the chapter, and the application of flexibility under the Performance Standards Options
Chapter allowed the clustering of lots around larger open space areas which protected the large
linbuildable areas of the parent parcels and allowed for smaller developable lot areas than would
be required for a 'standard' subdivision in the RR-.5 zoning district. .
2.3 The Phinning Commission finds that existing public facilities and utilities are in place to
service the project, and have been identifie~ on a site plan and discussed in the narrativc
submittals provided.
Water, sewer, electric and storm drain utilities are available in Hitt Road and in thc private drive
to serve the parcel. Hitt Road provides access to the site. Hit( Road is a residential collector with
very low traffic volumes, and is gated at its present tenninus along the subject property's
frontage. Hitt Road leads to popular hiking trails which seasonally increase the amount of traffic
and on-street parking. There are existing curbside sidewalks on one side of Hitt Road, opposite
the'subject property, which end at the last driveway before the existing gate location. The.
sidewalks were recently extended to this location and the gate relocated as part of the required
infrastructure for the "Falling Aco/'lls" subdivision at 500 Strawberry Lane. City street standards
explicitly provide for exceptions to allow the installation of sidewalks on only one side of the
street where natural features or topographic constraints limit their installation, and based on the
slopes on the east side of Hitt Road it was previously determined that the current sidewalk
configuration was appropriate for this section of Hitt Road.
PA #2010-01622
March 8, 2011
Page 3
The Conunission finds that the applicants are proposing to move the approved access to the parcel
from the shared driveway on the northeast edge of the lot to Hitt Road. The gate that crosses Hilt
Road would be relocated approximately S8-feet past its cun'ent location to accommodate the
proposed new driveway placement. The applicants state that this will provide more convenient
vehicular access to residents of the proposed home as they would like to have a main level garage.
The applicants further note that the proposed driveway location would eliminate the need for large
amounts of excavation for the retaining walls which would be required if the access remained in its
current location at the bottom of the subject property fi'om the existing shared private drivc,
The Commission finds that relocation of the siie's access will rcducc the amount of disturbance on
the steepest portions of the site by allowing the driveway entrance and garage to be constructed in
line with the site's topography, and further finds this to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of
thc Perfonnance Standards Chapter as well as the requirements for the development of Hillside
Lands. .
The Commission finds that when lots are created, as they were with the Strawberry Meadows
subdivision, a portion of the lot needs to front upon a street that complies with the minitmlln
street standard. The Commission further finds that the minimum street standard can be as narrow
as 20 feet in hillside areas, and that the improved portion of Hitt Road, which fronts along a
portion of the subject property here, meets the street standards. The Commission further finds
that the applicants propose to take acc.ess from the portion of Hit! Road which is beyond the
extent of improvements installed with the subdivision, and that in this location Hitt Road beyond
the full improvements will function not as a public street but as a private flag driveway which
can serve up to three lots from a 15-foot width with a 20-foot clear width. The Commission
further finds that retaining this portion of Hitt Road, at its current width without full street
improvements by considering it under the flag drive standards, will minimize tree removal, cuts
and fills, and the impacts of developing the subject property on the surrounding area.
2.4 The P1aJUling Commission finds that the applicants are proposing to modifY the approved
building envelope by adding 666 square feet along the southwestern property line, moving the
envelope closer to Hit! Road. The identification of a building envelope is a rcquirement of
subdivision approvals; the envelope identifies those areas of the subject property where
development disturbance may occur. Areas with slopes in excess of 35 percent are considered to
be unbuildable, and must be located entirely outside of approved building envelopes. Building
envelopes do not identifY a specific building footprint .or indicate the amount of allowed lot
coverage, but rather depict the areas which have been approved for potential development
disturbance, subject to other requiremcnts including lot coverage and solar access.
According to the applicants' findings the area of proposed building envelope modification has less
steep slopes than the areas within the building envelope adjacent to the existing shared privatc
drive. The applicants state that the proposed envelope modifications will reduce the amount of area
disturbed on the steepest portions of the lot, and the Commission finds that the envclopc
modification proposed poses no concerns.
