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-2011-01452
CITY or ASHLAND November.21, 2011 Robin Biermann 505 N Glendora Ave. Glendora, CA 91741 RE: Planning Action 42011-01452 Notice of Final Decision On November 21, 2011,the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved your request for the following: A Modification to a 2010 and 2011 Site Review and Conditional Use Permit (PAs 2010-00992 & 2011-00043) approvals to adjust the approved structure based on findings of a recent survey. As adjusted,the proposed home will be at 8%, over the MPFA where 9% was approved. Additionally, the request includes a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three (3) trees which were to be retained as per the previous approval. The subject property is located at 400 Allison Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2;ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 09BD;TAX LOT: 14202 The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13`h day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice Of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action by the Staff Advisor as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.108.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in the ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). An appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that issue, Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. i The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at no cost at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. I 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: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541488.5305 51 Winbum Way Fax:541.552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900 Fla WVAUSh1and.0r.us ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: 2011.01452 SUBJECT PROPERTY. 400 Allison Street APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff Architect for Robin Bierman DESCRIPTION: Arequest for a Modification to a 2010 and 2011 Site Review and Conditional Use Permit(PAs 2010-00992 &2011-00043) approvals to adjust the approved structure based on findings of a recent survey. As adjusted, the proposed home will be at 8%, over the MPFA where 9% was approved. Additionally,the request includes a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three(3)trees which were to be retained as per the previous approval. The subject property is located at 400 Allison Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 09BD; TAX LOT: 14202 SUBMITTAL DATE: October 17, 2011 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: October 20, 2011 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: November 21, 2011 FINAL DECISION DATE: December 5, 2011 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: December 5, 2012 DECISION The applicant has a valid approval to demolish the existing 1,144 square foot non-Wstoric/non- contributing duplex building and construct a new two-story 2,045 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement containing a two-car garage (PA2010-00992). The 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 approval also permitted the removal of eight trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Following that approval,the applicant modified the building to change to the windows, reduce the size of the rear porch and other general dimensional modifications. (PA2011- 00043). This application seeks tomodify both of those previous approvals, The subject property is located at the southeast coiner 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 4,900 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 fi•amed 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. PA#2011-01452' 400 Allison/adg Page l General topography in the area slopes down Gresham Street to the north, toward downtown, at approximately I I 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. Following the latest approval,the applicant commissioned a property survey. That survey found some discrepancies between the documents provided by the assessor's parcel information and the actual surveyed lot. The angle of the intersection at Allison.and Gresham was shown as a 60-degree angle; the actual angle is 56.125 degrees. There is a seven-foot wide strip along the south side of the property. The addition of the seven feet made the lot larger 4,920 square feet instead of 4,917 square feet but due to the smaller angle,the setbacks became more restrictive. This pushed the house into the setbacks along Gresham Street. Additionally,the survey shows three additional trees to be removed due to the modified survey and resulting property line adjustments. One tree is within the public right-of-way, is very close to the power pole and is a Siberian Elm, which is a `prohibited tree' on the City's Recommended Street Tree Guide. There is also a five-inch English Walnut, near the property line and a nine-inch DBH Norway maple that was thought to be on the neighbors to the east property and to be protected is now on the property line. Both of these trees are within the side yard setback. The structural modifications are insignificant and the structure is generally the same. The previous approval had duel stairs from the front porch, one set leading towards Gresham has been removed to not encroach into the side yard setback. Additionally, the structure got slightly more narrow and elongated to fit within the parcel boundaries. The previous approval permitted 173 square feet or nine percent above the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) of 1,968 square feet. The revised plan has been reduced from 2045 square feet to 2023 square feet or eight percent,above the MPFA. The Historic Commission reviewed the proposed modification at their November 2, 2011 meeting and felt the proposal was in keeping with the Historic District Development Standards. The Maple located on the property line is a shared property between the adjacent property owner and the owner of the subject property. The tree would not be able to be removed without the written consent of the adjacent property owner. The applicant has stated that they have attempted to contact to the property