HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunnyview_137 (PA-2010-00263)
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Today's Date: June 30, 2010 Requested Check Issue Date: ASAP
I Request for Check
To he used for the followine:
.. Rebates, Refunds, or Reimbursements (not employees)
.. Advanced payments for Books/Schools/Registration/Hotels (attach documentation)
.. State/County Assessments
.. Grants and Debt Services
.. Membership Dues
Payee: Michael Read
Address: 137 Sunnyview St
City, State, Zip: Ashland, OR 97520
819.00
Requested By:
$819.00
Return Check To:
Send check with
attachment
Approved By:
.;
Request (s) must be in Accounts Payable Inbox by 5:00pm Friday to be issued the following Friday.
G:\Forms\Finance Forms\Request for Check City.pdf Updated on 12/1/2009
Owner's Name: CHRISTINE/MIKE GONZALES/READ Phone:
Customer #: 05507 State Lie No:
CHRISTINE/MIKE GONZALES/READ City Lie No:
Applicant: 137 SUNNYVIEW ST
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520
Sub-Contractor:
Phone: Address:
Applied: 03/05/2010
Issued:
Expires: 09/01/2010 Phone:
State Lie No:
Maplot: 391 E08BA 111 City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Variance for lot coverage.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main 51.
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
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0,00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 1,836.00 $ 1,836,00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the Sub-Total: $ 1,836.00
applicant. Fees Paid: $ 1,836.00
Total Amount Due: $ 0
Applicant Date
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main SI.
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.OLUS
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY Of
ASHLAND
June 23, 2010
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
137 Sunnyview St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Eric & Holly Linerud
123 Sunnyview St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Notice of Final Decision
On June 23, 20 I 0, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved your
request for the following:
A Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (PA #2000-076)
for the Eastfield Subdivision in order to allow an allocation of lot coverage between 123 Sunnyview and
137 Sunnyview (Lots #7 and #8). With the proposal, the allowed lot coverage for the property located at
13 7 Sunnyview Street (Eastfield Lot #8) would be increased by reducing the allowed lot coverage for the
adjacent propeliy located at 123 Sunnyview Street (Eastfield Lot #7). No net increase in lot coverage is
proposed; the combined coverage for the two lots will remain within the coverage allowed for the
subdivision/zoning district. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential & Rural
Residential; ZONING: WR & RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 08 BA; TAX LOTS: 111 and 109
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 Depatiment to respond to the
issue precludes an action for damages in circuit comi.
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 Depatiment of Community
Development between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Patiies of record and propeliy 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
~A'
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PA #2010-00263
13 7 Sunnyview Street
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
Eric & Holly Linerud
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final
Plan Approval (P A #2000-076) for the Eastfield Subdivision in order to allow an allocation oflot coverage
between 123 Sunnyviewand 137 Sunnyview (Lots #7 and #8). With the proposal, the allowed lot coverage
for the property located at 137 Sunnyview Street (Eastfield Lot #8) would be increased by reducing the
allowed lot coverage for the adjacent property located at 123 Sunnyview Street (Eastfie1d Lot #7). No net
increase in lot coverage is proposed; the combined coverage for the two lots will remain within the allowed
coverage for the zoning district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential & Rural Residential; ZONING:
WR & RR-.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 08 BA; TAX LOTS: 111 and 109
PLANNING ACTION:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
OWNERS/APPLICANTS:
SUB MITT AL DATE:
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE:
STAFF APPROVAL DATE:
FINAL DECISION DATE:
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE:
March 5, 2010
May 14, 2010
June 23, 2010
July 6,2010
July 6,2011
DECISION
The application involves a request by neighboring property owners for a Modification of the Performance
Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan Approval (P A #2000-076) for the Eastfield Subdivision in order
to allow an allocation oflot coverage between 123 Sunnyviewand 137 Sunnyview (Lots #7 and #8). With
the proposal, the allowed lot coverage for the property located at 137 Sunnyview Street (Eastfield Lot #8)
would be increased by reducing the allowed lot coverage for the adjacent property located at 123 Sunnyview
Street (Eastfield Lot #7). The application does not include a specific development proposal, but rather seeks
only to allocate lot coverage through the flexibility of the Performance Standards Options Chapter; no net
increase in lot coverage is proposed, and the combined coverage for the two lots will remain within the
allowed coverage for the zoning district. The application notes that that the proposed reallocated coverage
will not be used to increase the building mass on 137 Sunnyview Street, but would instead be used for
surface treatments including landscape features (ponds, pools, etc.) or patio space.
The subject properties are Lot #7 (123 Sunnyview) and Lot #8 (Sunnyview) of the Eastfield Subdivision,
located off of a private drive at the southern end of the cul-de-sac of Sunnyview Street. Eastfield included
ten developable lots and an open space tract which includes two pedestrian paths providing links to
Strawberry Park and over Wright's Creek to Westwood Street, a tennis court, and gateway landscaping for
the development. Of the ten buildable lots, six have now been developed and four remain vacant. The top
of bank ofthe Wrights Creek Tributary #5, a local stream, is at the western edge of the properties however
based on the applicants' submittals the top of bank and riparian protection zone do not extend into the
buildable portion of either lot. 137 Sunnyview is approximately 26,606 square feet in area and is trapezoidal
P A 2010-00263
137 Sunnyview/ds
Page 1
in shape, and contahis an existing approximately 3,804 square foot home constructed in 2004. 123
Sunnyview is approximately 52,564 square feet in area, is irregularly shaped, and contains a 4,472 square
foot home constructed in 2005.
Both of the subject properties are located primarily within the Rural Residential (RR-.5) zoning district,
which has a lot coverage limitation of20 percent. The westernmost portion of 123 Sunnyview (Lot 7) along
the creek corridor is zoned Woodland Reserve (WR) and is subject to a maximum lot coverage not to exceed
seven percent. This portion of Lot 7 is outside of the developable portion of the lot, and as such no coverage
would be allowed in this portion of the lot.
The Performance Standards Options Chapter 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, and this flexibility has historically been applied to look at lot coverage at the subdivision
level as a whole, rather than on a lot by lot basis, in order to protect natural features of the site or the
surrounding neighborhood while also providing for architectural creativity and innovation encouraged within
the chapter. This methodology has seemed well-suited to implementing the purpose and intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter while allowing a broader focus in considering the full impact of
Performance Standards development proposals.
In this instance, each of the properties would typically be allowed to have 20 percent lot coverage plus an
equal share of the available lot coverage for any open space that was provided in addition to that required by
the Performance Standards. Subdivisions of ten or more units are required to provide five percent of the
total area of the subdivision as Open Space, and as such coverage has not historically been allowed to be
allocated from this required open space to individual lots. The application notes that open space was
provided in the form of an open space lot along the creek and in two pedestrian rights-of-way, and these
areas would be considered for allocation of lot coverage once the required five percent of open space was
removed from consideration, along with any coverage on that open space area (such as the existing tennis
courts). The applicants propose to take the total amount of coverage which would have been allowed for
their two lots and re-allocate it so that between the two, they meet this coverage requirement and the
subdivision itself continues to comply with the overall coverage for the district as well. No net increase in
overall lot coverage between the two lots, or for the subdivision as a whole is proposed; the combined
coverage for the two lots and for the subdivision as a whole will remain within the allowed coverage for the
zoning district. And as noted above, the proposed reallocated coverage is to be used for surface treatments
such as patios, ponds or pools, and will not be used to increase the building mass of the existing building on
the lot. With the proposed reallocation, as delineated in the applicants' Table A, 123 Sunnyview (Lot 7) is to
be allowed a lot coverage of 5,949 square feet + 176 square feet of open space allocation or 6,125 square
feet of coverage, and 137 Sunnyview (Lot 8) is allowed a lot coverage of7,499 square feet plus 176 square
feet of open space allocation or 7,675 square feet of coverage.
