Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCoolidge_111_PA-2012-01737 CITY F February 8, 2013 ASHLAND Randall Wallace 111 Coolidge St Ashland OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #PA-2012-01737 Notice of Final Decision On February 8, 2013, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved your request for the following: PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01737 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 111 Coolidge APPLICANT: Randall Wallace DESCRIPTION: A Site Design Review Permit approval for multi-family development for three new dwelling units and one converted structure, all less than 500 square feet; a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing non-conforming garage into a dwelling unit; an exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to install parking in between buildings and the street; and an Exception to the Street Standards for more than one curb cut on a residential lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi- family Residential ; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05DA TAX LOT: 5900 The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13t" 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. 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: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 f A TTY: 800-735-2900 L~ www.ashland.or,us ` - ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01737 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 111 Coolidge APPLICANT: Randall Wallace DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to allow five-unit multi-family development consisting of three new dwelling units and one converted structure, all less than 500 square feet, in addition to the existing home located at 111 Coolidge Street. Also included are requests for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing non-conforming garage into a dwelling unit; an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to install parking between buildings and the street; and an Exception to the Street Standards to allow more than one curb cut on a residential lot, and defer sidewalk installation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05DA TAX LOT: 5900 SUBMITTAL DATE: December 10, 2012 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: December 18, 2012 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: February 8, 2013 APPEAL DEADLINE: February 20, 2013 FINAL DECISION DATE: February 21, 2013 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: February 21, 2014 DECISION The subject parcel is a rectangular lot located at the northeast corner of Rock and Coolidge Streets. The property and surrounding uses are zoned R-2, Low-Density Multi-Family Residential, and is located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. A 13-unit apartment complex also bounds the property to the north, and a single-family residence (95 Coolidge) to the east. The parcel is 13,526 square feet, and slopes approximately 10 percent to the north- northeast. The property contains a 1,280 square foot single-family home that fronts onto Coolidge Street, and a 483 square foot, non-conforming, detached garage placed on the Rock Street boundary line. Both Coolidge and Rock streets have a 50-foot right-of-way, with an improved width of 30 feet, and each street frontage has a curb cut. There are no sidewalks anywhere in the neighborhood, with the exception of the subject property along Coolidge Street, which is non-conforming due to the grade change between the street (curb) and the sidewalk. ~ The home is known as the `Eli Alberts House' according to the Skidmore Academy Historic District survey document, and was built between 1898 and 1907. According to survey documents, "the single-story gable volume with a projecting clipped-gable wing retains its original siding, glazing, and door and window trim... which retains sufficient integrity to relate to its period of development; therefore, the Eli Alberts house is considered a Historic Contributing resource Within the historic districts, properties are subject to a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) based on lot area and the number of units proposed. The MPFA for the parcel is 3,774 square feet, while the project proposes a total floor area is 3,259 square feet. i PA 92012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 1 The current application requests to construct three 498 square foot, one-bedroom dwelling units in the rear of the property; and to convert the existing non-conforming garage into a 483 square foot dwelling unit; for a total of four additional dwelling units on the property. At the permitted density of 13.5 units per acre, the 13,526 square feet parcel can accommodate 4.2 units [(13,526/43,560) x 13.5 = 4.19]. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.24.040 states that "units not considered accessory to the primary dwelling, and are less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area, shall count as 0.75 of a unit for the purposes of density calculations. " All four proposed units are less than 500 square feet, therefore collectively count as only three units [4 x .75 = 3] in considering the density of the property. With the inclusion of the primary dwelling, the application proposes the maximum number of dwelling units permitted on the property. The project requires one parking space for each unit less than 500 square feet, and two spaces for the primary dwelling for a total of six parking spaces. One of the four units will be within the existing garage, located on the Rock Street frontage approximately 40 feet from the north property line. The garage is considered to be a non- conforming structure because it is located on the property line abutting the Rock Street right-of- way, and does not meet required setbacks. A Conditional Use Permit is therefore required for the conversion of the garage into a dwelling unit. The applicant's findings state that the applicants originally considered demolishing the structure, but after meeting with the Historic Review Board, neighbors, and contractors, the applicants decided to retain the structure as part of the neighborhood's historic feel. The applicants indicate that the garage remodel will be simple and discreet, and not compete against the main house. The findings continue to say that by preserving the historic structure, and integrating it into the design along with mature landscaping, it will significantly add to integrity of the district. Staff agrees that retaining the non-conforming structure as a dwelling unit will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood; that the improvements to the structure are consistent in bulk, scale, and coverage with the surrounding R- 2 zoning district, and will not adversely impact the target use of the area. The Historic Commission noted issues with the proposed architectural compatibility with the garage conversion, therefore made recommendations discussed further below. The remaining three units are proposed as a single, detached structure oriented towards Rock Street, but further than 30 feet from the street in the northwest corner of the property. The proposed structure will have horizontal wood siding and composite roofing matching the existing E home, but most similar to the adjacent apartment buildings to the north. The findings state that while there are many architectural styles in the neighborhood, the proposed building is in keeping within the area's traditional architecture, and will add