PA #2010-01622
March 8, 20 II
Page 4
The Commission finds that in the original ,approval, the original applicants' agent recognized in
submittals in the record that the allowed lot coverage for the Strawberry Meadows development
was to be limited to a maximum of20 percent, and that the building envelopes shown delineated
an area where a home could be built but not the size of a specific building footprint. Materials in
the record of the original subdivision application emphasized that new homes would not exceed
the 20 percent lot coverage restriction of the zoning district, and this restriction was to have been
included in the' subdivision's CC&R's as well. (See page 40 of LUBA record, copied in
applicants' Appendix 5 on page 30 of the applicants' submittal.) While the subdivision
. developers' agent has provided the current applicants with a letter indicating that the application
of lot coverage based on the individual lots was never their intent and that had they known the
coverage would be applied to the individual lots they would have altered the open spacc
configuration to increase individual lot sizes to allow additional coverage, the Commission finds
that original application materials explicitly recognized that building envelopes did not identify
building footprints, The Commission further finds that for the substantial portions of the original
parent parcels which have slopes in excess of 35 percent, those areas are required to be protected
as unbuildab1e both in temlS of the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review chaptcr, which
exeludes lands with slopes in excess of 35 percent from buildable areas in AMC l8.62,030.C,
and the Performance Standards Options chapter, which requires that significant natural fcatures
be included in open space, common areas or unbuildab1e areas in AMC 18.88.030.AA.c.
2.5 The Plalming Commission finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC
18,88 provides for moreJlexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes in order
to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment and the neighborhood. Thc
Commission further finds that this flexibility has previously been applied to allow for the
allocation oflot coverage at the subdivision level, looking at the coverage of the development as
a whole rather than on a lot by lot basis in order to allocate some additional coverage from opcn
space or larger individual lots to smaller lots. Such allocations have historically becn considered
in light of the purpose and intent of the Pelfonnance Standards Options Chapter and have
accordingly been limited to the degree deemed appropriate to minimize impacts to the natural
environment, as well as to keep development in character with surrounding neighborhoods,
The Commission finds that during the initial subdivision approval process it was acknowledged
that much of the 'Brown' phase of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision was proposcd to be
retained in private open space due to the severity of its slopes, and further finds that at the time of
the subdivision application, the original applicant's representative stated that all new homes would
not exceed the 20 percent lot coverage allowed within the district.
The Conunission finds that the current applicants' proposal would result in a total of 6,911 square
feet of coverage, or approximately 56.7 percent lot coverage on the approximately 12,200 square
foot subject property. Of this proposed coverage, 1,433 square feet or 12 percent of the lot is the
existing paved driveway currently intended to serve the subject property and the two parcels to Ihe
. southeast. The applicant is also requesting 4,356 square feet of coverage, or 35.7 percent ofthc lot,
PA 1/2010-01622
March 8, 20 II
Page 5
to accommodate a future home on the property, and an additional 1,122 square feet of coverage, or
9,2 percent of the lot, to provide for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and parking areas on thc
site, The applicants have proposed that this last p0l1ion of the coverage rcquested would be limited
to pemleable paving or other porous surfaces, The proposal amounts to a lot coverage totaling
approximately 56.7 percent in a zoning disuict where the standard lot coverage allowed is limited
to 20 percent.
>The Commission further finds that the standard pelmilted lot coverage for the parcel would bc
approximately 2,440 square feet or 20 percent of the approximately 12,200 squarc foot lot. The
applicant is proposing that the base lot coverage allowed for the parcel be set at 20 percent of the
standard minimum one-half acre parcel size allowed within the dishict, or 4,356 square feel. In
addition, the applicants propose 1,122 square fect of pcrvious surface treatments to . accommodatc
patios, walkways, driveways and parking areas on the site. The Land Use Ordinance does not have
a provision to allow the exclusion of porous paving matcrials from covcrage; all paving is
considered to be coverage by code and thus even with the proposed porous treatment thesc surfaces
are considercd to be lot coverage,
The Commission finds that allowing the 4,356 square feet of coverage proposed by the applicants is
merited. This is the coverage which would be allowed for a one-half acre parcel, which is (he
minimum lot size for the zoning district, and the Conunission finds it reasonable that this was seen
as the minimum coverage viewed as necessary to develop a lot within the district when the dishict
and its coverage requirements were established. The COlmnission further finds that it is
appropriate, and in keeping with the intent ofthe purpose and intent of the Perfonnance Standards
Options Chapter, to allow the subject prope11y 4,356 square feet of coverage in addition to Ihc
existing 1,433 square feet of coverage already in place with the shared private driveway serving thc
two adjacent parcels as an allocation from thc subdivision open space. This amounts to an
approximatc coverage of 47.45 percent.
