Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Allison_400_PA-2011-00043
� I 'C N c RA E Pronertv Management vrvvw.CranePlace.corn P.O. Box 910 256 N Pioneer Street - Ashland, Oregon - ph 541-482-3451 fx 541-482-7142 September 10, 2011 City of Ashland Permit Department Building and Planning Ashland, OR 97520 Re: 400 and 402 Allison, Prior Tenants and Caretaker Dear City of Ashland, Enclosed are the last two tenants' registers for the properties at 400 and 402 Allison. The tenant at 400 Allison moved out June 30th 2010, and the last tenant at 402 Allison was evicted in mid-September 2010. Since then we have had a caretaker staying periodically at the homes to make sure there were no squatters to avoid liability. After we had two homeless people break in, we felt that we needed to have a semi-regular presence there. The caretaker's name was William Lupton,he is our maintenance coordinator. He had utilities turned on only so he would be able to stay there once or twice a week to care for the property. I am having William Lupton sign this letter, affirming that he was only a caretaker,not a tenant. So we have not had a tenant at the property since September of 2010. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, or if anything else needs to be done to ensure Robin Biermann's permit goes forward. Sincerely, Crane Property Management AN A Jennifer - ane 4f, p Lease Statement A148 Crane Property Management Page 1 of 2 P.O. Box 910 9/13/2011 10:49 256 Pioneer Street Ashland,OR 97520 Phone: (541)482-3451 Fax: (541)482-7142 www.craneplace.com 9.05 Statement for Allison,400-Dufresne Jerett Dufresne List of Residents 1 Alford,Jill End Date 6/30/2010 172 California Ashland, OR 97520 Dufresne,Jerett Type Monthly Currently Paid Thru 6/30/2010 Late Fee Terms Rent due on 1 st and late on 6th day after the due date. Late Fee is$50.00, All transactions Date Ref Transaction Name Payee Transaction Comments Amount Balance Opening Balance $0.00 10/22/2008 Security Deposit Dufresne,Jerett $900.00 $900.00 10/22/2008 1149 Security Payment Dufresne,Jerett down pmt on security ($400.00) $500.00 10/30/2008 1156 Security Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($476.66) $23.34 11/1/2008 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett prorated for 23 days $498.18 $521.52 11/14/2008 1160 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($498.18) $23.34 11/14/2008 1160 Security Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($23.34) ($0.00) 12/1/2008 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $650.00 $650.00 12/2/2008 1161 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($650.00) $0.00 1/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $650.00 $650.00 1/3/2009 1182 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($650.00) $0.00 2/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $650.00 $650.00 2/2/2009 1191 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($650.00) $0.00 3/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $650.00 $650.00 3/3/2009 1202 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($650.00) $0.00 4/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $650.00 $650.00 4/512009 1213 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($650.00) $0.00 5/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $650.00 $650.00 5/2/2009 1225 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($650.00) $0.00 6/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 6/3/2009 1238 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 7/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 7/5/2009 1249 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 8/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 8/4/2009 1257 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 9/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 9/2/2009 1268 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 10/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 10/512009 1277 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 11/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 11/7/2009 1286 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 12/1/2009 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 12/5/2009 1298 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 1/1/2010 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 1/5/2010 1301 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 2/1/2010 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 2/2/2010 1317 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 3/1/2010 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 3/912010 1329 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $0.00 4/1/2010 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $675.00 Crane Property Management Lease Statement X4148 Page 2 of 2 P.O. Box 910 9/13/2011 10:49 256 Pioneer Street Ashland,OR 97520 Phone:(541)482-3451 Fax: (541)482-7142 www.craneplace.com 9.05 Date Ref Transaction Name Payee Transaction Comments Amount Balance 4/6/2010 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($15.00) $660.00 4/6/2010 1341 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) ($15.00) 4/6/2010 Late Fee Dufresne,Jerett Initial Late Fee:$50.00 $50.00 $35.00 5/1/2010 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $710.00 5/6/2010 1360 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $35.00 6/1/2010 Rent Due Dufresne,Jerett $675.00 $710.00 6/2/2010 1366 Tenant Payment Dufresne,Jerett ($675.00) $35.00 6/20/2010 Cleaning Fee for move out cleaning,see itemized cklist $194.00 $229.00 6/24/2010 Deposit-Returned Returned for unit Allison,400 ($900.00) ($671.00) 7/30/2010 Payment to Tenant Dufresne,Jerett $671.00 $0.00 i I I i I Crane Property Management Lease Statement A148 Page 1 of 1 ' .0. Box 910 9/13/2011 10:52 266 Pioneer Street Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541)482-3451 Fax: (541)482-7142 www.craneplace.com 9.05 Statement for Allison,402-Beck,Ja Jason Beck List of Residents 402 Allison Street Ashland, OR 97520 Beck,Jason End Date 9/20/2010 Type Monthly Currently Paid Thru 6/30/2010 i All transactions Date Ref Transaction Name Payee Transaction Comments Amount Balance Opening Balance $0.00 6/24/2010 Security Deposit Beck,Jason $875.00 $875.00 6/24/2010 Rent Due Beck,Jason Prorated for 7 days(6/24/2010-6/30/2010) $135.00 $1,010.00 6/24/2010 098 Tenant Payment Beck,Jason ($135.00) $875.00 6/24/2010 100 Security Payment Beck,Jason ($875.00) $0.00 7/1/2010 098 NSF Return(rev 06-24) Beck,Jason $135.00 $135.00 7/1/2010 NSF Charge Beck,Jason $25.00 $160.00 7/1/2010 Rent Due Beck,Jason $675.00 $835.00 7/6/2010 Tenant Payment Beck,Jason 5 x 100=500 ($625.00) $210.00 6x20=120 1x5=5 7/19/2010 Tenant Payment Beck,Jason nsf check ($135.00) $75.00 7119/2010 Tenant Payment Beck,Jason for nsf charge ($25.00) $50.00 811/2010 Rent Due Beck,Jason $675.00 $725.00 9/3/2010 Utility Fee Jackson County Court Eviction fee $69.50 $794.50 j 9/9/2010 Utility Fee Avista 4.55 from June $24.17 $818.67 19.62 for July total=24.17 9/15/2010 Note Beck,Jason Tenant evicted. JLC $0.00 $818.67 9/20/2010 Rent Due Prorating Rent Due prior to moving out of unit Allison, $450.00 $1,268.67 402.Prorated for 20 days(9/1/2010-9/20/2010) I I i I I i I =�D m(n ADD 3�m �m o m �� D �_ n m NNn W N � I// 1 ( 1 -0 d a I DA �m3 Q o p E, W>W ' n 7 o n \b i .r J, a D Z 2 co 00 z o 3 lo I Z A C W m a s o f � a A > > j N D D Z o poowu cu 2 pm Dn nIm u� 3 3 o n m a�T� a m m v-i�c _ v r S - Ao AZZ 33y xTpm DD DSO m° b z 3 F3 3 9-- Z 57,d y n 3 s va3"°'r°°,Rap 3 301z 3 K o y 2 a m. ..3 m p n p ° 3 m m 3 'mod: 3 m m m n`m 3 m$T 0 - r •n'3n m���Sn�mnpa 3� D ° m ts p mmox� amomonp F=-O a. z 0 r N v�3<3 a•Z�m3 m" m3 '.. D m c x m m s GT CA °4 NEW DWELLING ® ROBIN BIERMANN g ' 400 ALLISON ST. rot 5414A83194 545ASIreet ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 yi3 o K T1�alI'11 Fax:541.552.9512 AsMand,OR97520 -cT ,W Landscape Architecture Celt 541.691.5559 keay@kencalmlandscape.co ITY OF April 15,2011 Heiland Hoff 1797 Anderson Creek Rd Talent OR 97540 RE: RE: Planning Action#2011-00043 Notice of Decision At its meeting of April 8,2011,based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter,the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Modification of the Conditional Use permit for the property located at 400 Allison St--Assessor's Map#39 lE 09BD; Tax Lot 14200. The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document,on April 12,2011. Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document,the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed within 13 days of the date this notice was mailed and with the required fee($304),in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110(A)of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals.The appeal shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code,which is also attached. If you have any questions regarding this decision,please contact the Community Development Department between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm,Monday through Friday at(541)488-5305. cc: Robin Biermann Property Owners with 200 feet i DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541-488-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax,541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us i i SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type H decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified,based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal,together with notice of the date,time and place to consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.13. below,the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available),the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. B. 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 requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; or C. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541-488-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.or.us Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten(10)minutes for the applicant,ten(10)for the appellant, if different, and three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten(10)days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator,the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.B.5 . , F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. I I I DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541A88-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax;541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900 wmashland,orms MAN I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 12th,2011 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION#2011-00043,A REQUEST FOR ) A MODIFICATION OF PLANNING ACTION#2010-00992,A CONDITIONAL ) USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA ) (MPFA)WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT BY NINE PERCENT OR 173 SQUARE ) FEE;l. THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL ALLOWED DEMOLITION OF THE ) EXISTING 1,144 SQUARE FOOT NON-HISTORIC/NON-CONTRIBUTING ) DUPLEX BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTING A NEW TWO-STORY 2,041 ) SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH DAYLIGHT BASEMENT )FINDINGS, AND TWO-CAR GARAGE IN ITS PLACE ALONG WITH A TREE REMOVAL ) CONCLUSIONS, PERMIT TO REMOVE EIGHT TREES SIX-INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST ) & ORDERS HEIGHT OR GREATER. THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED INCLUDE ) THE ADDITION OF DORMERS, CHANGES TO WINDOWS ON ALL FOUR ) ELEVATIONS,A REDUCTION IN SIZE OF THE BACK PORCH,AND SOME ) GENERAL DIMENSIONAL CHANGES WHILE REMAINING WITHIN THE ) ORIGINALLY APPROVED FLOOR AREA. ) APPLICANTS: Heiland Hoff, architect for owner Robin Biermann ) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #14200 of Map 39 lE 09 BD is located at 400 Allison Street, within the Siskiyou- Hargadine Historic District and is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential(R-2). 2) The applicants are requesting a modification of Planning Action#2010-00992, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. The original approval allowed demolition of the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot single-family dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage in its place, along with a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. The modifications proposed with the current request include the addition of dormers, changes to windows on all four elevations, a reduction in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining within the originally approved floor area. 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 a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use i PA#2011-00043 April 12'',2011 Page 1 is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 8th, 2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application for a modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to j exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by nine percent or I 173 square feet subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. i Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an"S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a"P" Opponent's Exhibits,lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes,Notices,Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an"M" I PA#2011-00043 April 12ffi,2011 Page 2 I SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot as it was created prior to current zoning regulations with a 4,917 square foot lot area that is less than the current 5,000 square foot minimum lot area to accommodate less than two units in the R-2 district. With the removal of the duplex and its replacement with a single family residence, the property will become more compliant with the allowed density of the district. The Commission further finds that the existing building on the site, known as the Eddie Hinger Duplex in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District survey document, is considered to be "non-historic/non- contributing"resource in the survey document. The Planning Commission further finds that demolition of the existing duplex to construct a single family home is subject to the regulations pertaining to the conversion of existing multi- family dwelling units into for-purchase housing in AMC 18.24.040.L.7, and a condition was accordingly added to the approval of PA #2010-00992 to require that the applicants provide evidence of compliance with the tenant rights provisions of Chapter 10.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the 'property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main and a six-inch water main located in the Allison Street right-of-way; a ten- inch storm sewer main in Gresham Street also serves the property. The Commission finds that these existing facilities are adequate to serve the proposed home. The Commission further finds that the Electric Department has indicated that there are no identified issues which would prevent the applicants from converting the existing overhead electric services for the duplex units to a single city-standard underground service for the new single family residence. The Planning Commission finds that Allison Street, designated as a residential neighborhood street, is currently improved with paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips in place along the full frontage of the subject property. The Commission further finds that Gresham Street, designated as a collector street, is also paved with curbs and gutters in place, but lacks sidewalks along the subject property's frontage. The Commission finds that both of the subject property's street frontages lack required street trees, however the applicants have proposed to plant them with the application. The Commission has included a condition of approval to require j that the applicants sign in favor of future street improvements for Gresham Street, including the installation of sidewalks. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that that the proposed single family home will generate less traffic than the existing duplex, or other multi-family housing that is allowed within the district, and will generate no more dust, odor or other environmental pollutants than would any single family dwelling. The Commission finds that the proximity to the downtown, Southern Oregon University, shopping and bus routes is likely to result in a reduction in vehicle trips over PA#2011-00043 April 12t',2011 Page 3 what might be expected for a similar unit located further from the core of downtown. The Commission further finds that the proposed home will not impact the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that Conditional Use Permit review calls for consideration of the adverse material effects of the proposal on the impact area in comparison to the target use of the zone, which for an R-2 zoned lot of this size would be the development of the site with a single unit built to the allowed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) of 1,868 square feet. The Commission further finds that in addition to the Conditional Use Permit criteria, the ordinance also requires that properties seeking an overage to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area are to be considered in light of the Historic District Development Standards, as noted in AMC 18.24.040.x. These standards address compatibility with historic context in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense of entry, and imitation of historic architectural styles with a general focus of preserving historic district streetscapes. These Development Standards seek a traditional architecture that well represents our own time yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district. Planning Action #2010-00992 began as a request to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) by 17 percent. Planning staff, the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission raised a number of concerns with that initial proposal, including that the orientation of a large gable end of the roof over the garage entry and repetition of similar windows on the gable end seemed counter to the directional expression, sense of entry, and rhythm of openings in the neighborhood and broader district and seemed to add emphasis to the home's mass, bulk and scale on the Allison Street frontage. Under that design iteration, nearly 1,000 square feet of floor area was dedicated to a great room with ceiling heights approaching 24 feet which the Commission found to exaggerate the building's mass, scale and volume beyond what was appropriate for the square footage proposed. The applicants modified that earlier proposal in response to the issues raised, better addressing the design standards and reducing the MPFA overage from 17 percent to nine percent, and the Commission ultimately determined that the design revisions resulted in a more cohesive presentation that which effectively dealt with the square footage proposed in a manner compatible with the neighborhood, the district and the design standards. During that initial application, the Commission found that the revisions lessened the impact of the massing and volume, better articulated a clear sense of entry from Allison Street; presented a rhythm of openings which was compatible with the character of the district in terms of window types, pattern and placement; and provided an appropriate and compatible sense of directional expression which placed the highest part of the roof further from the street and reduced the perceived height and massing with the hipping of the roof and placement and orientation of the gables. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the modification of Planning Action #2010-00992 now being requested involves the addition of dormers on the front and rear elevations, changes to windows on all four elevations, a reduction in the size of the back porch, and general j dimensional changes which do not alter the approved floor area. The Planning Commission further finds that these proposed modifications are cohesive with the previously approved design and result in PA#2011-00043 April 12th,2011 Page 4 j I I significant further improvement to the overall design as it relates to the Historic District design standards, neighboring homes and the district at large. The Planning Commission finds that in the design approved under PA #2010-00992, all of the windows were identical and the proposed window changes provide visual interest tying nicely to the rhythm of openings on the north elevation. The Commission further finds that the proposed addition of dormers has no adverse material effect on the surrounding impact area, that dormers are common in the neighborhood, and that the dormers are in keeping with previous suggestions from the Commission that dormers might be an appropriate means to address design issues raised during the original approval process. The Commission further finds that because the dormers are high and pulled back from the street, they tend to change the massing of the building by breaking up the large expanse of roof while providing greater visual interest in the design. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed modifications include a slight reduction in the footprint of the proposed building due to a proposed decrease in the size of the back porch. As currently approved, the stairs leading off of the back porch in three directions consumed significant yard area on an already small lot, as did the large porch itself. The Commission finds that the reduced porch will make the yard area bigger by reducing the porch and redundant stairs, yielding a more functional yard area that is more in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. The Commission further finds that the back porch reduction serves to better subordinate the back porch to the front, clarifying the building's sense of entry to a degree. . The Commission finds that the remaining dimensional changes proposed involve alterations to the exterior dimensions to accommodate changes in furniture and kitchen appliance arrangement, as well as a reduction in the size of the upstairs area, and further finds that these reductions do not alter the proposal as it relates to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area(MPFA) or the approved square footage. The application explains that there is an apparent increase in exterior dimensions because the dimension lines on the plans were drawn to the face of wall studs while the square footage is calculated to the outside surface of exterior walls. The originally approved design had intended to have three-inches of exterior insulation which was outside the studs, and thus not depicted in the dimensions although it would have been considered in the floor area calculation. As part of the proposed modifications, the applicants will remove the exterior insulation and move the studs out three inches without moving the exterior surface of the walls or altering the total floor area. 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 Planning Action #2010-00992, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The modifications proposed include the addition of dormers on the front and rear elevations, changes to windows on all four elevations, a reduction in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining within the originally approved floor area. PA#2011-00043 April 12t',2011 Page 5 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions,we approve Planning Action#2011-00043. Further, if any one,or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2011-00043 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) That all conditions of the previous land use approval (PA #2010-00992) shall remain conditions of approval unless explicitly modified herein. 3) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission from their March 2"d, 2011 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. 4) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. April IP,2011 Planning Commission approval by Date Pam Marsh, Chair PA#2011-00043 April 12'',2011 Page 6 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10500 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 1200 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14500 ASHCRAFT SANTINA ASHLAND CHANTICLEER LLC BARTH RICHARD M TRUSTEE 71 GRESHAM ST 120 GRESHAM 91 GRESHAM STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14200 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14000 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8800 BIERMANN ROBIN TRUSTEE ET AL DOYLE TERRY/CHIYEMI GADBOIS LAURIE A ET AL 505 GLENDORA AVE 462 ALLISON ST 54 GRESHAM ST GLENDORA CA 91741 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8900 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14300 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 8100 GANGITANO FAMILY TRUST ET AL KELLY TIMOTHY P LEDBETTER PROPERTIES LLC 44 AMETHYST WAY 100 GRESHAM ST 112 NUTLEY ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 1300 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 13900 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 13800 LEHMANN RYAN L/ZOE D MOORE PATRICK J TRUSTEE ET AL NORAAS MELODY 477 FAIRVIEW ST 470 ALLISON ST 478 ALLISON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10400 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 8101 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10401 PATERSON THOMAS G PRUFER SUSAN BROUWER TRUSTEE REITINGER MARK/BECKY 63 GRESHAM ST 292 TERRACE ST 625 B ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8700 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10800 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8200 REYNOLDS D L JR/PHYLLIS B SCHOLOM PETER M TRUSTEE ET AL SEARLE COLLEEN D TRUSTEE ET AL 64 GRESHAM ST 365 VISTA ST 477 ALLISON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8600 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14100 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8400 SHISLER LENORE STEWART JEANETTE SWALES COLIN WILLIAM TRUSTEE 443 ALLISON ST 155 8TH ST ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 143 EIGHTH ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8300 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8500 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10300 VAN DER ZEE KIRT WIGGINTON NANCY CAROL WINCHESTER PATRICE A TRUSTEE 469 ALLISON ST 453 ALLISON 3450 SACRAMENTO ST 507 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118 PA-2011-00043 25 Heiland Hoff 4-15-2011 Decision Ltr 1797 Anderson Creek Rd 400 Allison Talent OR 97540 I i i i CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 12, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins Amy Gunter,Assistant Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin John Rinaldi,Jr. i Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Russ Silbiger, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS I Commissioner Marsh noted the April 26th Study Session will be a joint meeting with the Transportation Commission to discuss the j City's TSP Update. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting, Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin mis to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4.0. (Rinaidi abstained) i PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA•2011 00043,400 Allison Street. Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Rinaldi/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011.00043.Voice Vote:All AYES. Motion passed 4.0. (Rinaidi abstained) B. Approval of Findings for PA-2011.01611, 260 First Street. Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported. i Commissioners Dawkins/Blake m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011.01611.Voice Vote:All AYES. Motion passed 4.0. (Rinaldi abstained) i TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS j A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011.00319 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 805, 815, 835, 843, 851, 861, 873, 881, 889 and 897 Oak Knoll Dr. Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Miller and Dawkins,,YES. Commissioners Blake and Marsh, NO. Motion passed 3.2. B. PLANNING ACTION: #2011.00043 SUBJECT PROPERTY:400 Allison Street APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff,Architect for owner Robin Biermann DESCRIPTION:A request for a Modification of Planning Action#2010.00993,a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area(MPFA)within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. The original approval allowed demolition of the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot single-family dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage in its place,along with a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height(d.b.h.)or greater. The modifications proposed include the addition of dormers,changes to windows on all four elevations,a reduction in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining within the originally approved floor area.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential;ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP#:391 E 09 BD;TAX LOT:14200. Ex'Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report 1 Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and reviewed the changes to the previous approval for the property at 400 Allison. He explained the applicant has modified the building design as follows: 1)added dormers on the north and south elevations,2)changed the windows on all four elevations,3)reduced the back porch to allow a bigger and more useable backyard, and create a less confusing sense of entry,and 4)added minor adjustments to the exterior dimensions. Severson noted the Historic Commission has reviewed the proposed modifications and are recommending approval. They found the architect's revisions have consistently improved the project throughout the design process,and the changes proposed are coherent with the overall design while representing a significant improvement in the previously approved design. He added staff believes the changes are relatively minor and are supportive of this application. Applicant's Presentation Heiland HofftProvided a brief presentation and outlined the changes as reviewed in the staff report. i Public Testimony Tim Kelly1100 Gresham Street/Stated when he purchased his property 10 years ago he was told he could not extend his house because of the City's solar ordinance, and asked if this application relieves the restrictions placed on his property. Mr. Severson clarified the solar ordinance allows a structure to shadow the property to the north no more than a 6 ft fence would. He added the shadow created by the proposed house would be in the right of way,and therefore does not violate the City's solar j ordinance. Deliberations&Decision Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve Planning Action#2011.00043 with the modifications as proposed.Voice Vote:all AYES. Motion passed 5.0. NEW BUSINESS A. Support letter for North Normal Neighborhood Plan grant application. Commissioner Marsh clarified the Commission is being asked to submit a letter in support of the Transportation and Growth Management grant to assist in the neighborhood planning of the Normal Avenue area within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary. The commissioners shared their thoughts about planning for the development of the North Normal neighborhood. Miller commented on the importance of having a place for urban farms to assist in food security issues and stated this area has the best soil in town. She suggested at some point the Planning Commission have a discussion on how they are going to meet needs for locally grown foods. Marsh clarified that applying for the grant does not pre-empt them from studying the agricultural benefits of the land. Mindlin stated it is her understanding that the City does not have anything in our local ordinances or planning documents that designates Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2011 Page 5 of 6 I I urban agriculture land and sees this as a major gap. Mr. Molnar clarified agriculture is a permitted use in residential zones, but agreed that we do not have a separate zoning district for this use. Mindlin noted the City Council's sustainability planning goal and stated urban agriculture is a primary objective of that project. Dawkins stated there is a conflict of interest in that by planning for the development of this area,the City's Planning Division will receive the benefit of the development application fees. Marsh stated that creating a plan for this area allows them to confront what they want to do with this parcel. She noted there have already been pre- applications submitted for development in the study area, and stated they cannot avoid the subject by not doing the study. Commissioners Blake/Dawkins m/s to endorse the support letter and authorize Chair Marsh to sign. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Miller, Mindlin, Dawkins, and Marsh,YES. Motion passed 5.0. Commissioner Miller encouraged them to look at their inventory, and if they receive this grant look at densities, open space and agriculture land. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor I I r r I r I i I Ii I I i I I I i I i Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2011 Page 6 of 0 CITY OF ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ASHLAND Type II—Recommendations to Planning Commission March 2",2011 PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00043 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of Planning Action #2010-00993, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. The original approval allowed demolition of the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot single-family dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage in its place, along with a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. The modifications proposed include the addition of dormers, changes to windows on all four elevations, a reduction in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining within the originally approved floor area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 09 BD; TAX LOT: 14200 Commission Recommendations: The Historic Commission recommended approval of the project, noting that the architect's revisions had consistently improved the project through the design process. The changes proposed here are coherent with the overall design while representing a significant improvement in the previously approved design. i i i I I I i I i i o r�o � �� (p 0 _ i ARM s µ P a . t 'X F Q y O '%- - O '7 `q, N 'y, =w p r °,C) MS i 4V, r � r Jill jvk,rf 1° 1 - a f �s � z I r;s i n Or � � O t � O � i i i 5 2 _ x CD/) 5aa . o .' C) o f^ o p �� r e� Planning Department,51 Winbum .._„Ashland,Oregon 97520 CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.orms TTY; 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2011-00043 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of Planning Action #2010-00993, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. The original approval allowed demolition of the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot single-family dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage in its place, along with a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. The modifications proposed include the addition of dormers, changes to windows on all four elevations, a reduction in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining within the originally approved floor area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 09 BD; TAX LOT: 14200 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on March 2,2011 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room),located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: March 8, 2011 of 7.00 PM,Ashland Civic Center ( - — - -- f PA#2011-00043 / l �� a' 400 ALLISON ST -i SUBJECT PROPERTY Raperty Ines nre jor reference only,not smteobie i Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or 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 Commission 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, A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.(28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division,541-488-5305. G:\comm-dev\planning\Templates\NOTICE-PC2 NEW FORM.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104,050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms,or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions,with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State,or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in-relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale,bulk,and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality,including the generation of dust,odors,or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise,light,and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal-Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied.The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree;The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084,Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit, B. Tree that is Not a Hazard:The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1, The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards,including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints.The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application;and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,soil stability,flow of surface waters,protection of adjacent trees,or existing windbreaks;and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,sizes,canopies,and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination,the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees,so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084.Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2951,2008;ORD 2883,2002) G:\comm-dev\planning\Templates\NOTICE-PC2 NEW FORM.doc ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT March 8th, 2011 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2011-00043 APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann LOCATION: 400 Allison Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: February 28th, 2011 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: June 20th, 2011 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.24 R-2 Low-Density Multi-Family Residential District 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: A request for a Modification of Planning Action#2010-00992,a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area(MPFA)within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. The original approval allowed demolition of the existing 1,144 square foot non- historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot single- family dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage in its place,along with a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. The modifications proposed with the current request include the addition of dormers,changes to windows on all four elevations, a reduction in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining within the originally approved floor area. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application Planning Action#2010-00992 was approved by the Planning Commission in November of 2010. The project consisted of demolishing an existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage. The Building Division has approved the demolition proposal subject to the applicant receiving land use approval and obtaining a building permit for a replacement structure. The approval granted included a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area(MPFA)within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. Planning Action PA#2011-00043 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Heiland Hoff Page 1 of 6 B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gresham and Allison Streets, in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District and the R-2 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning district. The property is irregularly shaped,with an area of approximately 4,917 square feet and is considered to be a legal, non-conforming lot as it was created prior to current zoning regulations and thus has an area which is less than the current 5,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-2 district. The existing building on the site is identified as the Eddie Hinger Duplex in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District survey document,which notes that the single-story wood framed modern ranch-style structure was reportedly built in 1964,the same year that the lot was partitioned from 100 Gresham Street(Tax Lot#1100). The existing home is considered to be"non-historic/non-contributing"in the survey document, and is proposed for demolition with this application. Currently,vehicular access to the site is from Gresham Street to a gravel parking pad at the rear of the duplex. General topography in the area slopes down Gresham Street to the north, toward downtown, at approximately 11 percent,however the existing duplex sits on a relatively level area of the lot which is retained by a low retaining wall directly behind the Allison Street sidewalks. The previously approved application included a tree inventory identifying 17 trees on the site,eight of which are to be removed to accommodate the re-development of the site. II. Project Impact Residentially zoned properties located within Ashland's Historic Districts are subject to a Maximum Permitted Floor Area(MPFA)limitation based on the lot size and number of units proposed. This limitation is intended to preserve the historic character of Ashland's National Register historic districts by insuring that development is architecturally and historically compatible with historic development patterns and fits well into the fabric of these well-established historic neighborhoods. The ordinance establishing the MPFA limitations provides for applicants to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent when they obtain a Conditional Use Permit; this is a discretionary approval which