positively to the area. The Historic Commission at their January 2, 2013 meeting expressed concerns that the units are not consistent with the facades of the adjacent historic buildings, and that the design turns its back on the street. Therefore, the Historic Commission provided recommendations concerning the design of the, buildings that more closely meet the historic district design standards. These recommendations include: 1) that revised plans and building elevation drawings be provided to demonstrate a well- defined sense of entry, including a minimum four-foot by four-foot covered entry porch over the front doors of the units with four-foot by four-foot landings, and post-and-beam supported roof where decorative dormers are shown; 2) that high windows shall be placed in the converted garage structure to provide a rhythm of openings and sense of orientation along the Rock Street frontage; 3) that the front doors shall have rectangular (prairie or cottage style) glazing for the windows, and will be constructed of wood; 4) that smooth textured one-by-six Hardi-plank® siding with a minimum six-inch exposure shall be used for the siding material; and 5) that the PA #2012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 2 trim on the windows, doors and corner boards shall be one-inch by four-inches. Staff concurs with the Historic Commission's recommendations, and a condition has been added below to make these recommendations conditions of the approval. Design Standard II-B-lc notes that buildings shall be accessed from the street and sidewalks. But in reviewing the landscape plan, staff finds access to both rights-of-way to be difficult given the proposed landscape configuration. Therefore a condition has been added that a more direct pathway of an all-weather surface (i.e. pavers) leading to the street be clearly shown on the revised landscape plan. The trash and recycling. area is proposed along the north property line, and five covered bicycle racks are proposed east of the existing garage. Water, storm water, and sewer lines are also proposed and identified on the site plan provided. There is available capacity within the adjacent public rights-of-way to serve the new units, and additional utilities will be installed by the applicant to City requirements. Two off-street parking spaces are proposed, including one van accessible space, north of the existing garage utilizing an existing curb cut on Rock Street located close the north boundary line; and two additional parking spaces are proposed off of Coolidge Street utilizing the existing curb cut located east of the home. The City's Site Design and Use Standards requires that parking areas not be located between the building and street. Therefore, the applicant has requested an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to install parking in between buildings and the street, and an Exception to the Street Standards to have more than one curb cut per lot. The findings point out that the property has historically had two curb cuts on the property, and the application proposes to utilize both these curb cuts to satisfy three of the six required parking spaces, while applying three on-street parking credits for the remaining three dwelling units. The findings explain that an internal parking lot could not feasibly work given the size of the property and placement of the existing structures; along with the required dimensions as it would consume a large amount of yard area that could otherwise be preserved as a more functional, central open space, and would likely necessitate unneeded tree removals and create other zoning issues. In addition, an internal parking lot would create views of asphalt on two sides of the units instead of landscaped areas; and would have a substantial adverse impact to the neighbor to the east, as the property would be bounded by parking areas on three sides. The applicant explained that they have attempted to design plans with an internal parking lot, but the design created a multi-story development that created solar access problems as well as handicap accessibility constraints, and the application asserts that the submitted plan is more compatible with the established neighborhood. i In reviewing the request, staff notes that the two existing curb cuts are an established condition and are consistent with the established development pattern in the neighborhood. By providing two smaller parking areas from the existing curb cuts, and by utilizing on-street parking credits I along Rock Street to further reduce the off-street parking required rather than providing a single large internal parking lot, the applicants are able to provide a more cohesive central commons for the development while reducing the adverse impacts of parking on adjacent properties. Therefore, staff finds the exception request to install parking in between buildings and the street, and to have two curb cuts is justified in the findings provided. i PA #2012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 3 The landscape plan indicates that 1,321 square feet, or 9.8 percent of the lot will be dedicated as recreational space, however staff is unclear how the 1,321 square feet would be allocated to each unit. A condition of approval has been added below to require that a revised landscape plan that clearly delineates the appropriate amount of recreational space available to each unit shall be included within the building permit submittals, and that this plan shall demonstrate that in total an amount equal to or greater than the required eight percent of the lot area be deemed as recreational space. The application proposes to remove four trees on the property; a 12-inch Plum on the Rock Street boundary line, a ten-inch Almond in the center of the lot, and two unmaintained ten-inch Pear trees. In considering the request, the Tree Commission at its January 3, 2013 meeting questioned the removal of a healthy Almond Tree. to replace it with a Flowering Cherry. The applicant noted that he is not attached to removing the Almond, and if the Commission would rather retain the tree he would agree to the recommendation. In addition, a neighbor requested that the Commission recommend that a vegetative screen be installed along the mutual property boundary line to screen the proposed development from the neighbor. The applicant also agreed to this recommendation. These recommendations of the Tree Commission have been added as conditions of approval below. The application also requests the deferral of required sidewalk installation until a Local Improvement District (LID) can be formed to comprehensively plan sidewalk installation in the area. The applicant's findings agree that safe sidewalks are an important component to the development of a neighborhood, but due to the grade changes, narrow dimensions, and other obstructions, the applicant requests that sidewalk installation simply be deferred until a fully developed plan addressing all nuances and hardships on the subject property, as well as surrounding properties, be developed; and proposes to sign in favor of an LID instead. The City of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards and Street Design Standards calls for the installation of adequate transportation facilities in conjunction with development proposals, which in this instance would include seven- to eight-foot park row planting strips and five- to six-foot sidewalks along the full Rock Street frontage. In considering the requested Exception, staff noted that along the