In considering the request, staff believes that the proposal is an appropriate way for these two neighbors to
utilize the flexibility of the Performance Standards Options Chapter, and by limiting the proposed
reallocated coverage to surface treatments such as patio areas, pools or ponds rather than additions to the
existing building, potential impacts are mitigated in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Chapter.
P A 2010-00263
137 Sunnyview/ds
Page 2
The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030.B.5 as follows:
5. Criteria for Final Plan Approval. 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 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.
t 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.
The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances.
The modification of Planning Action #2000-076 to allow the allocation of lot coverage between 123
Sunnyview and 137 Sunnyview (Eastfield Subdivision Lots #7 and #8) proposed here as Planning Action
2010-00263 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 2010-00263 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 specifically
modified herein.
2) That all conditions of Planning Action #2000-076 shall remain in effect unless specifically modified
herein.
3) That lot coverage shall be limited to that proposed in the application as delineated in the applicants'
Table A. Future plan submittals for either property shall demonstrate compliance with these
coverage allocations. 123 Sunnyview (Lot 7) is allowed a lot coverage of 5,949 square feet + 176
square feet of open space allocation or 6,125 square feet of coverage, and 137 Sunnyview (Lot 8) is
P A 2010-00263
137 Sunnyview/ds
Page 3
allowed a lot coverage of 7,499 square feet plus 176 square feet of open space allocation or 7,675
square feet of coverage.
4) That any proposed development of the two subject properties remains limited to the approved
envelopes and subject to any applicable regulations including tree removal requirements.
5) That the reallocated coverage shall be limited to surface improvements such as water features
(ponds, pools), patio spaces, etc. as proposed by the applicants, and will not be used to increase the
mass of the existing buildings.
6) That a deed agreement recognizing the above conditions of this approval shall be recorded on the
deed of each of the two properties, as proposed by the applicants, prior to the formal reallocation of
coverage. These deed agreements shall be recorded, and a copy of the rec:orded documents provided
to the Staff Advisor, within 12 months of the final decision.
June 23. 2010
Bill Date
Dep
P A 2010-00263
137 Sunnyview/ds
Page 4
Planning Department, 51 Win bur, AY, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY Of
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA #2010-00263
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 137 & 123 Sunnyview Street
OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Michael Read & Christine Gonzales & Eric & Holly Linerud
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision Final Plan
Approval (PA #2000-076) for the Eastfield Subdivision in order to allow an allocation of lot coverage between 123
Sunnyviewand 137 Sunnyview (Lots #7 and #8). With the proposal, the allowed lot coverage for the property
located at 137 Sunnyview Street (Eastfield Lot #8) would be increased by reducing the allowed lot coverage for the
adjacent property located at 123 Sunnyview Street (Eastfield Lot #7). No net increase in lot coverage is proposed;
the combined coverage for the two lots will remain within the coverage allowed for the subdivision/zoning district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential & Rural Residential; ZONING: WR & RR-.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 08 SA; TAX LOTS: 111 and 109
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 18,2010
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: June 1, 2010
N
Property 11,<"s",... ur,.., "''''''''' (mIy, "ot"'~'t1IEa /"
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 t~ 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.
G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices Mailed\20 1 0\20 1 0-00263_ REV,doc
FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
18.88.030.8.5 Criteria for Final Approval
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
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.
(ORD 2836,1999)
G:lcomm-devlplanninglNotices Mailed\20 1 0\20 1 0-00263_ REY.doc
,
I
I
I
I
A~EI^V-og.o08"'L
WO:rAJaA8"MMM
PA-2010-00263 391E08BA 904
DANIS VIRGINIA
120 WESTWOOD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
P A-20 1 0-00263 39 I E08AB 1000
FUE LLC
2726 T AKELMA WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 391E08BA 109
LINERUD ERIC J/HOLL Y R
123 SUNNYVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 391E08BA 112
POOLE LEE TRUSTEE
PO BOX 4
BEND OR 97709
PA-2010-00263 391E08BA 908
SCHWARZER PETER F/ROBIN L
121 WESTWOOD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 39 I E08AB 1200
WANG YUJEN/SHEIBANI SHAHRZAD
2726 T AKELMA WAY
ASHLAND OR 97520
P A-20 I 0-00263
TERRASURVEY
STUART OSMUS
274 FOURTH ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
T ~Ui @JWaAV ~
r Wldfl-(lod p.toqw el JlII'^"J
l lip uJjU amtpeq 81 '1 zlIUdeU
~UlIWll6Jelp
ep sues
...
t> A-20 I 0-00263 391 E08AB 1100
EASTFIELD SUBDIVISION
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCI
188 SUNNYVIEW ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 391E08BA 901
GAGNE STEPHEN R ET AL
155 WESTWOOD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 391E08AB 800
MOEGLEIN MARK/CAROLYN
144 SUNNYVIEW ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 391E08AB 900
SARACINO ANTHONY M/SARACINO
NANCY J
1020 CORNADO BLVD
SACRAMENTO CA 95884
PA-2010-00263 391E08BA 211
SUGAR DAVID G/SKYE GUNSOLUS
177 WESTWOOD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-201O-00263 391E08BA 113
WASGATT CHRISTOPHER
MICHAEL/NICOLE MARCE
307 MEADE ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
r Wll16p:l dn-dod lIsodxlI
I ~ eun 6uo18 pueg
_ Jaded paa:f
_ v
f
I
I
~
@Og!.s @A~EI^'d ~!Jeqe6 al zasmm
Jalad \I saUJe,. s~nbl:a.;I
PA-201O-00263 391E08BA 210
FALLON MARY DAWN TRUSTEE
183 WESTWOOD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 39 I E08BA III
GONZALES CHRISTINE R1READ
MICHAEL
137 SUNNYVIEW DR
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-201O-00263 391E08AB 211
MOGEL RONALD TRUSTEE ET AL
774 LISA LN
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00263 391E08BA 900
SCHULMAN CHARLES TRUSTEE
135 WESTWOOD ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
P A-20 10-00263 391 E08AB 700
TSCHETTER CLIFFORD TRTE FBO
5 BELL WAVER WAY
OAKLAND CA 94619
PA-201O-00263 391E08BA 800
Y ANT JORGE A/SUSAN C S
4690 MAKENA ALANUI DR
KIHEI HI 96753
NOC 5-18-10
137 Sunnyview
19
,.
I
!
@09LS a:a.eldwiU ~aAV asn
slacun ""lalM ~se::a
001
"600
612:
600
200
261
.2:08
.aoo
003
00.2
26S
.roD
3005
3001
54lf)
:2:63
.200
10.0
600
.204
100
.216
.211
00()
gOO
1000
1'HM
12:00
001 !!iOO
100
"
d.
@ Please recycfe with colored office grade paper
005
161
161
103
14),4
:2:63
3000
261
.2:03
:2:00
:2:10
\,,~
'~
l'",
I"m
::.:
"~
~
<:(
'':\'1
;H
~
f{f'
~
~'
~,
:t ':1
:2:.aoo
21lOO
.2.00
212:
".
i
~~
""l!
.~
Ire.
1'(".
" ~1.
" ";U
\"\
'~~
-a '
'tee.
::?r.,
'1-
111
110
261 '!
1~
Created with MapMaker
1d~
"
~03
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
Selected Features
Tax Lol Outlines
Tax Lot Numbers
I
"
JACKSON
COUNTY
Oregon
300
This map Is based on a dIgital database
compiled by Jackson County From a varIety
of sources, Jackson County cannot accept
responslblly for errors, omissions, or
positional accuracy. There are no
warranties, expressed or Implied,
Map crealed on 5/17/2010 11:23:46 AM using web.Jacksoncounty,org
N D V LOPMENT S RVIC S, LL
LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
April 15,2010
City of Ashland
Community Development Department
Attn: Derek Severson, Associate Planner
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: Performance Standards Options Subdivision Modification
Eastfield Subdivision, Lots #7 & #8 (123 and 137 Sunnyview Street)
Derek,
Please find attached the revised application materials for the Performance Standards Options
Subdivision Modification between the two property owners of 123 and 137 Sunnyview Street. Per
our discussion of April 9th, this application supersedes the Variance application submitted on March
5th, 2010. Overall, the proposal is generally the same as the previous proposal other than the
determining criteria. The applicants are very aware of how complex these issues can be, but they
have stated on more than one occasion how much they appreciate staff s position and effort to guide
them through these complexities.