provides a higher level of review of proposed structures in the context of Ashland's Conditional Use Permit approval criteria as well as the Site Design and Use Standards' "Historic District Development Standards". For projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit,the authority exists in law for the Staff Advisor or Planning Commission to require modifications in design to address the Historic District Design Standards. In these cases, the Historic Commission advises both the applicants and city decision makers. The applicants were previously approved to demolish the existing 1,144 square foot non- historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,141 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement to contain a two-car garage. This approval required a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area(MPFA)within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. The current request is to modify the previous approval to allow exterior changes to the building including the addition of dormers,changes to windows on all four elevations, a reduction in the size of the back porch, and some general dimensional changes while remaining within the originally approved floor area. Planning Action PA#2011-00043 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Heiland Hoff Page 2 of 6 The overage to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area proposed here remains at nine percent, well within that allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process. While this is below the ten percent threshold which would typically require a public hearing,staff opted to schedule the item for a public hearing rather than granting administrative approval as the previous application resulted in a rather involved hearing process which focused specifically on the compatibility of the proposed building design with the surrounding district and the current requests changes some of the design elements arrived at through that recent hearing process. The previous request was reviewed in light of the applicable standards for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area through the hearing process leading up to the November 2010 approval. In staff's view, all of the previous findings with regard to these criteria remain valid; rather than duplicate that discussion, this staff report will focus specifically only on those modifications being proposed with the current request. The findings for the previous approval will be provided with the packet for reference with regard to the applicability of broader standards. Proposed Modifications The application materials provided summarize the proposed modifications as follows: We have added a dormer window to the North and South sides of the building. The arrangement of the windows has changed slightly on all four walls. We have made the back porch smaller to allow a bigger and more useable backyard. We have exactly the same square footage as the approved CUP design,but we have made minor adjustments to the exterior dimensions. The building designs approved are presented alongside the proposed modifications in the attached staff exhibits (See S-1 through S-4);the applicants' description of the modifications proposed and findings are summarized below. Dormers &Windows On the north elevation,facing Allison Street,a new dormer is being shown where an awning window was previously identified. The dormer roof allows the previous awning window to be replaced by a pair of tall, narrow double-hung windows to match the other windows on that elevation. On the west elevation, facing Gresham Street, a pair of tall narrow kitchen windows have replaced a wider window that was previously shown. The applicants suggest that while in the approved design all windows were identical,this change will provide some visual interest while still tying into the rhythm of openings on the north elevation. On the south elevation, which faces the back yard, a new dormer is proposed to mirror the front dormer, although the sill heights do not match because of a roof area below the south elevation's dormer. The applicants indicate that they believe this dormer results in more attractive appearance for the south elevation of the building and takes better advantage of the natural light. In addition,the south kitchen wall has seen the replacement of a wide kitchen window with a pair of tall,narrow windows to match those now proposed on the west side, and also matching the north side arrangement. Windows have also been changed on the upstairs and downstairs baths on the south side. The applicants suggest that the changes can be seen only from the backyard or from far up Gresham Street,and that both the kitchen and Planning Action PA#2011-00043 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Heiland Hoff Page 3 of 6 i back porch project enough to somewhat obscure these windows. On the east elevation, which faces the side yard and is not easily seen from the street, the windows have been rearranged. The applicants' submittals suggest that the dormers have no adverse material effect on the surrounding impact area, that dormers are common in the neighborhood, and that Commissioners had previously suggested that dormers might be an appropriate means to address design issues raised during the original approval process. The applicants further note that the dormers are high and pulled back from the street,and tend to change the massing of the building by breaking up the large expanse of roof and providing visual interest. Back Porch The applicants' submittals note that the footprint of the proposed building is to be slightly reduced with the smaller back porch. The application explains that the stairs leading off of the back porch in three directions in the approved design consumed significant yard area on an already small lot, as did the large porch itself. The application asserts that the modifications proposed here make the yard area bigger by reducing the porch and redundant stairs, yielding a yard area that is more in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. They further suggest that the back porch reduction serves to better subordinate the back porch to the front, somewhat clarifying the building's sense of entry. Dimensional Changes The dimensional changes proposed involve alterations to the exterior dimensions to accommodate changes in furniture and kitchen appliance arrangement,as well as a reduction in the size of the upstairs area. Because the upstairs area is being reduced in size,the gables are narrowed which raises the height of their midpoint by approximately two-inches, while remaining within the allowed height in the district. The application also notes that there is an apparent increase in exterior dimensions because the dimension lines are drawn to the face of wall studs while the square footage is calculated to the outside surface of exterior walls. The originally approved design had intended to have three-inches of exterior insulation which was outside the studs, and thus not depicted in the dimensions although it would have been considered in the floor area calculation. With the modification proposed, the applicants would remove this exterior insulation and move the studs out three inches without moving the exterior surface of the walls or altering the total floor area. As the staff report is being prepared for distribution prior to the Historic Commission's review, a condition has accordingly been recommended below to require that the recommendations of the Historic Commission, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Advisor, become conditions of approval for the application. The Historic Commission's recommendations from their March 2nd meeting will be distributed for Planning Commissioner review at the March 8th Planning Commission hearing. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.104.050 as follows: Planning Action PA#2011-00043 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Heiland Hoff Page 4 of 6 A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority forreview of the proposed use. In addition to the criteria above for Conditional Use Permit approval,the standards noted in Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards(see pages 40-47 of the document which is available on-line at:http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/SiteDesign-and-UseStandards.pdf)are also to be considered when evaluating the request. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Overall,the applicants suggest that the proposed modifications render the design more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As noted above,staff believed that because the changes were to design elements arrived at through a recent public process it was important that the proposed modifications come back before the Historic and Planning Commissions. While staff believe the proposed modifications could be seen as relatively benign, particularly for new construction replacing a non-contributing structure, we do have some question whether the proposed design modifications,particularly the dormer placement relative to the adjacent gable and windows on the front fagade,are entirely in keeping with historic patterns of the district and believe the modifications merit careful consideration by the Commission. Should the Planning Commission ultimately determine that the modifications proposed remain consistent with the applicable standards and merit approval, staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. Planning Action PA#2011-00043 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: Heiland Hoff Page 5 of 6 2) That all conditions of the previous land use approval(PA#2010-00992)shall remain conditions of approval unless explicitly modified herein. 3) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission from their March 2"d, 2011 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. 4) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application.If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. I i I Planning Action PA#2011-00043 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant; Heiland Hoff Page 6 of 6 .w 1 � I y m:• 1 ! 1 l � � IIII IIIi g w I II III � '. Ill (1 ,, Yil i I J ii IIII 2U 111 Q q 1 �i�l 1 1 —' it 11111 ll ,ill -� Il II IG.M.1 • � I'e f" i'i � �I 1 I I .: �=.I;fl Fill lilii� — `jj,j/�'���__ I � 555555,II��� ❑ III I11t °� 3} El �Il li l3 I Ir?it Is4 i ° 1111 1 11 Iil'Il 1 111 it i.1111ys1�I .� 11!,111 11 i r — Ili�il III !1 f go l :Li. TT 2Q I -uL 111 ,II s — E I•I,i i I,G 5 � ;` �` If � � MIN t ,: H 1' Ifil �I1111; � I 1 I ( I hill Iw_-..