owner but evidence of the contact has not been provided to the city and the tree removal cannot be permitted without written consent of both property owners. The subject property owner would be able to work around the tree. Their project arborist shall be consulted during the excavation of the foundation within the dripline of the Maple tree on the property line. The excavation shall be completed by hand to ensure a machine does not tear the roots. If any roots need to be cut they shall be cut cleanly with a sharp saw and covered with wet burlap or recovered with soil following the cutting. The removal of the additional trees will require additional mitigation measures. Due to the constraints of j the site, the payment in lieu of planting option is likely the most appropriate. If the property owner has I other property within the City of Ashland, mitigation trees could also be planted in another location. Staff finds that with the survey findings that shifted the shape and size of the parcel-the structural modifications to the residence are in conformance with the criteria. The size of the structure was reduced slightly reducing the amount of the previously approved Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area is substantially compliant with the previous approvals. The proposed single family home is in substantial conformance with the previous approvals and with the Historic District Design Standards, The removal of the Siberian Elm and the Walnut tree with appropriate mitigation is approved as proposed. The removal of the Norway maple is not approved for removal without the written consent PA'#2011-01452 400 Alhson/adg Page 2 of the property owner of 446 Allison Sheet. If the tree is not removed, foundation excavation shall be performed in accordance with the conditions of approval and under the guidance of a certified arborist. The criteria for a Conditional.Use Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.104.050, as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, server, 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 taff c 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. The criteria for Site Review Approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.72.070, as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, serer,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. E The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.61.080, as follows: E 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 StaffAdvisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. PA#2011-01452 400 Allison/adg Page 3 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 existingpublic 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 far 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. (e.g.'other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The StaffAdvisor 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 sur face 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 subjectproperoy 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 AA4C`18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. i The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. - 1 Planning Action 201101452 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of The following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2011- 01452 is denied, The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here, 2). That all conditions of the previous land use approval(PA#2010-00992&2011-00043)shall remain conditions of approval unless explicitly modified herein. PA#2011-01452 400 Allison/adg Page 4 3) 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, 4) That expressly written consent from the property owner at 446 Allison Street approving the removal of the Norway maple shall be provided to the City of Ashland prior to the removal of the tree injoint ownership, if the tree is not able to be removed: S) The building contractor and subcontractors shall meet with a certified arborist before and during construction to insure that, the correct measures are in place, A certified arborist must supervise any grading or excavation work done within the specified tree protection zone. 6) Such measures may include hand excavation within root zones, surgical cutting of larger diameter roots, the use of structural soils and/or permeable paving materials within the identified tree protection zones as deemed necessary by the arborist 7) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) That the revised tree protection and preservation measures shall be installed and're-inspected prior to any site work. 8) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: a) That three (3) 1 %2 - inch caliper, eight-foot minimum height deciduous mitigation trees which will equal or exceed the removed trees size and stature at maturity shall be planted off-site at another piece of property owned by the property owner prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the new residence. The trees shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines. b) The applicant may also pay into the tree account the amount equivalent to the cost of buying and planting the trees that would otherwise have been required to be planted on site, or a minimum of.$400.00. The applicant shall submit to the City of Ashland Planning Division, in writing, their selected option for mitigation prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. I I c Moln , Director Date Depar cent of Comm Development PA#2011-01452 400 Allison/adg Page 5 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10500 PA-2011-01452 391E09CA 1200 PA-2011-01452 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-2011-01452 391E09BD 14200 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 14000 PA-2011-01452 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-2011-01452 391E09BD 8900 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 14300 PA-2011-01452 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-2011-01452 391E09CA 1300 PA-2011-01452 3911109131) 13900 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 13800 LEHMANN RYAN L/ZOE D MOORE PATRICK TRUSTEE ET AL NORAAS MELODY 477 FAIRVIEW ST 470 ALLISON ST 478 