Finally, as we discussed during the meeting, because the current proposal's application fee is
significantly less than the previous application fee, a refund, less staffs administrative time, would
be appreciated by the property owners.
That said, any refunds should be sent to:
Michael Read
137 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, Or 97520
If you have any questions or comments relating to this matter, please feel free to contact me by my
email address at or via my cell at 541-821-3752.
Sincerely,
Mark Knox,
Phone: 541 -482 - 3 3 34
Fax: 541-482-3336
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR A CO-APPLICATION PROPOSAL BETWEEN THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OF
123 AND 137 SUNNYVIEW STREET WHO DESIRE A
MODIFICATION OF A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION
SUBDIVISION TO INCREASE THE PERMISSIBLE LOT
COVERAGE ON 137 SUNNYVIEW STREET BY REDUCING THE
AVAILABLE LOT COVERAGE FROM 123 SUNNYVIEW STREET.
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ASHLAND, OREGON
SUBMITTED BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
485 WEST NEVADA STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
APPLICANTS:
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
13 7 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Eric & Holly Linerud
123 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
PLANNING ACTION: The proposal is for a joint application between the adjacent
property owners of 123 and 137 Sunnyview Street who desire a Modification of a
Performance Standards Option Subdivision to increase the permissible lot coverage on
137 Sunnyview Street by reducing the available lot coverage from 123 Sunnyview Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E 08BA #109 and 391E 08BA #111
OWNERS & APPLICANTS:
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
137 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Eric & Holly Linerud
123 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Covey Pardee, Landscape Architects
Greg Covey
295 East Main Street, No.8
Ashland, OR 97520
LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
Mark Knox
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
SURVEYOR:
Eagle Eye Surveying, Inc
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low -Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION
RR-.5 (Rural Residential 11 acre (21,780 sq. ft.) minimum lot size)
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE:
20% (all impervious surface area - house footprint, driveway, sidewalks, pool, etc.)
TOTAL LOT AREA:
123 Sunnyview Drive:
137 Sunnyview Drive:
26,602 sq. ft.
52,564 sq. ft.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
R-R Rural Residential District, Chapter 18.16
Performance Standards Options, Chapter 18.88
ADJACENT ZONING/USE:
WEST: RR-.5; Rural Residential District & WR; Woodland Reserve
EAST: RR-.5; Rural Residential District
SOUTH: RR-.5; Rural Residential District & WR; Woodland Reserve
NORTH: RR-.5; Rural Residential District
SUBJECT SITE: RR-.5; Rural Residential District & WR; Woodland Reserve
2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The following information has been provided by the applicants and various consultants to
help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors understand the proposed
project. In addition, the required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the
proposed project meets the Criteria as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC),
Section 18.88.030.B.5.
Proposal: The proposal is for a Modification of the Eastfield Subdivision, a Performance
Standards Options Subdivision, approved in July of 2000 (P A-2000-076), modifying the
permissible lot coverage on 137 Sunnyview Street (Lot #8) by reducing the available lot
coverage from 123 Sunnyview Street (Lot #7). No net increase of lot coverage is
proposed with this application as the proposal seeks to maintain the zone's maximum lot
coverage as outlineg below. The applicants and property owners are Michael Read &
Christine Gonzales and Eric & Holly Linerud. The table below illustrates the proposed lot
coverage allocation and that no net increase in lot coverage is being requested.
Table A
Eastfield Subdivision (Lots #7 & 8)
Proposed Lot Coverage Modification (no net gain proposal)
Lot
Sunnyview
Address
Owners
Lot
Area
(RR-.5)
Allowed
Coverage
(20%)
Existing Future
Coverage Coverage
Total
Actual
Coverage
7
123
Linerud 40,636
8,127
4,881
1,068
5,949
8
137
Gonzales
/ Read 26,602
5,320
5,952
1,547
7,499
Total
67,238 13.448
10,833
2,615
13.448
Actual "total" maximum coverage "possible" for Lots #7 & #8*
13.448
Actual "total" lot area for Lots #7 & #8 (excludes WR zoned areas)
67,238
Total Percentage of Maximum Coverage for Lots #7 & #8 Combined*
* Maximum possible lot coverage does not include subdivision's
common areas shared allocation (approximately 176 square feet per lot)
or area of lot zoned WR.
20.0%
Existing Conditions: Both lots ar.e located within the Eastfield Residential Subdivision
which was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission in March of 2000 (P A-2000-
026 - Outline Plan) and by the Ashland Planning Department in July of 2000 (P A-2000-
076 - Final Plan) as an II-lot Performance Standards Options Subdivision which
included one lot as common open space and two pedestrian paths that link to Strawberry
Park to the east and the other to the foot-bridge over Wrights Creek that leads to
Westwood Street. The common open space includes areas that are now a tennis court, a
long section of Wright's Creek and ~pproximately 200' oflandscaping along the entrance
of the subdivisio~. Of the subdivision's ten buildable lots, six are now constructed upon
3
and four remain as vacant parcels. The subject lots at 123 and 137 Sunnyview Street have
existing houses which were constructed in 2004 and 2005.
Background & Explanation: As noted, the two properties in question were created under
the City's Performance Standards Options Subdivision process in July of2000 with six of
the ten buildable lots now constructed upon. In July of 2000, a considerable amount of
planning and engineering had occurred which included providing a common tennis court
area, common open space area along Wrights Creek and dedicating rights of way for the
two "public" pedestrian pathways leading to both Westwood Street to the west and
Strawberry Park to the east. In addition, as part of the subdivision's improvements, a
pedestrian bridge was constructed over Wrights Creek from the subdivision to Westwood
Street. Overall, the efforts by both staff and the applicants at that time are proving to be
very successful as the Wright's Creek area has maintained its natural appearance and the
two pedestrian connections have been valuable "shortcuts" for pedestrians walking to
different parts of the neighborhood. Many of Ashland's walking and hiking enthusiasts,
particularly the ones living in this area, consider these connections to be crucial to the
neighborhood's quality of life.
Eastfield Subdivision (P A-2000-076)
(illustrates pedestrian connections to Westwood Street to the west and
Bald-Strawberry Park to the east)
4
However, regardless of how good and well-intended the planning efforts have been, often
times there are certain elements of a project that are missed and/or certain policies that
change from the time of the original land use approval to the time when homes are
constructed, which often happens over a long period of time - 10+ years in this
subdivision's case. Unfortunately, the resolution of these issues can not only be
expensive and complex, but often near impossible to resolve due to procedures, policies
and criteria as well as the dynamics and learning curve involving the new property
owners, new Planning Commissioners and new staff.
In this particular case, at the time of the original subdivision's application, the developer
and City staff never discussed the need for a lot coverage allocation which is why the
Modification request is necessary at this time. This is partly due to the fact that lot
coverage allocation issues prior to 2005 were primarily an administrative procedure with
the understanding that Performance Standards Options Subdivisions having large lots
mixed with smaller lots and/or large common open space areas would then "share" in
those areas' lot coverage allowances. This would allow for a "like kind" house size and
be considerate of other specifics of a particular lot, such as a long paved driveway,
hillside constraints, etc. This is evident with many of Ashland's subdivisions that were
created prior to 2005 such as Billing's Ranch off Nevada Street, Clay Creek Gardens off
of Tolman Creek Road and two of the three phases within the Strawberry Meadows
Subdivision off Strawberry Lane.
Lot Coverage Allocation - Scenario: In order to fully justify the proposal, the applicants
have included "Table B" (below) to illustrate a hypothetical scenario "if' the original
subdivision application included a lot coverage allocation. The information and formulas
are based on the Birdsong Subdivision's lot allocation which was approved
administratively in 2005. The Birdsong Subdivision example is preferred as it is also
zoned RR-.5 and is located off Strawberry Lane and is within close proximity (600' +/-)
to the Eastfield subdivision.