- Ll 1'1'113 � !111'x'111' � �Iil � 111�.1 li i f l 1 1 1 I I I r l l i 111 11 11111'1(! it 1j _�.. O I III,I llilg �i- 1 jl;l 9 I�I�s _.) 11' l�l�le; �_ � ow it litt' I � II` �I I'i1I Wis Kill NO l I 1 l a l I m i I I 1 1 = 'Iil 111 I Y i 1 I , 1111 ^Y 1i111 It111 it ' � f C -w ESL rn�� FEE �j W-M HIMi I 111E (1111 (hy 19vi r�lc CL rim . �4� i ,,,IIII,_ , . Ulm 1H II 011,11,"Rom" M- WO 0011---U YEMEN RON • INFOR7TECHNOLOGY MApp Front Counter Legend 99 Highitghted Feature theBuffer theButferTarget T , ax Lot Outlines , Tax Lot Numbers 19R19t P a1 100 too 4 � ' r r s� r r s :777, ,„ q 1-01,0 �a y '8160 PrARL x I 4" ' 1410 � , , # NO JACKSON " COUNTY 0 I eSn 11 F ,, � , 11 This map Is based on a digital database .. ... " 2p ,` compiled by Jackson County From a variety 4 d of sources Jackson County cannot accept too ', '' } '. responsibily for errors omissions,or positional accuracy.There are no warranties,expressed or Implied. Created with MapMaker Map created on 2/15/20118:28:03 AM using web.lacksoncounty.org Please recycle with colored office grade paper I. Easy Peel®Labels A Bend along line to I ® ® 16 i Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM 50 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10500 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 1200 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14500 ASHCRAFT SANTINA ASHLAND CHANTICLEER LLC BARTH RICHARD M TRUSTEE 71 GRESHAM ST 120 GRESHAM 91 GRESHAM STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14200 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14000 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8800 BIERMANN ROBIN TRUSTEE ET AL DOYLE TERRY/CHIYEMI GADBOIS LAURIE A ET AL 505 GLENDORA AVE 462 ALLISON ST 54 GRESHAM ST GLENDORA CA 91741 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8900 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14300 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 8100 GANGITANO FAMILY TRUST ET AL KELLY TIMOTHY P LEDBETTER PROPERTIES LLC 44 AMETHYST WAY 100 GRESHAM ST 112 NUTLEY ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 1300 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 13900 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 13800 LEHMANN RYAN L/ZOE D MOORE PATRICK J TRUSTEE ET AL NORAAS MELODY 477 FAIRVIEW ST 470 ALLISON ST 478 ALLISON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10400 PA-2011-00043 391E09CA 8101 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10401 PATERSON THOMAS G PRUFER SUSAN BROUWER TRUSTEE REITINGER MARK/BECKY 63 GRESHAM ST 292 TERRACE ST 625 B ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 I PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8700 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10800 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8200 REYNOLDS D L JR/PHYLLIS B SCHOLOM PETER M TRUSTEE ET AL SEARLE COLLEEN D TRUSTEE ET AL 64 GRESHAM ST 365 VISTA ST 477 ALLISON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 I PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8600 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 14100 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8400 SHISLER LENORE STEWART JEANETTE SWALES COLIN WILLIAM TRUSTEE 443 ALLISON ST 155 8TH ST ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 143 EIGHTH ST ASHLAND OR 97520 I PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8300 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 8500 PA-2011-00043 391E09BD 10300 VAN DER ZEE KIRT WIGGINTON NANCY CAROL WINCHESTER PATRICE A TRUSTEE 469 ALLISON ST 453 ALLISON 3450 SACRAMENTO ST 507 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118 I PA-2011-00043 25 Heiland Hoff 2-15-11 1797 Anderson Creek Rd 400 Allison Talent OR 97540 I i ttiquettes faciles A peter ; Repliez a la hachure afin de ; wvuw.averycom la 1 l m--- 1a n9k—+A%icDV®K1 fn® 1 .Sens de r6v61ca to rahnrrl Pnn_n„MC 1' i q_nnn_rn_e�rr:DV i HEILAND HOFF I T specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects February 11, 2011 City of Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR. 97520 Re: Supplemental Written Findings: Conditional Use Permit Modification Biermann Residence 400 Allison Street Dear Derek: This letter provides Supplemental Written Findings to accompany our Conditional Use Permit Modification application package, in response to your letter dated February 10, 2011 regarding incomplete items. Summary of Modifications This paragraph summarizes the differences between the approved CUP design and the proposed modification. We have added a dormer window to the North and South sides of the building. The arrangement of the windows has changed slightly on all four walls. We have made the back porch smaller to allow a bigger and more useable back yard. We have exactly the same square footage as the approved CUP design,but we have made minor adjustments to the exterior dimensions. We are still eight percent over MPFA. Applicant's Statement of Completeness We have reviewed, filled out, and submitted the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form. Findings Addressing the Conditional Use Permit Criteria in AMC 18.104.050: A. The use will be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. The approved CUP design addressed these issues. Our modification will not have any effect on this item. B. Adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com page 1 HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects provided to and through the subject property. The approved CUP design addressed these issues. Our modification will not have any effect on this item. C. The conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. (These issues are discussed in the following pages under Historic District Design Standards.) The footprint coverage of our proposed modification is smaller than the approved CUP design due to the smaller back porch. The bulk is slightly diminished by the smaller back porch. It is also modified by the addition of the dormer windows. The dormers have no adverse effect compared to the target use of the zone. Most of the houses on the street have dormer windows. During our first planning commission hearing, several commissioners suggested that we should add dormer windows. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Our single family dwelling will generate less traffic than the existing duplex, or the multi-family housing permitted under the target zoning. Our proposed modification will not have any impact on this issue compared to the approved CUP design. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Compared to the approved CUP design, our proposed modifications will improve the compatibility with the surrounding community. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. The single family dwelling we are proposing will not generate more dust, odor, or other environmental pollutants than are permitted under the target zoning. Our proposed modification will not have any impact on this issue compared to the approved CUP design. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The single family dwelling we are proposing will not generate more noise, light, or glare than are permitted under the target zoning. Our proposed modification will not have any impact on this issue compared to the approved CUP design. i 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heiland Cheilandhoffarchitecture.com page 2 HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan The proposed single family dwelling will not impact the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Our proposed modification will not have any impact on this issue compared to the approved CUP design. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. We will address other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use as they are brought to our attention. Historic District Design Standards 1. Height Compared to the approved CUP design, the actual height of the highest ridge has not changed. As calculated by the city,the midpoint of the highest ridge is 2 inches higher. This is because the upstairs has gotten slightly smaller, so the gables are slightly narrower, which raises the height of the midpoint. We are still nearly four feet lower than the maximum height allowed in the historic district. 2. Scale Compared to the approved CUP design, the area has not changed. We made some small adjustments to the exterior dimensions to accommodate changes in furniture and kitchen appliance arrangement,but we were careful to create a result with exactly the same total square footage as the approved design. There is an apparent discrepancy between the dimensions and the area. This is because dimension lines are drawn to the face of wall studs, while the square footage is calculated to the outside surface of the exterior walls. In the approved CUP design, we included 3 inches of exterior insulation which was outside of the studs. In the modification, we have removed the exterior insulation and moved the studs out three inches, without moving the exterior surface of the walls. The result is that the dimensions grow but the area does not. 3. Massing Compared to the approved CUP design, the massing arrangement has changed slightly. The back porch has grown smaller. Because of the triangular shape of the lot, this not only increases the size of the backyard, it also pulls the building back away from Gresham Street. This visually decreases the massing. In 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heiland Cheilandhoffarchitecture.com Page 3 ,,; HEILAND HOF'F ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects the approved CUP design, the stairs leading off the back porch in three directions ate up a lot of back yard space, as did the large back porch. Making the back yard bigger by reducing the space consumed by the redundant stairs and large porch makes the yard more compatible with the neighborhood. The new dormers are high and pulled back from the street, but they change the massing by breaking up the large expanse of roof. 4. Setbacks Compared to the approved CUP design, the setbacks have not changed except that the smaller back porch is pulled back away from the corner lot side yard setback on Gresham Street. 5. Roof Shape Compared to the approved CUP design, the roof shape has not changed except for the addition of two dormer windows. The dormers further break up the facade and make it more interesting. They also increase the compatibility of the dwelling within the neighborhood context,because most of the houses on that street have dormers. 