ALLISON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10400 PA-2011-01452 391E09CA 8101 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10401 PATERSON THOMAS G PRUFER SUSAN BROUWER TRUSTEE ET REITINGER MARK/BECKY 63 GRESHAM ST AL 625 BST ASHLAND OR 97520 292 TERRACE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01452 391E098D 8700 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10800 PA-2011-01452 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-2011-01452 391E09BD 8600 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 14100 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 8400 SHISLER LENORE STEWARTJEANETTE SWALES COLIN WILLIAM TRUSTEE ET AL 443 ALLISON ST 155 8TH ST 143 EIGHTH ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 8300 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 8500 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10300 VAN DER ZEE KIRT WIGGINTON NANCY CAROL WINCHESTER PATRICE A TRUSTEE ET AL 469 ALLISON ST 453 ALLISON 3450 SACRAMENTO ST 507 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118 I PA-2011-01452 PA-2011-01452 Heiland Hoff Architecture Polaris Surveying 1797 Anderson Crk Rd PO Box 459 Talent OR 97540 Ashland OR 97520 3 I ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW November 3, 2011 PLANNINGACTIONt 2011-01452 SUBJECTPROPERTY 400Allison Street APPLICANT: Reiland Hoff Architect for Robin Bierman DESCRIPTION. A request for a Modification to a 2010 and 2011 Site Review and Conditional Use Permit (PAs 2010-00992 & 2011-00043) approvals to adjust the approved structure based on findings of a recent survejt As adjusted, the proposed home will be at 8%, over the MPFA where 9% was approved, Additionally the request includes a Tee Removal Permit request to remove three (3) trees which were to be retained as per the previous approval. The subjectproperty is located at 400 Allison Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Fatuity Residential; ZONING;R-2;ASSESSOR'S MAP. 391E 09BD; TAX LOT 14202 Recommendation: 1) The Tree Commission recommends that due to the number of trees either existing or proposed in previous approvals,that the applicant mitigate the three trees by paying into the Tree Fund of$400 for each tree, a total of$1200. i I i i I 3 3 I i Department of Gommunity Development Tel:549-488-5350 C I T Y OF 51 Winbum Way Fax:549-552-2050 a ���, Y Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 lg�9R 1(®'V' V.,yiA'.w l l[an d.or,U s CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 2, 2011 Community Development/Engineering Services Building--51 Wlnburn Way-Slsklyou Room CALL TO ORDER— REGULAR MEETING 6:00 om Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom,Keith Swink, Kerry Kencairn,Tom Giordano,Allison Renwick,Ally Phelps Commission Members Absent; Sam Whitford(e), Terry Skibby(e) Council Liaison: Michael Morris High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner:Amy Gunter APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Giordano moved to approve the October 5, 2099 minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swink and was approved unanimously. I PUBLIC FORUM: Philip Krayna spoke regarding his remodel project of a historic home at 247 Sixth St. He explained to the Commissioners that there was never intent to demo the existing home,only to add a second story. However, once the initial interior demo began they uncovered previous remodeling done with sub-standard framing. The contractor, Michael Hodgin, advised that the existing framing be redone to make the home safe. By the time they pulled down all the bad framing the house was nearly gone. Chairman Shostrom explained that from Historic`s point of view, a historically contributing cottage home was destroyed and the redesigned 2-story changes the streetscape.There was further discussion of the mistakes and assumptions that were made on both sides. Mr. Krayna asked that the code be clarified to add a secondary component to the demo ordinance to address this type of situation. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: None PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Shostrom received consensus from the Commissioners to change the order of the public hearing since there were no applicants present for the 151 Church St project. PLANNING ACTION: 2099-09402 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff Architect for Robin Bierman DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification to a.2010. and 2011 Si#e Review and Conditional Use Permit(PAs 20.10-60992.6 2099-00043)approvals to adjust the approved structure based on findings of a recent survey,As adjusted, the proposed home will be ac 8%, over the MPFA where 9% was approved. Additionally, the request includes a`Tree Removal Permit request to remove three(3)trees which were to be retained as per the previous approval. The subject property is located at 400 Allison Street, Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. Ms. Kencairn recused herself because sheds the landscape architect on the project. She left the room. Helland Hoff said the original site plan was inaccurate and the property was actually longer and narrower.than originally shown: Asa result the footprint of the house had to be modified in order to meet setbacks. One bump-out was removed and several of the interior rooms decreased in size. Ms. Renwick felt the back entrance was still fairly prominent. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3!30/2012 CITY OF ASHLAND Mr. Gi'ordeno.made a motion.to recommend approval of the modification as shown. Ms.Renwick seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Ms.`Kencairn`returned to the meeting. PLANNING ACTION: 2411-01377 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 151 Church Street APPLICANT. Steve Schein DESCRIPTION: A request fora Modification to a 2005 MinorLand Partition(2005-004)fora Building Envelope Modification and a Tree Removal Permit to address six(6)trees which were removed withoutpermits following the partition approval. The request also involves the request to remove two(2)additional trees which are located within the modified building envelope. Additionally, based on a slope analysis conducted by an Oregon Licensed Surveyor, the Planning Director has determined the proposed development is not subject to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands because the slope,based on the natural grade of the property is less than 25%. The Development Standards for Hillside Land apply to lands with slopes 25%and greater. The applicant has submitted a slope analysis establishing the natural grade of the property between 18.8 and 20.3%. The subject property is located at 151 Church Street. Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest, Mr. Giordano explained that he had worked on the original design but not on this current plan. He said he would like to stay to hear the discussion but wanted to abstain from voting.Ms.Kencairn also worked on the project but there was no financial involvement. The Commissioners agreed they could both stay. Ms.Gunter explained that the new house design was more of a modern ranch style with fake stone on the front and a 2-car attached garage. No elevations were submitted with the plans but the developer had built several other homes of this style. There were also several trees that were removed from the site that were supposed to have been kept. The Commissioners felt the proposed footprint is not historically compatible and is out of character with the neighborhood. They want to see elevations that show a style more in keeping with the historic district including recessing the garage behind the front facade a minimum of 10-30 feet. Chairman Shostrom made a motion to deny the modification based on these concerns. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it passed. l Mr. Giordano excused himself from the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: None B. Review Board Schedule I November 3,d Terry, Keith All November 101 Terry,Allison, Ker November 171" _Terry,Ally, Tom November 23,d Wed Terry,Allison December Ist Terry, Dale December 8th Terry, Keith C. Project Assi nments for Planning Actions-no changes BD-2007-01764 160 Helman Batzer-Comm Bld s Recession Extension approved hostromlGiordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia Wy(formerly 165 Lithia)Archerd&Dresner Mixed Use Bids-tJ xptred rrr1Q) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork-New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(under consholion) Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown)Mixed Use Bldg (permit Issued 5-18-11)) Giordano PA-2009-00785 255 E Main (Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(No permit yet;expired 8127110.) Swink PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer(Dell)Terrell (no permit-code compliance letter written) Shostrom Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 313012012 CITY OF -ASHLAND BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR (Ready to issue) Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh Annie McIntyre) issued 7-12-11 Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Charter ARU issued 7-11-11 Swink 13D-2011-01059 260 First St S ken house to retail sales (appea Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch &food truck no ermft Giordano BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR(Ready to issue Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building under construction Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic Fors h)Solar Variance (issued 7-1511} Phelps DISCUSSION ITEMS: There was some additional discussion regarding the 247 Sixth St demo. Ms. Gunter said the owner had taken interior pictures showing the poor construction such as not using proper headers and installing odd bracing designs, Ms, Renwick still feels the 2-story design is not suited to the neighborhood. Ms. Gunter reviewed an article from Terry Skibby containing information about the Nosler family and their production of the Nosler bullet. Their original home is now used as a shop on the SOU campus. He thinks it may be torn down during the expansion of SOU and wants it listed on the National Historic Register. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. I E f 1 i Ashland Hlstorlc Commission Minutes 3/30/2012 Planning Department,51 Wino,--Way,Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y ® F FRI 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashfand.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: 2099-09452 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison OWN ERIAPPLICANT: Heiland Hoff Architect for Robin Bierman DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification to a 2010 and 2011 Site Review and Conditional Use Permit(PAs 2010-00992 &2011- 00043)approvals to adjust the approved structure based on findings of a recent survey.As adjusted, the proposed home will be at 8%, over the MPFA where 9%was approved. Additionally, the request includes a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three (3) trees which were to be retained as per the previous approval. The subject property is located at 400 Allison Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 9E 098D; TAX LOT: 94202 NOTE: Tile Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on November 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room),located at 51 Winburn Way NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this PIanning Action on November 3,2011 at 6:00 p.m,in the Community Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room)located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 20, 2099 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: November 3, 2019 EJ I [ / Y W----YRPORTY D, �/ dOQN-5pt� :. y 3)4E WB41i2O0 '�� �✓ �=� -- — -✓ i. �.. 