Under this scenario, each lot is allocated a specific lot coverage amount which is based
on a mathematical analysis that determines an equitable distribution of the RR-.5 zone's
maximum 20% lot coverage. The analysis considers the parent parcel's 20% initial
allowance less the street's impervious surface area and the impervious surface in the
common area (tennis court) and then allocates the remaining lot coverage (63,611 sq. ft.)
to each of the remaining lots. This allocation also attempts to be equitable as it considers
each lot's building envelope area in relation to its overall size. Based on this ratio, each
lot's allocation is determined with some lots having more than the flat rate and some less.
Regardless, it's important to understand the proposed request is not asking to allocate the
lot coverage as described in Table B for the Eastfield Subdivision due to the fact 10 years
have passed, policies have changed, development of houses have occurred and there are
now ten individual property owners. The table is primarily provided to illustrate to the
decision makers that "if' an allocation was considered in July of 2000, this is very likely
what it would have looked like - which shows that Lot #8 would have the necessary
amount of coverage as requested herein.
5
Table B (Example Lot Allocation based on another subdivision's 2005 Administrative Approval)
Eastfield Subdivision (example allocation scenario if included as part of original application)
Site Area Total = 10.55 acres
Total 459,523
RR-.5 426,848
WR 32,675
Maximum Lot Coverage on Subdivision =
20% of RR-.5 91,905
7% ofWR 2,287
Total
94,192
Available Lot Coverage Transfer = 94,192 less existing pavement and sidewalks (30,581)
Total 63,611
Ratio of Lot Coverage
Building 159,209 SF Ratio
Envelope Building Allocated Lot to Building
Lot # Lot Area Area Envelope Coverage Envelope
1 21,779 14,953 9.39% 5,974 39.95%
2 22,000 13,450 8.45% 5,374 39.95%
3 23,799 14,634 9.19% 5,847 39.95%
4 42,160 19,000 11.93% 7,591 39.95%
5 75,316 20,000 12.56% 7,991 39.95%
6 81 ,698 13,114 8.24% 5,240 39.95%
7 52,564 19,951 12.53% 7,971 39.95%
8 26,606 18,770 11 .79% 7,499 39.95%
9 19,554 12,308 7.73% 4,918 39.95%
10 22,759 13,029 8.18% 5,206 39.95%
388,235 159,209 100% 63,611
Pavement Area (public and private street, tennis court, sidewalks, etc.) = 30,581
Common Area = (less tennis court area) 27,451
Dedicated pedestrian paths = 4,317
Parkrow = 8,939
Additional Points to Consider: Although the application is relatively simple and straight-
forward with one property owner agreeing to transfer their excess lot coverage to their
neighbor and that the average of the two lot's coverage would not exceed the RR-.5
zone's maximum 20% allowance, the following are additional points to consider:
. Prior to 2005, lot coverage allocations with Performance Standards Subdivisions
did not exist, other than an administrative review and acceptance where common and
open space areas' available lot coverage was allocated to each lot within the subdivision
- usually on an equal percentage basis or as deemed necessary by the developer. Often
times, the administrative review of such allocations occurred with a portion of the
subdivision's lots already developed and sold.
6
. Since 2005, lot coverage issues have been very problematic for both staff and
individual property owners. A number of subdivisions, such as the Billings Ranch
Subdivision (R-I-5 - 5,000 square foot minimum lot size and 50% lot coverage), include
small 2,688 square foot "zero-lot line" lots with no lot coverage allocations, but their
coverage is approximately 78% of the lot where only 50% is permissible. Another
example is within the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision (RR-.5 - ~ acre minimum and
20% lot coverage) where some of the lots are ~ acre in size and after common driveways
and sidewalks are removed, the property owners are left with only a 582 square foot
house foot print.
. Although the Eastfield Subdivision was approved under the Performance
Standards Options Subdivision process (AMC 18.88), no density "bonus" (additional
lots) was ever proposed by the developers, but additional open space was still offered
beyond the required 5% minimum. In this subdivision's case, a total of9% (common area
and dedicated area) was provided. If the additional 4% would have been allocated to each
lot, specifically Lots #8, #9 and #10 that abut the open space and dedicated walking
paths, the permissible coverage would have been greater. Note: The additional amount of
common area, above the required 5%, would be 1,758/ 10 lots, or 176 additional square
feet per lot. This amount, if desired, would be added at the time of the building permit.
See Table C below:
Table C (Common Open Space Lot Coverage Allocation)
Eastfield Subdivision
Allocation of Lot Coverage for Common Open Space
Description Area (SF)
Open Space Lot 33,379
Dedicated Pedestrian Right of Way (10' Wide, between Lots 3 & 4 and Lots
8 & 9) 4,317
Tennis Court Paving (Impervious) -5,928
Required Open Space (5% of 459,523 SF total subdivision area) -22,976
"Total" Common Open Space Available for Allocation 8,792
"Total" Allowed Lot Coverage of Open Space (20% of 8,792 SF) 1,758
Allocation of Additional Lot Coverage Per Lot (1,758 SF divided equally
between 10 lots) 176
. The hypothetical lot coverage allocation scenario used in previous approvals, as
illustrated in Table B, identifies how lot coverage allocations work, but it also illustrates
that the two subject lots would be allocated roughly the same amount as what is being
proposed.
7
. [The existing driveway at 137 Sunnyview is constructed with decorative pavers
and sand between the joints which allows 100% percolation. The driveway alone is
approximately 1,325 square feet of the lot's coverage.1
. The proposed allocation between the two subject properties will be recorded with
the County's Recorder office with all necessary copies on-file with the City;
. The proposal is not intended to add building mass, but instead for surface
improvements such as a water feature (pond or pool), patio space, etc.
. To be as conservative as possible, the applicants included the Sunnyview Street
right-of-way in their overall lot coverage calculations in Table B, but other than the
Birdsong Subdivision example, the applicants are not aware of other subdivision
applications (Performance Standard Options or Standard Subdivisions) that are required
to include the street right-of-way in their lot coverage. This doesn't make sense and
actually penalizes applicants desiring a Performance Standards Options subdivision
which is a preferred entitlement process because its intended to cluster housing to
preserve natural features of the land and/or provide incentives to applicants in order to
provide for an identified community need (affordable housing, recreational space,
conservation housing, etc.).
. Without some form of an allocation table, the RR-.5 zone's maximum 20% lot
coverage ratio doesn't necessarily create a fair and equitable distribution of lot coverage
based on the physical constraints of the property and it could lead to unintended
consequences. For example, some lots in the RR-.5 zone are very difficult to build
because they have physical constraints such as steeper slopes, full stature trees, shared
driveways and/or longer driveways than standard parcels and therefore a larger portion of
their lot coverage is consumed by driveways or footprint configurations attempting to
accommodate the site's physical constraints. By allocating the lot coverage based upon
these constraints, property owners are surprised to find out that they can only build within
a 582 square foot footprint (a recent finding off of Hitt Road). Although each case is
somewhat different, the end result is confusing and stressful for the property owners if no
allocation is provided with the original application.
Summary: Overall, the request for a Modification of a Performance Standards Options
Subdivision is relatively straight-forward and justifiable under the Final Plan criteria
noted below. Unfortunately, this topic can be difficult to explain, is very technical and
often results in perceptions that are not accurate. Most importantly, it throws into doubt
the mechanics of a Performance Options Standards Subdivision because it creates critical
problems for staff and the property owners to resolve. However, in this particular case,
the two property owners and applicants have joined together to make sure there will be
no additional net lot coverage between the two properties and believe this is a fair
approach to resolve the issue.
III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
18.88.030.B.5 Criteria for Final Plan Approval (modification thereof):
8
Criteria for Final Plan Approval. Final plan approval shall be granted upon rmding
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 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.
The proposed modification does not involve changing the number of dwelling units.