6. Rhythm of Openings Compared to the approved CUP design, the rhythm of openings has changed on all four sides. The North side, which faces Allison,has a new dormer where there was previously an awning window. The dormer roof allowed the short, wide awning window to blossom into a pair of tall, narrow double hung windows that match the other windows on that wall. The West side, which faces Gresham, has a pair of tall narrow kitchen windows to replace the wider kitchen window that was there before. In the approved CUP design, all the windows in this elevation were identical. Changing the kitchen window provides visual interest while still tying into the rhythm of openings on the North side. The South side, which faces the back yard, also has a new dormer window. The dormer roof exactly mirrors the front dormer. The dormer window does not match the front dormer because the roof below the window is too high to allow equal sill heights. The old design had an upper roof overlapping just a few inches above the lower roof, presenting an odd appearance. The new dormer diminishes that unattractive exterior effect, while also flooding the interior with Southern light. This dormer was the most important reason why we chose to apply for a 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heil andCheilandhoffarchitecture.com page 4 HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects CUP modification. In the South side kitchen wall, the wide kitchen window was replaced by a pair of tall, narrow windows that matches the window arrangement on the West side kitchen windows. This also matches the arrangement on the North side. In the South side upstairs and downstairs bathrooms, the window arrangement has changed. The upstairs casement window was replaced with a window shaped like a double hung window. The wide awning window downstairs was replaced with a window shaped like a double hung window, and was moved directly under the matching upstairs window, creating a more uniform continuity between the upstairs and downstairs. A small upstairs window was added. It should be noted that these changes can only be viewed from the backyard, or perhaps from far up Gresham Street. Both the kitchen and the back porch project out past the bathrooms, obscuring the bathrooms from the street. On the East side, which faces the side yard, the windows have been moved around in the wall. This elevation cannot easily be seen from any street. 7. Directional Expression Compared to the approved CUP design, the directional expression has not changed. 8. Sense of Entry Compared to the approved CUP design, the front entry has not changed, but the sense of entry has improved due to modifications to the back porch. In our original application, there was a serious problem identifying which porch was the front porch and which was the back. During the CUP process, this problem was resolved to the satisfaction of the Historic Commission through improvements in the design. Still, in the approved CUP design, the back porch remained substantially larger than the front porch, and it had stairs facing Gresham that could conceivably be mistaken for a front entry. Our proposed modification further differentiates the back porch from the front, improving the sense of entry. The back porch was made smaller. The stairs leading from the back porch to Gresham Street were removed and replaced with a railing. The South-facing stairs were also removed and replaced with a railing, leaving only the stairs facing the Southeast corner of the back yard. This alleviates any possibility of mistaking the back porch for the front entry. i 9. Platforms Compared to the approved CUP design, there is no change in the 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heiland @heilandhoffarchitecture.com page 5 , t HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects expression of raised platforms. The front porch has not changed. The back porch has grown smaller,but remains at the same height. 10. Imitation Compared to the approved CUP design, there is no change in the imitation of earlier architectural styles. We anticipate and appreciate your support and the support of the rest of the planning staff in presenting our modified design to the historic commission and ultimately to the planning commission. We look forward to discussing this project with all interested parties. If you have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact me. You may reach me at(541) 944-9639, or you may e-mail me at heiland @heilandhoffarchitecture.com.. Sincerely, Heiland Hoff Principal Architect 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heiland @heilandhoffarchitecture.com page 6 Date Received r Ij t (to be completed by staff) Applicant's Statement of Completeness (To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division) Re PA#2011*00043,400 Allison Street Date Application Expires: July 11,2011 Pursuant to an Incompleteness.Determination, 1, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant,elect one of the three options below by initiating: ( 1 Submit All of the Missing Information i (initial if elected) I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. i Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30-day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials,should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: the 120-day period for the City of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional review for completeness period is completed.) (Check.if desired) ❑ 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. Pianuing Division Tel:641-552-2040 20 E.Maln Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735.2900 wmashiand,or.us derek.severson ashland.or.us ( ) 2, Submit Some of the Requested Information: Decline to Provide Other Information (Initial Itelected;) 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, 1 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 Applicads Agent) ` Lt � t Date Return to, Planning Division Department of Community Development Attn: Derek Severson,Associate Planner City of Ashland 20 E, Main St, Ashland, OR 97620 Pla nIng Division Tel;541.552-2040 20 E.Main Street Fax;541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735.2900 uAsnv,ashland.ocus derek.severson@ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND February 10, 2011 Heiland Hoff, Architect 1797 Anderson Creek Road Talent, OR 97540 Re: PA#2011-00043, for the property located at 400 Allison Street Incompleteness Determination Dear Mr. Hoff, I have reviewed the January 12, 2011 submittals for your application to modify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) for the property at 400 Allison 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. While you have provided drawings with the revisions proposed, there is no narrative identifying the changes and no findings which explain them in terms of the approval criteria. We'd need to have a clear identification of all modifications being proposed, and some sort of narrative submittal which speaks to these modifications in terms of the approval criteria and design standards. (You wouldn't need to fully address all of the criteria or design standards, but rather simply speak to the criteria and standards as they relate to the proposed changes — i.e. architectural compatibility, rhythm of openings, directional expression, etc.) I'm listing the approval criteria below for your reference: i Findings Addressing the Conditional Use Permit Criteria in AMC 18.104.050: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. i Planning Division Tel:541-552-2040 20 E,Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms derek,seversoM ashland,onus i 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Historic District Design Standards As you recall, the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) limitation is intended to preserve the historic character of Ashland's National Register historic districts by insuring that development is architecturally and historically compatible with historic development patterns and fit well into the fabric of these well-established historic neighborhoods. As such, in addition to the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria listed above, applications are also required to address the Historic District Development Standards in terms of compatibility with the historic neighborhood context in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense of entry, imitation, etc. For projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit, the authority exists in law for the Planning Commission to require design modifications to address these standards. You'll want to address the applicable standards in terms of your proposed revisions, and if the changes directly modify something that was a point of discussion in the previous hearings you'd want to address that clearly. To continue the Planning Department's review of your application, you must select and complete one of the following three options: 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 (January 12, 2011) will result in your application being deemed void. The application will be deemed void if the additional information is not submitted by July 11, 2011. i 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. i i i ! Planning Division Tel:541-552-2040 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.orms derek,severson(a,ashland.orms If you have questions or if I can provide any further information, assistance or clarification, please contact me at 552-2040 or derek.seversongashland.or.us. Sincerely, `i Derek Severson Associate Planner Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness Cc: File; Owner i i I I i i i I I i i Planning Division Tel:541-552-2040 20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 wmashland.or,us derek,severson@ashland,or.us Zimbra Page l of} Zi0Nbra ±Font size � 8���° ������ ��UU~ "�"." —�°�~� ��"vUson From:Derek Severson <seversod@ash|and.or.us> Thu,Feb 10, 2011 10:52AM Subject:RE:400 Allison 01 attachment To hei|and@he||ondhoMaohitmctue.00m Cc dooekseverson <denek.oeveson@ash land,or.us> *ei|and, I've reviewed the application for 400 Allison,and I need a little more before I can call it complete, Specifically,while you have provided drawings with the revisions proposed,there is no narrative identifying the changes and no findings which explain them in terms of the approval criteria. We'd need to have a clear identification and explanation of all modifications being proposed,and some sort of