3� r 3 E M - W 11 a it,30 60 Feet The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97529 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the f comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by fetter, 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 i right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division,Community Development&Engineering Services Building,51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520, If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. G:4camrtnde��planningllvotites\taitedl2[3l E12011-01452.docs SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72,070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water,sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88,Performance Standards Options, (ORD 2655,1991;ORD 2836,1999) 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 livaWlity 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 arborisfs 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.komm•deviplanning4Yotices lvfailed�203]12011-01952 does AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On October 20, 2011 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2011-01452, 400 Allison. 611 Signato of Employee i I s Gkomm-dWplanningTorms&HandoulslAffidavitof Mailing_Planning kflon Noke,doc I PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10500 A-2011-01452 391E09CA 1200 A-2011-01452 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-2011-01452 391E09BD 14200 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 14000 PA-2011-01452 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--01452 391E09BD 8900 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 14300 PA-2011-01452 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-2011-01452 391E09CA 1300 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 13900 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 13800 LEHMANN RYAN L/ZOE D MOORE PATRICK TRUSTEE ET AL NORAAS MELODY 477 FAIRVIEW ST 470 ALLISON ST 478 ALLISON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10400 PA-2011-01452 391E09CA 8101 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10401 PATERSON THOMAS G PRUFER SUSAN BROUWER TRUSTEE ET REITINGER MARK/BECKY 63 GRESHAM ST AL 625 BST ASHLAND OR 97520 292 TERRACE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 8700 PA-2011-01452�391E0913D 10800 PA-2011-01452 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-2011-01452 391E09BD 8600 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 14100 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 8400 SHISLER LENORE STEWART JEANETTE SWALES COLIN WILLIAM TRUSTEE ET AL 443 ALLISON ST 155 8TH ST 143 EIGHTH ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 i PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 8300 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 8500 PA-2011-01452 391E09BD 10300 VAN DER ZEE KIRT WIGGINTON NANCY CAROL WINCHESTER PATRICE A TRUSTEE ET AL 469 ALLISON ST 453 ALLISON 3450 SACRAMENTO ST 507 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118 PA-2011-01452 PA-2011-01452 26 Heiland Hoff Architecture Polaris Surveying 10-20-2011 1797 Anderson Crk Rd PO Box 459 400 Allison St Talent OR 97540 Ashland OR 97520 NOC I o r h INFORMATION-c.-iOGY Map Maker - 0100 ,.., Appiication 0 Property Data Oalfrfe Legend Hlgtfltghted Featuro $Z ) I thaBulfer II l (1700 - ' - ;'3 thnBuHnfTargat Tax Lot EI OA , _ X01100 10200 Tax Lot Numbers low i00U0 s, K. A 2(10 4. l 3 W a a l/ K. j ':/ '/ / ✓ / '� Tri 3 E 14 441. l- S- 1 1A�rfkO � s 1 f 1� F .: no .- � i m j1 PrAft r, r' _ r 0000 1404 200 '"- ' ' 100 ,JACKSON COUNTY ' 0reg0)1 ,1 �• This map%based on a crV d da+abase .. ..... 2400 i con-pled byJackzoo Count'From a%V6y 780. ............ re=_gans7y for errors,orciss'ans,a f � LIRr ILf1J1 pos—onal amracy.There are no " v,nanlas,arpreasedc,l7,oed. PS°ase reoyTlew^h cc'xed of`w grade pa Per Gea.ed n�,h NapMaker Map vea:edon W201201111:58:17AM u5ng%eb.lack_sonoouny.org HEILAND HOF"F ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects 2011 October 12, 2011 g, City of Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR. 97520 Re: Supplemental Written Findings for Conditional Use Permit Modification Biermann Residence 400 Allison Street To whom it may concern: We have an approved set of plans and have paid for building permits,but when we surveyed the property in order to lay out the building envelope,we discovered that the assessor's parcel information upon which we based our plans was incorrect. The property lines are not where they are shown in the county's records. The assessor's maps show Allison meeting Gresham at a 60 degree angle. The actual angle is 56.125 degrees. Also, the assessor's map doesn't show the T-0" wide strip along the South side. Because of this T-0" wide strip, the lot is actually a little bigger than we thought,4920 square feet instead of the 4917 shown in the approved drawings, but it is narrower due to the smaller angle, and the setbacks are more restrictive. If we built according to our approved plans, several building corners along the Gresham Street frontage would fall outside the setback lines. In addition, there was an on-the-ground misunderstanding of where the property lines were. There are two fences along the Eastern side yard, and we assumed the closest fence followed the property line when in fact the property line approximately follows the other fence. As a result, two trees that were thought to be on the other side of the property line are actually on our property. In our previous application, we proposed (and have since set up)tree protection zones around those two trees. Since we are excavating a basement along the 6-0" side yard setback line, and since the two trees are within the setback area and have a tree protection zone of 6-0" or greater, we discovered that our excavation would fall within the tree protection zone for those two trees, A third tree, around which we had proposed (and have since set up) tree protection, was discovered to be on the City's list of banned street trees. This street tree is not within our property lines,but it is too close to the building utilities and power. Due to these discrepancies, it is necessary to revise our plans. This Ietter provides Supplemental Written Findings to accompany our Conditional Use Permit Modification application package. 