Proposal complies with this criterion.
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.
The proposed modification does not involve changing the distance between buildings or a
modification of an approved envelope. Proposal complies with this criterion.
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the
outline plan.
The proposed modification does not involve changing the subdivision's open space area.
Proposal complies with this criterion.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by
more than ten (10%) percent.
The proposed modification does not involve changing the building size shown on the
Outline Plan as no buildings or hypothetical building sizes were identified at that time.
Proposal complies with this criterion.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the
purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan.
The proposed modification does not involve changing the elevations of a building or the
exterior materials of a building. Proposal complies with this criterion.
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.
9
No bonus points were requested or allocated during the approval of the project's Outline
or Final Plan. Proposal complies with this criterion.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
The proposed modification does not involve changing the subdivision's existing streets.
Proposal complies with this criterion.
18.88.030.B.6 Procedure for Final Plan Modification:
6. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I
procedure and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria.
The applicants contend the proposal for a Modification of a Performance Standards
Options Subdivision to increase the permissible lot coverage on 137 Sunnyview Street by
reducing the available lot coverage from 123 Sunnyview Street is not a substantial
amendment as none of the criteria as outlined in 18.88.030 B.S. (above) reference lot
coverage nor does the combined average exceed the zone's maximum 20% allowance.
Regardless, the applicants will agree with staff s recommendation as to how to best
process the subject modification request.
10
$
""
!-<
\:
fl1<t//.
, , '{)
~,~ ~
~~3 ~
? CJ:
h~\)s
]3a~"d
llil< AaAOJ
~~~
W"'''''o'!:>,\''@2;''~
Xj.UDTZ..I~5
~o ":U1 :.5; [7.
~2,'6 Ho'aN'f1HS~
665 X~~ 'C'd
l;:~'r.:i't~~SV~S6,
lll10l XV1 VS\lO :)35 '3 l ~ '5 6f 1
OlSL6 ~o 'PUBIYSV
jaaJj5 MalMuun5 LE l
~~~~
;:;.,
~i
~~~
~.>
go~
a::)Uap!sa?] saIEZUO~ augs!J4:) / pEa?] a>j!V\I
I
I
I "z
~~
~~
""
:1)
h---'
\
\
\
\
\
~G3~
"'~~~!{,!
~~:~:
-l!:<'l"'U
1Eg~
g
00
mO
~~ ~
g~ ~
1
1
1
____________J
:::: -'\ ~ I;!:
"\ '\~. J I:;}
\ ...~//
! ~~ ~ \
i ~~ 8 II
j...lw.... :\
~. l~.~.\\~
I ----ll
----{ : I
~ nO i I
I ~ ~~ '" :1
I ~~ ~~ ~ II
~ I;"'" Ii
f 11
~ __________.J
r===--=--==-----l:
1 1
! ~~. \1
I J ~~ e... \\
I I 5~ S \\
I C___~_~_~-~-mj\
((r- _I,'
I:
Ii ~~ ~ (
II ~~ ~ \
Ii g~ I
II :
I L------__________J
o/j 0 ~ ~ !II ~ J
tJ ~
~u ~
~ a~~ ..
i ~~~ ~ ~ i
~9o
.
HUlON
~:
N
0
LL
(f)
CO
'"
'" LL
oi (f)
"'LL~
"[J)co
II LO 10_
ci'-O
O~C"')
"Ci.iN II
"S; ("') 0}
=a ]J _~
~~~
rororo
15015
f--f--f--
. ,
~~!?:~
5 ~~>,. ~r~~
) 0 !
W
<(f-- ~s:
wO 0-0
~~ ~ri
f--Z WO
OW O-w
-II- Oa..
1J.. LL u.. u..
(f)[J) [J)[J)
S-!'u 15w -'
~~ ~:' if
LJ ~D \ f
p-~--~-=r- - \ \ \.
i i\ "\ \ \.
I : :1 '\ \ \
I: : \~,\
Ii II \~\ l\
: ~~ I \ \I'~ ;\
I ~~ I I' I
1 q~w i lj\\g~
1 - , ~~, I
! i (~~ ~'I"\
I I, ~~ I \ ,
: : ,,\ \ \
~------- - __-.l~' \i / \ ~ \;\ :,
h. / \ "4 : \\ ~~
I~ ~ '/ \ \\\ ~5\
..... \ I \'" .\'~ .
'-4 ~2: / .\ \ \
~~ \ / ~ II \ \
~e (CI:: \ .\\ \
\, ~i~_ \ \,''\ "\
\' "''''~ \ \ ~ .
\ 55i \'. ~r ,
\ \ ...J...JW \ 'tl. fi:
\ \ ~I\o! / i3
\ ,N Z
\ __-----..J ~
L-- \i \t <t~t-) oo~
y \' ~~~~\ \ ~~
l..\-_ ;\ 5itle; 5~
- \\\\~-i::::~\-. bJ\ ~g
---\.....\:;~ \ \. ~5
j--___ '.\ll ~g:
r---- <, \\', '\
1 - \ \ \ \
: :; \ \ ~ '\0 \
I ~ \\ \'<1- \
i ~~~ \\ \ \ \ I
I ~~:g: 8 \\ \\.-X". \ \\~ i
i ggffi "4 \ \ y. \ \l
: \ \ \\ \ 1\
i \\ \ \ \ <1.'
: \ \ \ \ \, ~\
L-=-.=--=-:==.=-~:.=__=::_=_:_=~~1,\ \
i \\ \
: <00 \\ \
: ~r:: OJ \ \ \
I ~t 8 \1 I
! :3 m >4 ) I
1 /
.......: ,,----
'" /~~/11
.......1 ~~ __-- """':~--"",' 1:
'- _--,,-- II
\\ ~ )1
\\ ;!!:]: 8 {I
11 oz "4 II I
J] ...JW j I
1/ : I ,I
L_ ----_______J I
\
\
\
0) CO ..... r--
r--N l,()...-
("') rn o;:t ("')
<"iLci' r-:~
("') I N +
"
,
\
CITY OF
ASHLAND
April 2, 2010
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
137 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: PA #2010-00263, for the property located at 137 Sunnyview
Incompleteness Determination
Dear Mr. Read & Ms. Gonzales,
I have reviewed the March 5th, 2010 submittals for your application for a Variance to the Lot Coverage
Requirements for your property at 137 Sunnyview Street. After examining the materials presented, I
have determined that the application is incomplete because the information listed below was not
provided. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The
application cannot be further processed and deemed complete until the missing information is submitted
or the applicant indicates that the missing information will not be provided.
Detailed Site Plan: A scalable site plan, drawn to a standard architect's or engineer's scale, needs
to be provided with the application submittal detailing existing and proposed coverages on both
subject properties. This information is needed to consider the summative impact of the increased
coverage in terms of both the Variance proposed and within the overarching purpose and intent of
the Performance Standards Options chapter, as well as to assess the proposal's benefits as
required in the Variance approval criteria.
Tree Inventory & Tree Protection Plan: As noted in AMC 18.61 .200.A.1, all development
activities requiring a planning action are required to provide a Tree Inventory/Tree Protection Plan.
This plan needs to include a scalable tree inventory addressing all trees over six-inches in diameter
on the site(s)l, and on adjacent properties within 15 feet of the property line(s), and demonstrate
how they are to be protected in a manner consistent with Ashland Municipal Code requirements
found in AMC 18.61.
Water Resources Protection Zone: Under the new Water Resources Ordinance (AMC 18.63)
Wrights Creek Tributary #5 is designated a "Local Stream" and a Water Resources Protection
Zone is established extending 40 feet from centerline of the creek. The extent of this protection
zone needs to be clearly identified on the plans submitted.
To continue the Planning Department's review of your application, you must select and complete one of
the following three options:
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
seversod@ashland,or,us
r~'
1. Submit all of the missing information;
2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division
written notice that no other information will be provided; or
3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no other
information will be provided.
Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the application submittal
date (March 5, 2010) will result in your application being deemed void. The application will be deemed
void if the additional information is not submitted by September 1,2010.
I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Applicant's Statement of Completeness". Please review the
enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting. Your application
will not be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and
received by the City of Ashland Planning Division.
If you have questions or if I can provide any further information, assistance or clarification, please
contact me at 552-2040 or seversod@ashland.or.us.
Sincerely,
Derek Severson
Associate Planner
Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness
Cc: File
The Lineruds
Urban Development Services
Covey Pardee Arch.
Terrasurvey
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
seversod@ashland,or.us
.,.,
Date Received
(to be completed bv staff)
Applicant's Statement of Completeness
(To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division)
Re: PA #2010-00263,137 Sunnyview St
Date Application Expires: September 1,2010
Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, II the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elect one of
the three options below by initiating:
( -----=-)
(Initial if elected)
1. Submit All of the Missing Information
I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter.
Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information
within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 3D-day review
for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it
be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: the 12D-day period for the City
of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional
review for completeness period is completed.)
(Check if desired)
D I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the
information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of
whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff toe be incomplete.
I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the
material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material information is missing
from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met and the
application will be denied,
Planning Division
20 E, Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541.552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800.735-2900
seversod@ashland,or,us
r~'
( _) 2. Submit Some of the Requested Information: Decline to Provide Other Information
(Initial if elected)
I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other information requested in the
Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland
believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a
Denial will be issued or recommended.
( _) 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information
(Initial if elected)
I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development Department
may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended.
Signed and Acknowledged
(Applicant or Applicant's Agent)
Date
Return to:
Planning Division
Department of Community Development
Attn: Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Planning Division
20 E, Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
seversod@ashland,or,us
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
137 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Eric & Holly Linerud
123 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Urban Development Services
485 W Nevada St
Ashland, OR 97520
Covey Pardee Landscape Arch.
Attn: Greg Covey
295 E. Main St., Ste. #8
Ashland, OR 97520
TerraSurvey
Attn: Stuart Osmus
274 Fourth St
Ashland, OR 97520
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR A CO-APPLICATION PROPOSAL BETWEEN THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OF
123 AND 137 SUNNYVIEW STREET WHO DESIRE A VARIANCE
TO INCREASE THE PERMISSIBLE LOT COVERAGE ON 137
SUNNYVIEW STREET BY REDUCING THE AVAILABLE LOT
COVERAGE FROM 123 SUNNYVIEW STREET.
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ASHLAND, OREGON
SUBMITTED BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
485 WEST NEVADA STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
APPLICANTS:
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
137 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Eric & Holly Linerud
123 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
PLANNING ACTION: The proposal is for a joint application between the adjacent
property owners of 123 and 137 Sunnyview Street who desire a Variance to increase the
permissible lot coverage on 137 Sunnyview Street by reducing the available lot coverage
from 123 Sunnyview Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E 08BA #109 and 391E 08BA #111
OWNERS & APPLICANTS:
Michael Read & Christine Gonzales
13 7 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Eric & Holly Linerud
123 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Covey Pardee, Landscape Architects
Greg Covey
295 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
Mark Knox
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
SURVEYOR:
Eagle Eye Surveying, Inc
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low-Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION
RR-.5 (Rural Residential ~ acre (21,780 sq. ft.) minimum lot size)
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE:
20% (all impervious surface area - house footprint, driveway, sidewalks, pool, etc.)
LOT AREA:
123 Sunnyview Drive:
137 Sunnyview Drive:
26,602 sq. ft.
52,564 sq. ft.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
R - R Rural Residential District, Chapter 18.16
Performance Standards Options, Chapter 18.88
Variances, Chapter 18.100
ADJACENT ZONING/USE:
WEST: RR-.5; Rural Residential District & WR; Woodland Reserve
EAST: RR-.5; Rural Residential District
SOUTH: RR-.5; Rural Residential District & WR; Woodland Reserve
NORTH: RR-.5; Rural Residential District
SUBJECT SITE: RR-.5; Rural Residential District & WR; Woodland Reserve
2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The following information has been provided by the applicants and various consultants to
help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors understand the proposed
project. In addition, the required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the
proposed project meets the Variance Criteria as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC), Section 18.100.020.
Proposal: The proposal is for a Variance from the zone's RR-.5 maximum lot coverage of
20%. No net increase of lot coverage is proposed with this application as the proposal
seeks to allow the adjacent property owners of 123 and 137 Sunnyview Street to increase
the pennissible lot coverage on 137 Sunnyview Street by reducing the available lot
coverage from 123 Sunnyview Street. The applicants and property owners are Michael
Read & Christine Gonzales and Eric & Holly Linerud. The table below illustrates the
proposed lot coverage allocation and that no net increase in lot coverage is being
requested.
Table A
Sunnyview Lot Allowed
Street Address Area Coverage Existing Future Total Actual
(Lot #) Owner (RR-.5) (20%) Coverage Coverage Coverage
123 (#7) Linerud 40,636* 8,127 4,881 1,075 5,956
Read &
137 (#8) Gonzales 26,606 5,320 5,952 1,540 7,492
Total 67,242 13,448 10,833 2,615 13,488
Actual "total" coverage for Lots #7 & #8 13,488
Actual "total" area for Lots #7 & #8 67,242
Total percentage of coverage for Lots #7 & #8 combined **20.0%
* NOTE1: Lot #7 includes a portion of WR zone that traverses through the lot. In this example,
only the RR-5 area is being considered. In reality, even this number should be greater and
therefore the lot coverage greater.
** NOTE2: No net increase in lot coverage is proposed with this application. Simply, one lot is
transferring their excess lot coverage to the neighboring lot, but because it would exceed the
zone's 20% maximum, it is subject to a Variance.
Existing Conditions: Both lots are located within the Eastfield Residential Subdivision
which was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission in March of 2000 (P A-2000-
026 - Outline Plan) and by the Ashland Planning Department in July of 2000 (P A-2000-
076 - Final Plan) as an l1-lot Performance Standards Options Subdivision which
included one lot as common open space and two pedestrian paths that link to Strawberry
Park to the east and the other to the foot-bridge over Wrights Creek that leads to
Westwood Street. The common open space includes areas that are now a tennis court, a
long section of Wright's Creek and approximately 200' of landscaping along the entrance
of the subdivision. Of the subdivision's ten buildable lots, six are now constructed upon
and four remain as vacant parcels. The subject lots at 123 and 137 Sunnyview Street have
existing houses which were constructed in 2004 and 2005.
3
Background & Explanation: As noted, the two properties in question were created under
the City's Performance Standards Options Subdivision process in July of 2000 with six of
the ten buildable lots now constructed upon. In July of 2000, a considerable amount of
planning and engineering had occurred which included providing a common tennis court
area, common open space area along Wrights Creek and dedicating and building paths for
the two "public" pedestrian pathways leading to both Westwood Street to the west and
Strawberry Park to the east. In addition, as part of the subdivision's improvements, a
pedestrian bridge was constructed over Wrights Creek from the subdivision to Westwood
Street. Overall, the efforts by both staff and the applicants at that time are proving to be
very successful as the Wright's Creek area has maintained its natural appearance and the
two pedestrian connections have been valuable "shortcuts" for pedestrians walking to
different parts of the neighborhood. Many of Ashland's walking and hiking enthusiasts,
particularly the ones living in this area, consider these connections to be crucial to the
neighborhood's quality of life.
EastfieId Subdivision (P A-2000-076)
(illustrates pedestrian connections to Westwood Street to the west and
RaId-Strawberry Park to the east)
4
However, regardless of how good and well thought-out the planning efforts have been,
often times there are certain elements of a project that are missed and/or certain policies
that change from the time of the original land use approval to the time when homes are
constructed which often happens over a long period of time - 10+ years in this
subdivision's case. Unfortunately, the resolution to resolve these issues can not only be
expensive and complex, but often near impossible to resolve due to procedures, policies
and criteria as well as the dynamics and learning curve involving the new property
owners, new Planning Commissioners and new staff.