narrative submittal which speaks m these modifications m terms mr the approval criteria and design standards. You wouldn't need m fully address all of the criteria u,design standards as you would for a new application,but rather simply speak to the criteria and standards as they relate to the proposed changes—i.e.discussing the addition m dormers,changes to windows,reduction in the size vf the back porch,dimensional changes,etc.in terms nf the criteria for architectural compatibility and standards relating to rhythm of openings,directional expression,etc. It would also bem your benefit m clearly address changes m items that were points of discussion in the previous hearings clearly in terms of how they relate to the criteria for architectural compatibility and the historic district design standards. I'm attaching the standard incomplete letter we send when we identify more information needed. m this point,we would plan on handling this asa Type 11 hearing since it modifies an approval that was recently discussed in significant detail before both the Planning Commission and Historic Commission. If you could get me the mznabveuetalling what changes are belng made and anaxplanabovof those changes 6v terms of the criterla by next Tuesday morning,{can keep the notIcIng process muvIng ahead for/hIs to be on the agenda for the next HistorIc and/lamnIng(ovnnIssiommee8Ings(I.a/n March)as|know that time isof the essence for you and your client. If|can provide any additional information o,assistance,please let moknow. ' Derek _ ` nm1t-Qa1V Incomplete Lotbe:pdf 'eu 1MB http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=37558 2/10/20}] isit dIl l[�ID.6q®� dLA`�17llY��a�V �i ��I��2I �' s - Grp AWU z O IL Zp I I I � I m I �I lu io' _ I Z-0, �CT IUQMd®IOAOP� f��p °�Qa ':1 a �' FI(i ®®FX_ ' z 2NI-1 J1T3d0TJd I .olse I I — ® ��daias aad aais B I�� I I I I z sd I ® <�o wl w OFDII ©© -bl IJo 0¢NtiF ®w LL IL �/ 9 IU IL QI Jm �c3 Ji IU d� �m oo ��o in s Znill N I / z � m IL I / N lu \ I / Q } m Y Q Q } F Z O If IL 1Nil 191 i �`���1 `b o �► juom�[®j2A2p�uSgp tide cv� lJ 1 s � cq uuu=aEj m¢gogp `1IaAal�II3[dldlf�l Al I� � "�S� Boa s THJ Y®®`M OOt zQ d� LU W�w� �- NZ�O N to< 0- a a FA-19Nd0 o a�sv wl ° I lu rl e w ' ---�> fu N \\ \y w - rL _ sry I- 1 W v',LL IL in — CL in .o,rc �a LU zzNZ�O��C gdwdwF z j-u �a°o MN== W 0- QU-=Fd zNwdd � doW�° � ad>O6Od002 ONJ>W-wxp� � =ryno U-4) F�wdd>dFd a s E p W �NW> SOUP }W AM w, pWVppl?9 ~zN}FQNW a3�NQ�u> � 4 m =dwzz�w�t m Fpm OJ$N[V � _ `° � 0 MY n i II r 1T i hf $ ��z � � � IT ry o II it o II I 1 }LJ} N N2WV N MOO �d� -j aFla SHOILVA z — a[z a �� 4 z ILm tL 4 �z it O m � Ill�illll, _ 30� � 4 ii it p�pp IL O q 0 x OX 10 !pO q 3Lu0K z0 x Illlill � IIIIIIII I Illilillllll I I� � � I Ali � ❑ I ill ❑ it ❑ ® 0 FFM illy III II I i I I it nn illl l �i ail ❑I II- I Ii I i II _ I ❑ ❑ ® ® I l I I I Iillil, lil � ' I , i I � p .I u IL q x �I �I I II Nom mot, luomdulgAgp Us1[sgp 6$ i❑ SMOUVATIR 0 4 'p ® A z m "Q 5; 53 �Q ❑ uu II II XI I I I I us Q n�l I LE L' Q I .9VL Z.9Z $9a%UDSW Oft z a LC N 61 �I ILu of N — Q < — = e III I,P I li \ iii 'iiI �I'i ill, �l'I'i ilia. ii iiil ❑ iii it I iil Q o I ii � I F: I z IL wz OI �o � YU ;oat c, v �7 maa� coal a U �m�m I'll's �� ��� s � z Milt! _�$ ��� .91/L Z-.9Z O tL c ® w ®I I it I 1,1 I I 1 III 1111 VIII.. I 0 0 I'I 1111 s 111111,. � 111'11 111111' I !1111111 ��. I1� Ililill \ Ii.111111 'i nl I 0 ZONING I LI TIN Planning Division CITY o F 51 Winburn Way,Ashland OR 97520 FILE# AA, 011 — Deal j 541-488-5305 Fax ASHLAND 541-488-6006/ ,�y DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT L d,�-�p ) CZ4 c"`7 9 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED®Certification? ❑YES ❑ NO Street Address A d�le�9 lC\- Lu\S Assessor's Map No.39 1 E1 \ Tax Lot(s) Zoning Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT ,` 'x'Sr Name t-4--�JC�7 Phone `� A\ °944 U'3r E-Mail Address � � �� �� G"t� C '1� � city Zip PROPERTY OWNER G Name 1 �tV�(��6� Phone (ca `2 ti ' T9 E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER �1 Title ��'U\�C L� Name O C-_ Phone � �-�`�� �E-Mail Address City Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application,including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility, I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request, 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate;and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this raga will result most likely in not only the request being set aside,but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at m expense, If I have a®y doubts,I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applic-act's Sig-nature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. i Property Owner's Signature (required) Date (To be completed by City Staff) Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee$ OVER 0 C:Tocumems and Settings\lucasaADesktop\Zoning Permit Application.doc ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division j C I T Y OF 51 Winburn Way,Ashland OR 97520 FILE# X6211— ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED@ Certification? ❑YES ❑NO Street Address 400 Allison St. Ashland, Or. 97520 Assessor's Map No.391E 09BD Tax Lot(s) 14200 Zoning R2 Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT heiland @heilandhoffarchitecture.com Name Heiland Hoff Phone 541-944-9639 E-Mail Address 1797 Anderson Crk Rd city Talent Zip 97540 PROPERTY OWNER Robin Biermann 626-963-8799 therobin @earthlink.net Name Phone E-Mail Address 505 N. Glendora Ave city Glendora Zip 91741 SURVEYOR,ENGINEER,ARCHITECT,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,OTHER Title i s N I Tz��-C' Name &5 MR I( hone E-Mail Address City Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application,including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact,are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect,the owner assumes full responsibility,l further understand that if this request is subsequently contested,the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request, 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate;and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside,but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If i have any doubts,I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request,f have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner, Prop y Owner's Signature(required) Date [To be completed by city Slafq Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee$ i OVER 0 Gkmnm-dev�planning\Fomu&HandoulsVoning Permit Application.doe i 'diii�''r'%'�•? 'a sii' — <ff:+:}i�+%:i%:'/,2.t.�.< •n:u.�ati:•<"�l%i,,'�<.I�:f;l:( ir,pr'1 +�1'S?Y "'.l,i•r:?ll ii' Hi,• :nvE: '4F S ia.)':. '.i:>; :Y, .�;•::!„{,�Si;:'ri i;(:. :3'dtt.,]11,��t�a:�<,I,t.%e�,r(.11S,.j.�).7.1 ,.�(. �[ <.;E llc;t<{n'�, ?;1,!.;�t t('tf7��'>1,.,:'Y` ;�;, !�Jln$ ,.o-i, :''•;irr ir�, 't;?•`�:='� :�s''i`�r..rP.%:� •:•�.•a.4i!,l;;:ti�..:�'�:�...1'.i;=4}';If:•�Cr`.ftl i!'/..{: �•�.i':�z,��. ltd;,Y �l i.:.l..:r,.;}:I;::1.; .: !t;•r:v,?>::o•sli>r ;..t';'ti,i�:,.it!i'i,E�ii:.1:..fi��r;• .ir;=:i ,� Si 1,:. ni�:Fil'�i�1'�:1'�: r:=:,> '�;a'i�i�`•;o;l�:;r .Il,ct,. �.: FILEW - DESCRIPTION OF PROPEf�'i`Y Street Address Assessor`s ltilap too,39: E TaXLot(s) - ?•i::'• 'Zoriin9_ - _ : 'Comp:Plah*pesigriatioA AA(. pUt,ANT r Name (. : : Pfio€ie• � :.:r (.39 -Mail: X11 r, `LeGV' :::.c:c7`w� -- - _.�•� .,,.,:.....:. �tity: •���• :Zip:: <,�:�.;Q;�.'•.�;:;�i�; QR FtTI!: ONE R• ti. ae hone' s t, t Addre s !G"?: s 44 L ` : i• ((11- 7 LA9t?SCAk AFtGHffEC;t".�1;HER• 4 Title . "e 11Qt3e. '•°E. Address , .a.•, Ci `Zip..•'' 5: s' title Phone Na a m . E=Mail Address it A.' h t€ € men€s • � '; a':•':. ,:.: .: andrnf rmatron con airi�'tl '' � ;'•: :;,''�: :.::.•.`. ~ "�'�''�• f:.. :e n•.lhrs applrcatron,�nciutlrng:the stteios l ffr ttiin s ani:'tfle<re'tijre . PRO S oi'face'are to ail res`'rrcfs:,:,.:,, true'and' nrrsct: '•1,irrrerstaritl;fha#'a1lptY?pertY,airts:nrystbe,.slavrsm on'the f1ra.�rrr sand':visiJe:p on:tho.siteldrts ecfioriYn the.aventfhe! :g. ...•.P,...-.•:•::,:....:..::.a':: ::.•:•..,•:•,•:...:.... ..: ,..:;.;lla.,.sh�ivrrorfhstr fora tron'fo[ritdfai6efricnrrectt•tlieowner°assumsstUlFesponsfGi7ify.1fulh Paricl erstanc tthafifttiis'regcisst'1s`subse uentJ'c�?ri#e5ted'tJie'bunf617'witb'e`oii1rrie"fo;'',' establish: . � • : .. .9. y fJ tfiarl roducddsritficreri#'fattuei.evideiice:et e'ffearrri f4'su r`r P...:... .::•.'..•:.•: ::.: t ,. 9.. , ppot th Is're •2j .fftat fhe�ndings.effaef fuirrrslred�lust�es:ttis'�raittrri�of ftte.reques€; . . 3j: that the fiirdiiigs offactfmished.by me. ce a 'equafe;,arraf furfher 4J that,afi s€riictiires or.itriprove►iisrrfs are pfoparly laaated:ort the ground. sitars 0. :s:e: F.•• hr• f.gartl wil esri(f most Ukefy n:not,ority the•regtiest,b,Qin``.sot aside;buf.also ossibi in ffi •s(riict i'es Wh `bziilf rn relienae€hereon Grin re u red o :': be removed at my ex , se:tfd have any doubts;>t amb vise d€o%seek compeferi€'pipfossionaJadviae Arid assts lance:'' ' A0plic ln 's• :4s'amorvf°fhs proparty lhvolvsd in this re uesf,. MV6 read Ohd& derst66d 66 C�?ih tefe a. •lfcafi:,°"id•ifs c,"s uerrces'.ta'me a$a ro e 9 l�� , q.. :p.,>a:. Y . owner: ;;..'• ':�.'; ... '�. . : --.;.' : .•:: .',.: °:. , . . 2. TO ?: wer's 'na "re' re ` y. ,g.. .tru qu redj. :Dfe Ro beC4mpleted by.ClTy Staff] _. r°sate 2ee oiri g Permt T YA s Fee'*$ I '`Z 'OJT•p��• '. ?s,��> �` � ...' \ N \� 'r '. "a T^� ' r a� s Job Address: 400 ALLISON ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: A` Owner's Name: ROBIN BIERMANN Phone: State Lie No: Customer#: 02392 HEILAND HOFF City Lie No: Applicant: �'• Address: Sub-Contractor: Phone: (541)944-9639 Address: N, Applied: 01/12/2011 Issued: 01/12/2011 � Expires: 07/11/2011" Phone: State Lie No: Maplot: City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Modification to original PA-2010-00993 CUP r Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: �frCT�Ic�A�, �`�"fi�U�Ttlf'2At» RM FEE LIBTAIL; Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Type 1 938.00 `' COkVG�i'TlgNS O�APF'ROUAf„ , I i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY F HL ND H, u 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 (180 days). Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 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: $ 938.00 $ 938.00 or local laws, ordinances,or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 938.00 Fees Paid: $ 938.00 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0 ! I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CTY OF Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 L