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 hei land@hei landhoffarchitecture.corn page 1 OCT 2011 HEILAND HOF'F ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects Summary of Modifications This paragraph summarizes the differences between the approved CUP design and the proposed modification. First, it is necessary to remove the English Walnut and the Norway Maple, (shown on the tree protection plan as Trees Number 12 and 13 respectively). We will mitigate the tree removal by adding new trees to retain a buffer between our dwelling and the building to the East. We are also proposing removing the Siberian Elm street tree(shown on the tree protection plan as Tree Number 11), since it is of a species banned by the City. We removed the stair and walkway leading from the front porch to Gresham street, committing the sense of entry completely to Allison. Furthermore, it is necessary to move the entire Western side of the building in a few feet to avoid building within the Gresham Street setback area. To do this, we reduced the size of the front porch, the front foyer, the Great Room, the kitchen, and the back porch, and we pulled the laundry room out from between the kitchen and the elevator and moved it to a small addition on the South side of the building. Making these changes resulted in a minor rearrangement of the windows and small changes to the first floor roof. The roof plan for the second floor and the open space above the Great Room has not changed. The building area has been reduced from 2045 to 2023 square feet. We are still at eight percent over MPFA. 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 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.) Compared to the approved CUP design, the proposed height has not changed. The footprint coverage of our proposed modification is smaller than the approved CUP design. The bulk is also slightly diminished, 1797 anderson creek road, talent, Oregon 97540 tet. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heitand Cheilandhoff architecture.corn page 2 O 2011 HEILe,AN® HOF'F ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Our single family dwelling will generate Iess 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 modification,with its smaller building footprint and more historical windows in the South dormer, will improve the architectural 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. 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. 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heitand@heitandhoffarchitecture.com page 3 HEILAND HOF'F ARCHITECTURE OCR€ 20111 specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects Historic District Design Standards 1. Height Compared to the approved CUP design,the 2"floor roof plan has not changed. The actual height of the highest ridge has not changed. As calculated by the city, the midpoint of the highest ridge is also the same. 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 habitable area has been reduced by 22 square feet. 3. Massing Compared to the approved CUP design, the massing arrangement has changed slightly. We reduced the size of the front porch, the front foyer,the Great Room, the kitchen, and the back porch, and we pulled the laundry room out from between the kitchen and the elevator and moved it to a small addition on the South side of the building. Since the lot area is actually larger than we thought, particularly in the North-South direction,these changes actually increase the size of the backyard, even with the laundry room addition. This visually decreases the massing. In the approved CUP design, the stairs leading off the front porch towards Gresham consumed some front yard space. Removing these stairs visually reduces the massing. 4. Setbacks The setbacks are the primary reason for this application. The approved site plan showed setbacks that were more generous than what actual conditions allow. We have reduced the building size as required to remain within the actual setbacks. 5. Roof Shape The second floor roof has not changed. The second floor roof is the most prominent, since it fortes the"horizon" of the building. Compared to the approved CUP design, the first floor roof has changed slightly. The general shape of the roof remains the same,but because the first floor walls are pushed back closer to the second floor, the height of the first floor roof has been reduced accordingly. 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heitand@heitandhoffarchitecture.com page 4 OCT 17 HEILAN[D HOF'F ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects 6. Rhythm of Openings Compared to the approved CUP design, the rhythm of openings has changed slightly on two sides. The North side, which faces Allison, has no changes. On the East side, which faces the side yard, the windows are also exactly the same as in the approved design. The West side, which faces Gresham,has one new window in the laundry room addition, labeled L in the plans. It is a small window measuring T-6" by T-S". It matches the West-facing kitchen windows, which have not changed. The South side, which faces the back yard, has three proposed window changes. In the previously-approved CUP, the South dormer window could not match the North dormer windows because the first floor roof was too tall. The South dormer therefore contained a single awning window instead of the attractive pair of double-hung windows that graced the North dormer. In this design,the first floor roof is slightly shorter, allowing room for a pair of double-hung windows, labeled P1 and Q1 on the plans. The South dormer now exactly matches the North dormer. This provides a more historically compatible context. Because the size of the kitchen has been reduced, there is no longer room for the pair of casements in the South elevation. They were replaced with a single casement, labeled M. The pair of casements were Y-3" wide, the proposed single casement is only T-6" wide. Also in the South elevation, a new double hung window is proposed in the dining area. This window is labeled P. In our opinion, the only change to the rhythm of openings that is visibly noticeable is the historical improvement to the South dormer. 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 stair and walkway leading from the front door to Gresham have been removed, committing the sense of entry completely to Allison Street. Still,the front porch and the side profile of the front steps assures that the location of the front door remains clearly apparent from Gresham Street. 1797 anderson creek road, tatent, Oregon 97540 tet. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heitand Cheitandhoff architecture.corn page 5 0(-1. 2011 HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects 9. Platforms Compared to the approved CUP design, there is no change in the expression of raised platforms. 10. Imitation Compared to the approved CUP design, there is no change in the imitation of earlier architectural styles. We anticipate and appreciate the support of the planning staff. 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@heilandlioffarchite'cture.com. Sincerely, Heiland Hoff Principal Architect 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heitandCheilandhoffarchitecture.com page 6 HeILAN[D HOF'F ARCHITECTURE oc"r r specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects October 11, 2011 City of Ashland Planning Department 20 E.Main St. Ashland, OR.97520 Re: Modification to Tree Protection Plan Biermann Residence 400 Allison Street This application is for the modification of the approved tree protection plan. In addition to the tree protection and removal already approved, we are proposing removal of three trees, labeled on the attached tree removal plan. A letter is attached from a certified arborist clearly explaining the necessity for which the tree removal is warranted. The first tree,Tree Number 11, is a Siberian Elm Tree, which is of a species that is banned as a street tree by the City. It is located on Gresham Street outside the property lines. It is directly below the power lines and is situated just inches from a fire hydrant, the telephone service box, and the power service. Tree Number 12 is an English Walnut with a 6-0" TPZ. In the original tree protection plan, it is shown as being retained because it was believed to be far enough away from the basement excavation that it would not hamper construction,but the new survey indicates that it is about two feet to the West of where it was shown. Excavation will cut into the tree protection zone. It is necessary to remove the tree in order to excavate the basement. Tree Number 13 is a Norway Maple with a 10'-0"TPZ. Again, the new survey indicates that excavation of the basement will infringe upon the TPZ. It is necessary to remove the tree in order to excavate the basement. 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 heiland @heilandhoffarchitecture.com page 1 HEILAND HOF'F ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects 15,61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal-Staff Pennit 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 rvith other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design acid Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The StaffAdvisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application. The removal of the three trees is consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters,protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Removal of Tree Number 11 will have no impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Because of its small size and close proximity to building utilities, it is neither necessary nor practical to remove the stump. It will simply be cut off close to the ground to keep the future growth from damaging building utilities. Trees Number 12 and 13 are right next to the basement. The excavation for stump removal will have no more effect on soil stability than the excavation for the basement itself. Upon completion of the building, the ground around the building will be stabilized with approved hardscaping and landscaping, so the impact on erosion, soil stability, and flow of surface waters will be minimal. The trees are not close enough to other trees to provide protection for other trees or be part of any existing windbreak. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact oil the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant all exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree rentoval 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. 1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540 tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.corn page 2 HEILgAND H®FF ARCHITECTURE specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects There are many trees within 200 feet of the property. The removal of these three trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity. Trees Number 12 and 13 provide a buffer between the proposed residence and the existing residence to the east. Consequently, two trees of a species that can create a similar buffer within a two-five year period after planting are proposed, as shown on the revised landscape plan. These trees will mitigate any impact. 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. The applicant will mitigate for the removal of each tree as identified in the landscape plan. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. You may reach me at(541) 944-9639. Sincerely, Heiland Hoff Principal Architect 1797 anderson creek road, talent, Oregon 97540 tel. (543) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588 hei land @hei land hoff architecture.corn page 3 FAMILY - -MB� PROMPT OWNE �f CIAIT OPERATED SERVIC TCI�- SINCE 1984 VOICE OF TREE CARE I n(y. MEDFORD 779-7072 ® CENTRAL POINT 664-1614 ® ASHLAND 488-0802 September 29, 2011 Ashland Planning Dept, 20 E. Main St . Ashland, OR 97520 To Whom it May Concern; Our company submitted a Tree Protection Plan for 400 Allison, in Ashland, this letter is a revision to that plan. The following trees need to be removed for construction to proceed. These trees will interfeer with the basement being dug out and would lead to the death of these trees. Tree Number 11 is a Siberian Elm, a species banned as a street tree by the City of Ashland. It should be removed. Tree Number 12 has a TPZ radius of V-0". It is approximately 4'-0" from the excavation for the basement. Excavation inside the TPZ will harm or kill the tree. The tree should be removed. Tree Number 13 has a TPZ radius of 10'-0", It is approximately 5'-0" from the excavation for the basement. Excavation Inside the TPZ will harm or kill the tree, The tree should be removed. Sincerely, Clarence V. Wangle Certified Arborist PN-051A Beaver