In this particular case, at the time of the original subdivision's application, the developer
and City staff never discussed the need for a lot coverage allocation which is why the
Variance request is necessary at this time. This is partly due to the fact that lot coverage
allocation issues prior to 2005 were primarily an administrative procedure with the
understanding that Performance Standards Options Subdivisions having common area or
open space would "share" in those areas lot coverage allowances. This is evident with
many of Ashland's subdivisions that were created prior to 2005 such as Billing's Ranch
off Nevada Street, Clay Creek Gardens off of Tolman Creek Road and two of the three
phases within the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision off Strawberry Lane. In fact, the
actual administrative procedures resolving these matters have also changed making the
resolution even more difficult to track.
Nevertheless, the applicants are requesting a Variance due to the fact the subdivision is
60% built-out and there are multiple property owners that could 1) not be reached, 2) do
not understand the complexity of the issue (but have been supportive), and 3) are already
over the 20% limit. Unfortunately, the ability of the applicants to now go back and rectify
the problem created by the developer's lack of planning by requesting a modification of
the subdivision and requesting 100% of the now 10 property owners to agree is nearly
impossible. As such, the only way to resolve this issue now is to request a Variance
allowing the two neighboring property owners to resolve the issue between them. Again,
with the understanding that no net increase in lot coverage between the two lots would
occur.
Lot Coverage Allocation - Scenario: The applicants have included "Table B" (below) to
illustrate a hypothetical scenario "if' the original subdivision application included a lot
coverage allocation. The information and formulas are based on the Birdsong
Subdivision's lot allocation which was approved administratively in 2005. The Birdsong
Subdivision is also zoned RR-.5 and is located off Strawberry Lane and is within close
proximity (600' +/-) to the subject subdivision.
Under this scenario, each lot is allocated a specific lot coverage amount which is based
on a mathematical analysis that determines an equitable distribution of the RR-.5 zone's
maximum 20% lot coverage. The analysis considers the parent parcel's 20% initial
allowance less the street's impervious surface area and the impervious surface in the
common area (tennis court) and then allocates the remaining lot coverage (63,611 sq. ft.)
to each of the remaining lots. This allocation also attempts to be equitable as it considers
each lot's building envelope area in relation to its overall size. Based on this ratio, each
lot's allocation is determined with some lots having more than the flat rate and some less.
5
Table B (Examp/e Lot Allocation based on another subdivision's 2005 Administrative Approval)
Eastfield Subdivision (example allocation scenario if included as part of original application)
Site Area Total = 10.55 acres
Total 459,523
RR-.5 426,848
WR 32,675
Maximum Lot Coverage on Subdivision =
20% of RR-.5 91,905
7% of WR 2,287
Total
94,192
Available Lot Coverage Transfer = 94,192 less existing pavement and sidewalks (30,581)
Total 63,611
Ratio of Lot Coverage
Building 159,209 SF Ratio
Envelope Building Allocated Lot to Building
Lot # Lot Area Area Envelope Coverage Envelope
1 21,779 14,953 9.39% 5,974 39.95%
2 22,000 13,450 8.45% 5,374 39.95%
3 23,799 14,634 9.19% 5,847 39.95%
4 42,160 19,000 11.93% 7,591 39.95%
5 75,316 20,000 12.56% 7,991 39.95%
6 81,698 13,114 8.24% 5,240 39.95%
7 52,564 19,951 12.53% 7,971 39.95%
8 26,606 18,770 11 .79% 7,499 39.95%
9 19,554 12,308 7.73% 4,918 39.95%
10 22,759 13,029 8.18% 5,206 39.95%
388,235 159,209 100% 63,611
Pavement Area (public and private street, tennis court, sidewalks, etc.) = 30,581
Common Area = (less tennis court area) 27,451
Dedicated pedestrian paths = 4,317
Parkrow = 8,939
Regardless, it's important to understand the Variance request is not asking to allocate the
lot coverage as described in Table B due to the fact 10 years have passed, policies have
changed, development of houses have occurred and there are now ten individual property
owners. The table is primarily provided to illustrate to the decision makers that "if' an
allocation was considered in July of 2000, this is very likely what it would have looked
like - which shows that Lot #8 would have the necessary amount of coverage as
requested herein with the Variance.
Additional Points to Consider: Although the application is relatively simple and straight-
forward with one property owner agreeing to transfer their excess lot coverage to their
6
neighbor and that the average of the two lot's coverage would not exceed the zone's
maximum 20% allowance, the following are additional points to consider:
. Prior to 2005, lot coverage allocations with Performance Standards Subdivisions
did not exist, other than an administrative review and acceptance where common and
open space areas' available lot coverage was allocated to each lot within the subdivision
- usually on an equal percentage basis or as deemed necessary by the developer. Often
times, the administrative review of such allocations occurred with a portion of the
subdivision's lots already developed and sold.
. Since 2005, lot coverage issues have been very problematic for both staff and
individual property owners. A number of subdivisions, such as the Billings Ranch
Subdivision (R-I-5 - 5,000 square foot minimum lot size and 50% lot coverage), include
small 2,688 square foot "zero-lot line" lots with no lot coverage allocations, but their
coverage is approximately 78% of the lot where only 50% is permissible. Another
example is within the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision (RR-.5 - V2 acre minimum and
20% lot coverage) where some of the lots are y,j acre in size and after common driveways
and sidewalks are removed, the property owners are left with only a 582 square foot
house foot print.
. Although the Eastfield Subdivision was approved under the Performance
Standards Options Subdivision process (AMC 18.88), no density "bonus" (additional
lots) was ever proposed by the developers, but additional open space was still offered
beyond the required 5% minimum. In this subdivision's case, a total of9% (common area
and dedicated area) was provided. If the additional 4% would have been allocated to each
lot, specifically Lots #8, #9 and #10 that abut the open space and dedicated walking
paths, the permissible coverage would have been greater.
. Section 18.12.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code essentially states that where a
zoning boundary divides a lot, the lot with the greater area determines the zoning. In this
case, because the adjacent WR zone only extends over a small area of the parent parcel,
an additional 20' of the WR zone would be permitted to use the RR-.5 zoning coverage
calculations. This is important because if a lot coverage allocation table was proposed for
the entire subdivision and the excess common area as discussed above was part of Lots
#8, #9 and #10, the actual lot coverage would "exceed" the coverage allowance that
exists currently.
. The hypothetical lot coverage allocation scenario used in previous approvals, as
illustrated in Table B, identifies how lot coverage allocations would work, but it also
illustrates that the two subject lots would be allocated roughly the same than what is
being proposed.
. The existing driveway at 137 Sunnyvicw is constructed with decorative pavers
and sand between the joints which allows 100% percolation. The driveway alone is
approximately 1,325 square feet of the lot's coverage.
. The "re-allocation" of lot coverage for the entire subdivision after 1 0 years and 1 0
new property owners is nearly impossible and places an unfair burden on the property
owners;
7
. The proposed allocation between the two subject properties will be recorded with
the County's Recorder office with all necessary copies on-file with the City;
. The proposal is not intended to add building mass, but instead for surface
improvements such as a water feature (pond or pool), patio space, etc.
. To be as conservative as possible, the applicants included the Sunnyview Street
right-of-way in their overall lot coverage calculations in Table B, but other than the
Birdsong Subdivision example, the applicants are not aware of other subdivision
applications (Performance Standard Options or Standard Subdivisions) that are required
to include the street right-of-way in their lot coverage. This doesn't make sense and
actually penalizes applicants desiring a Performance Standards Options subdivision
which is a preferred entitlement process because its intended to cluster housing to
preserve natural features of the land and/or provide incentives to applicants in order to
provide for an identified community need (affordable housing, recreational space,
conservation housing, etc.).