In similar applications in the recent past involving driveways shared by adjaccnt properties, the
Planning Commission have been generally supportive of the exclusion of a shared driveway's
coverage from a lot's overall coverage wheri the driveway is required to serve other properties and
the reduction or removal of the driveway to reduce cover is beyond an applicant's control becausc it
would deprive adjacent property owners of legally-established rights of ingress and egress. In this
instance, the Commission finds that the existing shared driveway serving the adjacent lots cmmot be
removed by the applicants to reduce their lot coverage ,vithout depriving the neighboring lots of
their legally-established access. The Commission further finds that the shared driveway covcrage
on the subject property amounts to more than one-half of the standard pennilted lot coverage for the
property, and accordingly finds that excluding it from the lot coverage calculations for the subject
property is appropriate to allow a reasonable degree of development on the subject property,
The Conunission finds that the additional 1,122 square feet ofpenneable coverage proposed is not
merited. The Conunission finds that there is no basis to raise the lot's coverage to 56,7 pcr<;cnt,
even with permeable surfaces, when the request is considered in light of Ule purpose and intent of
I'A #2010-01622
March 8, 2011
I'age 6
the Performance Standards, the character of the district, or the additional impacts to the hillside lot.
The Commission further finds 'that, while the application does not include a home design, the
conceptual site plan provided shows guest parking spaces and walkways disturbing sloped arcas
when the avoidance of disturbance in these areas provided a basis for the applicants to justify
relocation of the driveway,
The Commission finds that without a specific home design, it is unclear that the conceptual sitc
layout shown will satisfy the Hillside Design Requirements, which limit the length of walls without
an offset, require a demonstration that disturbance of the site has been minimized, and that as much
of the site as possible be kept itl a natural state. The Commission further finds that while we
support the 47.45 coverage to allow 4,356 square feet of impervious surfaces on the subject
property in addition to the existing 1,433 square feet of shared driveway, we cannot support the
proposed additional coverage of 1,122 square feet of additional coverage, In addition, in order to
find the proposed coverage allocation consistent with the purpose and intenl of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter 18.88, the Commission finds that if construction of a home on the
subject property involves disturbance fitting the definitions of development on hillside lands with
slopes of 25 percent or greater, the home to be built with this coverage, and the associated site.
design, will be subject to all requirements for Hillside Development and no variances to thcsc
standards will be considered in the final home design,
2,6 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants' challenge thaI the memorandum
prepared by staff on February 81h, 2011 included new information and should be subject to
rebuttal has no merit. The Commission finds that the information provided by staff on February
8th was a summary of information received into the record subsequent to the close of the hearing,
contained no new information, and was not subject to rebuttal.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval for
the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision (P A#2003-020) to include relocation of the driveway entrance,
changes to the approved building envelope, and the allocation of a portion of the lot coverage from the
subdivision's approved open space "An to allow increased lot coverage for the subject property is
supported by evidence contained within the whole record,
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #20 10-01622.. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2010-01622 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
I) That all proposals of the applicant, .and all requirements of the original subdivision approval
including the requirement for residential fire sprinklers, shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
PA #20tO-01622
March 8, 2011
Page 7
2) That the lot coverage shall be limited to 47 percent, consisting of the existing 1,433 square foot
shared driveway and an additional 4,356 square feet oflot coverage,
3) That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Pennit will be required for the home
design and development of the site if the final proposal constitutes development of hillside lands
with slopes of25 percent or greater. Development, including tree removal on lands with slopes of
25 percent or greater is subject to review under a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit as required in AMC IS.62. For the 47 percent lot coverage allocation to be found
to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, the
home design and all site development must demonstrate compliance with all applicablc
requirements for hillside development, and no administrative variances will be considered with
this additional allocation oflot coverage,
4) That no development is to occur on lands with slopes in excess of35 percent.
5) That prior to combustible construction, fire apparatus access, including relocation of the Hilt
Road gate and any nec.essalY improvements to city standards to accommodate fire apparatus
access above the existing gate location shall be provided to the proposed driveway location.
6) That the applicants shall provide a sign below the gate placement indicating that there is no
outlet. The signs design and placement shall be approved by the Public Works and Street
Department. The Engineering Division shall review and approve all Civil Improvement Plans
for any improvements within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to utility
installation, gate relocation, signage or street improvements to accommodate fire apparatus
access. Any right-of-way work will require a Public Works Department Permit, and inspection
and approval by the Public Works Department.
Vkt$tuL-
Plamling Commission Approval by
Pam Marsh, Chair
March S'h, 2011
Date
PA "2010-01622
March 8, 2011
Page 8