Tree Service, Inc. oc'f 17 M111 270 Wilson Road, Central Point, OR. 97502- CCB Number; 173914 BE"ER Olt oeM��� C SERVICE VOICE OF TREE CARE MEDFORD 779-7072 CENTRAL PINT 664-1614 ASHLAND 488-0802 September 29, 2011 Ashland Planning Dept. 20 E. Main St . Ashland, OR 97520 To Whom it May Concern: Our company submitted a Tree Protection Plan for 400 Allison, in Ashland, this letter is a revision to that plan. The following trees need to be removed for construction to proceed. These trees will interfeer with the basement being dug out and would lead to the death of these trees. Tree Number 11 is a Siberian Elm, a species banned as a street tree by the City of Ashland. It should be removed. Tree Number 12 has a TPZ radius of 6-0". It is approximately 4'-0" from the excavation for the basement, Excavation inside the TPZ will harm or kill the tree. The tree should be removed. Tree Number 13 has a TPZ radius of 10'-0". It is approximately 5'-0" from the excavation for the basement. Excavation inside the TPZ will harm or kill the tree. The tree should be removed. Sincerely, I Clarence V. Wangle Certified Arborist PN-051A Beaver Tree Service, Inc. OCT 3 2011 270 Wilson Road, Central Point, OR. 97502 - CCB Number; 173914 fl yy, V'V cp o w Y{ SN DRIVEWAY CUT ; :'t - 4�....y \. F o l _64e k i R I � y o 4 y � UIOUS 09t, FA VIIJ �\ z / 0- z / l9 w z \\ n S „OO,LO.00 S � w 0 —� w ^ IL �h 1 w J w 5 a W W E W o a Ul F rc o uj } LU MNzF Fp. WNN IL � O ® O O O 06 UIa� n 2 W ZO - I Op�p'<w �7 ZJVYm� �4 iE iE l LL i �� �4; Ell,ul i � i i 7g_ � x RJAJ tn N to \ ly ly Z \ � W �o = �kb err 4t �ovvaias aav�ais�taoo„o-,oi/� �o---- co lu � N � V ry% W m f X-c ,z-.e d �0 0 I O ® O O 1 Y�V i�IIIK� I n � - - II II II � II � r zi 11 .a-.s uawo,p-iquv 5, z o ®f® UOS!I oot ri 1 s c _ rte``° � MEMia 0 110i SUFF&P " l l z — _ 4 0 ons j�`` a o �- E MCI PP \ III NEU 6 F III II III \ � o� 1111111111 �\� .I/� 1 11111;1 ��. II I I I I I I I 11111'1111111 1111'11111 � X11 I;lilil;I;lil 1;11111 111111111 III i '. I \ III I I 111111 Q I I I I I I ❑ i �,��.�� 'I 111 i�l 111 °❑ ® 111 III ❑ - 111111 111 111 I I I I 111 11111 I' 111 III 111111;1;1111111' I;I 1111 © --��----- 1 1111111 111 '111111 111 I I 1111'1' 111 ❑ � 0 ® ® 6 �^ 0 0 ® ® 111 v a 1'11'11 I 1 111 o e �� - '° %D IY 57 g L�Iy�jj .......... ,.9VE II tit ;GIs _ rn.3 E wig UR®U lip JIM 91g 1 i s i s 3 E q � I gx ro HIM IM 1,131, � l N, IN S i i iii u © �`' o t\ �S ti V is b4 o Q ✓ �' W�` aft P24SUDS.Wooi, ip3 l j j d •� n N i a u i '77 Fri- �' w»s� a sssstos'wsv� aluaayQatti,adeaspne� � 4 i��F� OZ5L6 N053210`aNV]HSW OZSC6eo•aueFM US6Z9TLtSDcej 19W rssw -1roi IIIEJ i0 x Y ° '1S NOSMV OOb c-4 NNVNb018 N18O23 JNI'113M®M3N tE == w s wa E tO ''^^ EmOR> >LLKHu m° VS F 1 15 E 2-E' U _E�� - / E w w /. YI6Q4QQmULL2�,�� 2a�K$ T' �` i /oo l \ L x y�.yY ,w•r .,ter 0 K. 0 1 } _ G M^� -� Q El 11 c' C? -T m Y 7� r I rn ZQ r - m m c ?+Y C) m Q z aE m 1 2 = Z U 1 lilt 1 v as r C ytmCL _ \ 1 C3 co r - o u ac CL U QQK c7 N QG� J N W Q asnsros IE�II2x o O6 NO320` Nb 1HSV o�6HO'PRM ZLS629CLVS J rosesvros rol II J 11 F yg Y a m '1S NOSMV 00t, M J�o LA vSO m 91141113M®MBIN z s x ss e^ a t m £z R3 HH, O w z o i Q g z o %7 u : g pOL g u 'b 'a OQ❑ �m Es o 9'�E� rv� n m` Z a $ Sm w odd A � ow Gov s°Hs, eRM� a� - °R _ d Of > -3aaA3� s IA a I — — 1 1 — --------------- ---h- -� d _x I i 1 BE - I / 1' Ids pf ; i - 2 -------------� _ i El 2 , / 1 / / / 1 / --------------- - cl w z O � i,�, ,� Department ZO><AG PERMIT APPLICATION c I r Y Or 51 Winburn Way,Ashland OR 97520 FILE# f ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 1vo Assessor's Map No.391E Tax Lot(s) CaC� Zoning g 2 Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name at LAU L2 ----EE-Phone '1 - 16 E-Mail h eE 1 d A 0T2rc�`f6rbk, c� Address �- `� F14/ city LE=OT Zip PR PERTY OWNER Name ,3/�;/ �,r Phone. - la E•Mail 7��1�13ln1 Address d Clty zip SYRY1=YOR.ENGINEE&ARCH TECT L ANDSCAPE gRCHITECT,,OTHER Title Name ff ; Phone '�; - E i 11 1 Address _ &0 ° Gify. i S VA Lt�.O ,— Zip Title 1A al7 Name hl ` _Phone LI-4 E=Mail -jz : Address. Clfy ����, � r Zip_9 I I hereby cefflytttat the statements and information con talnedin this appiloallon,including the enclosed drawings and the.requlred findings of fact;:are In all respects, true and correct. i understand(haf all property pins most be shown OR the draWings and visible upon the site inspection. In the evert the pins are riot shorn or their focaflon found to be incorrect,the owner assumes frill responsiblilly.l further understand that if this request Is subsequently contested,tl�burden wflf be on me to establish, 1) that t produced sufficient factuat evidence at the hearing to support this request 2) that the findings offact furnished justifies:the granting of the request 3) that the findings offact furnished by me are adegriak and further 4) that at1 structures or Improvements are property located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the roquest being set aside,but also possibly In my structures tieing built In reliance thereon being required to be reproved at rr�regard.will if I have any doubts,l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Appl' ant'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:. Prop6rty Owner's S.Ignafure (required) Date [To be cvrnp�ed by c+ly Stag � Date Received . c „._ Zoning Permit TYPe � rifw_..5. - A.I[--T.: li J � .'.�� ��,.. ...;.± v .ti/T.-4a xti;.??...,r✓-Ns: ''v;:_.... ,—o.....r>i?'✓.. .uK.,"'o-.� :�a�.. `�`^ / Job Address: 400 ALLISON ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C q Owner's Name: ROBIN BIERMANN phone: Customer#: 02392 . State Lie No: P, HEILAND HOFF T' City Lic No: Applicant: R' Address: A C Sub-Contractor: C q; phone: (549) 944-9639 " Address: T' N' Applied: 10/17/2011 0 'r Issued: Expires: 04114/2012 R Phone; State Lic No: Maplot: City Lic No; DESCRIPTION: Modification to CUP to exceed MPFA,Tree Removal Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: IFMECHANICAL ELECTRICAL ,, " STRUCTlJF;AL PI�RMITF�[=DETAIL;; Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Administrative Action (other) 318.00 CONDITIONS OF.APPROVRL I III COMMUNITY DE=VELOPMENT 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 CI I' Y O F LAASHND