. Without some form of an allocation table, the RR-.5 zone's maximum 20% lot
coverage ratio doesn't necessarily create a fair and equitable distribution of lot coverage
based on the physical constraints of the property and it could lead to unintended
consequences. For example, some lots in the RR-.5 zone are very difficult to build
because they have physical constraints such as steeper slopes, full stature trees, shared
driveways and/or longer driveways than standard parcels and therefore a larger portion of
their lot coverage is consumed by driveways or footprint configurations attempting to
accommodate the site's physical constraints. By allocating the lot coverage based upon
these constraints, property owners are surprised to find out that they can only build within
a 582 square foot footprint (a recent finding off of Hitt Road). Although each case is
somewhat different, the end result is confusing and stressful for the property owners if no
allocation is provided with the original application.
Summary: Overall, the request for a lot coverage Variance is relatively straight-forward
and justifiable under the criteria noted below. Unfortunately, it is difficult to explain, is
very technical and often results in perceptions that are not accurate. Most importantly, it
throws into doubt the mechanics of a Performance Options Standards Subdivision
because it creates critical problems for staff and the property owners to resolve. However,
in this particular case, the two property owners and applicants have joined together to
make sure there will be no additional net lot coverage between the two properties and
believe this is a fair approach to resolve the issue.
III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
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.
8
The circumstances related to the Variance are unusual as the subdivision was approved
under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision without an allocation of lot
coverage leaving the 10 new property owners having to resolve lot coverage issues on
their own. Typically, the developer would apply a lot coverage allocation "before" lots
are approved by the City and sold. This allows for some discretion as to which lot should
receive less or more based on a mathematical analysis AND the physical characteristics
of the lots in question.
For example, lots that are excessively large mixed-in with smaller lots in the same
neighborhood, such as Lot #4 in this subdivision, have excessive coverage allowances
that even when removing the impervious surface area for the driveway and sidewalks, it
still could lead to incompatible housing with one massive house dwarfing it's neighbor
and being out of context with everything around it. In this case, Lot #4 is 42,160 square
feet in area with an 8,432 square foot lot coverage. Lot #4 sits across the street and at a
higher elevation then Lot #8 which has 5,320 square foot coverage area or 37% less
coverage area. The disparity in this amount could lead to not only excessive square
footage for a hillside house, but also a mass and scale proportion that is not only not
appropriate for the neighborhood, but also "looms" over the adjacent homes.
That said, the original developer should have incorporated a combination of
considerations when the development was first proposed such as the mathematical
analysis as described in Table B, but also the distribution of small and large lots as well
as each lot's physical constraints (trees, slopes, etc.) or envelope placement that creates
additional coverage constraints (long driveways, etc.). The applicants contend if a more
comprehensive effort was put forth, this particular Variance application would not be
necessary.
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.
As noted, the applicants are not proposing an increase to the actual lot coverage - just a
transfer from the neighboring lot's excess amount. In this case no net increase is
proposed. The transfer is essentially completing an allocation distribution that likely
would have occurred if the original developer had proposed an allocation at the time of
the subdivision's approval.
The applicants believe the proposal will further the purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options chapter as the proposal attempts to accomplish between two neighbors
what the chapter strives to accomplish and should have accomplished with the original
application. The Performance Options Chapter is intended to be more flexible than
conventional subdivision practices where little consideration is given to the
characteristics of the property and thereby reduce any negative impacts on the property
and its adjacent uses. The Comprehensive plan recognizes the importance of the
Performance Options Standards as it's referenced throughout the Plan, specifically,
Chapter 4 (Environmental Resources), Goal 4.11, Policy 13 and Chapter 6 (Housing),
Goals 6.07, 6.11, Policies 1.b, 3.a, 3.c. In addition, the Performance Standards concept is
mentioned in numerous places throughout the Comprehensive Plan discussing the value
and importance of flexible and creative land use planning.
9
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed.
The applicants were not associated in any way with the subdivision's original developers
who mistakenly didn't allocate the necessary lot coverage as described in Table B or a
hybrid allocation based on the physical characteristics or planned elements of the
subdivision. This has led to confusion and frustration for the applicants who have
attempted to resolve the issue between them.
10
rt,1
r---L_~____-, ,--=-
I I I TO REMAIN
I I I
: LOT=21.779 I I LOT=22,OOO
: ENV=14,953 \ ,\ ENV=13,W
I : LOT 1 \ , \ LOT
II I I
! \~\
I I I
: _-------J L
I _---~----
1-;::"-_-
I
I
\!
I
, :
mr
~~
II II
N"""
0'"
OW
O~
00>
8/'
\\
I
I
1
1
: . ~
~"
ike Read / Christine Gonzales Residence
295 EAST MAIN, #8 covey'
p,o,aoXS99 Pa'RDEE.
ASHLAND, OR 91520
11~1~
137 Sunnyview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
T 39 5, R 1 E, SEe 08SA TAX LOT 111
5415521015 ph
5415521024 fx
gre.g@t;o'o'eypardee,cllm
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
~'<i1
S~ "
:G .il
::::? ~ 0 g
l-l..J ~~'<
"'''>-3
.,.,.. ........0.
tA-\ co z
.~ N ~
1'Jpsd
.~
s;.
N (/J
ill >--3
u; t"r1
$
.
".l 1 PI,"ning Dopmimont
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
c.ITvor
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE # pIJ v ;;(o f D - () 0 :L '-3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address \Ot-O\ltJl\.\ 'W ltw 51.
i>I S MU\N-D
I .'
q1-S;)....O
,
Assessor's Map No. 391E 08 tf'\ ,,\ ~li \6C{.
Zoning~<t - ..S
Tax Lot(s) ~ '"
Comp Plan Designation Sf}L
~ \OC1 ,
APPLICANT
Namt'\\GW\~L- ~ !fC~fLI~lINt ~~LE~ PhoneC5"4~1tt'-CbD\.t
Address\01 SVNl\Si ~ if~ sr. Cityl\)I1L~
E-Mail M\lo.~~€i!J '-(?JhOO,(dVI
Zip en ~)...o
PROPERTY OWNER
NameH~l..- ~1' U\t1~11~ b:~~
E.f:-1'- +\blL,/ urJE1I-UP
Addressf{)1- 0V~'1\' 180 \'51.
1;2.~ S-JNN'I~t),V ST
SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title~~Lve1 NameS\~1 6Sk\lS Phon~4')4~).~64T4
Address)1l{ fb\>l1%-\ 54~ City t\~?\U\ND
PhoneCs4 0108' ~~~
City ~\1V\ND
E-Mail V1llw~~) tj()"aC ' (GC"\
Zip q~~()
E-Mailtem.:til\ @h\.s~. N.t
Zip q~r~
E.Mail~(CJ@ CtA\tJ~~~" UH
Zip qlS"~
TitleLc~-e-t \>fq~ f\QJ.J\. Name 6'~-E& (OJ E.'i
Address2q~ G'f)( N~IN", 8
Phon(4Ysr.>-- lc\r
City f\<Sfl~
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 iocated on the ground,
Failure in this regard will result most likeiy in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be remove t my expense. If I have any doubts, I ar!dvised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. .
f~ . G8JQ~/IO
Appli. Signature Date
(_
As owner of the properly involved in this request, I have read and understood fh camplete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
.z~ '
Pr perty
Date
6"/05"/ ID .
[To be oomplete<l by City staff] /;
Dale Received ,3/ b, . /) . Zoning Permit Type
Planning Action Type l/~I~
~
. .,"""'
Filing Fee $
- ~
)%30..'
OVER >>
C:OOCUME-l\hankso\LOCALS-J\Temp\Zoning Pennit Application fonn.doc
Job Address: Contractor:
Address:
Owner's Name: CHRISTINE/MIKE GONZALES/READ Phone:
Customer #: 05507 State Lie No:
CHRISTINE/MIKE GONZALES/READ City Lie No:
Applicant: 137 SUNNYVIEW ST
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520
Sub-Contractor:
Phone: Address:
Applied: 03/05/2010
Issued:
Expires: 09/01/2010 Phone:
State Lie No:
Maplot: 391 E08BA 111 City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: Variance for lot coverage
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.OLUS
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
CITY Of
ASHLAND