subject property's Rock Street frontage, there appears to be approximately eleven { feet of available right-of-way between the curb and the property line. Within this right-of-way are two established trees greater than six-inches in diameter, as well as two power poles that are approximately three and a half feet from the back of curb, as well as a slight grade change to the north. Further, down the block, between the subject property and Maple Street, it appears that there is one large tree and another power pole that would make a sidewalk configuration with a standard park r-o-w planting strip difficult, and that some of the homes are constructed very near the right-of-way line. In staff's view, the proposed increase in residential density, the utilization of on-street parking credits to meet parking demand, the two proposed curb cuts, and the fact that adequate right-of- way is available for sidewalk installation on the subject property's Rock Street frontage support requiring sidewalk installation with the proposal. The slight grade change and existing obstructions within the right-of-way (trees and power poles) present a demonstabte difficulty for construction of a sidewalk. Staff advisor finds installation shall be deferred to such time that a comprehensive plan that accounts for all theses constraints can be adequately addressed. A j condition has been added below to require the applicants sign in favor of an LID for the PA #2012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 4 installation of sidewalks on both the Rock Street and Coolidge Street frontages prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. In considering the proposal, staff finds that the location is well suited to accommodate these small residential units given its relative proximity to the hospital, bus route, the neighborhood park. and downtown shopping. In staff's view, with the attached conditions, the proposal can be found to meet the minimum requirements of the Site Review chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code. 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, 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. The criteria for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards described in AMC Chapter 18.72.090, as follows: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. (Ord 3054, amended 1211612011) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards described in AMC Chapter 18.88.050 as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. (ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2836, 1999) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. PA #2012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 5 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. The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Planning Action 2012-01026 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 2012-01026 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. P 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with E 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 current Site Review and Conditional Use permit approvals shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That the proposed units shall not be utilized as a Traveler's Accommodation (i.e. vacation short-term rentals) without first obtaining Conditional Use Permit approval from the Planning Division in accordance with AMC 18.24.030. 4) That the electric service shall be installed underground to serve the proposed units prior to issuance of the building permit. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. 5) That the applicant sign in favor of an Local Improvement District (LID) for the installation of sidewalks along both the Rock and Coolidge Street frontages. 6) Building permit submittals shall include: a. That the building permit submittals shall incorporate the recommendations of the Historic Commission's January 2, 2013 meeting, including: 1) that revised plans and building elevation drawings be provided to demonstrate a well-defined sense of entry, including a minimum four-foot by four-foot covered entry porch over the front doors of the units with four-foot by four-foot landings, and post-and-beam supported roof where decorative dormers are shown; 2) that high windows shall be placed in the converted garage structure to provide a rhythm of openings and sense of orientation along the Rock Street frontage; 3) that the front doors shall have rectangular (prairie or cottage style) glazing for the windows, and will be constructed of wood; 4) that i PA 92012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 6 smooth textured one-by-six Hardi-plankO siding with a minimum six-inch exposure shall be used for the siding material; and 5) that the trim on the windows, doors and corner boards shall be one-inch by four-inches, with the final approval of the Staff Advisor. b. Accessory structures less than 200 square feet shall be clearly shown and identified in the building permit submittals. C. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height - 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade, d. Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 65 percent as required in AMC 18.24. e. That the applicant submit an electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit. Transformers and cabinets shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor, in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. f. A revised landscape and irrigation plan shall be included into the building permit materials and shall include the following: i. Be drawn to scale ii. Clearly indicate the amount of recreational space available either as one shared space between units, or by proving individual areas to each unit of an area of no less than 100 square feet, in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards. iii. Identification of a vegetative screen between the subject property and 95 Coolidge. iv. Identification of direct, all weather pathway system leading from the detached tri-plex to both right-of-ways. V. A revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in AMC 18.61.200 be submitted for review by Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. g. That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of a building permit. h. That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor to demonstrate PA #2012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 7 compliance with Site Design and Use Standards requirements that the materials and colors be compatible with the surrounding area. i. That the exterior lighting shall be directed onto the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Exterior lighting details shall be provided on building permit submittals. 6) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a. That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.72.115.B. b. The inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. All bicycle parking -shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.060.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.060.1. C. That a new address for the accessory unit be applied for and submitted to the GIS Department for approval. d. The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including addressing and fire access shall be complied with prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e. That all hardscaping including the Rock Street sidewalk, landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. f. That off-street parking areas shall incorporate alternative surfacing (i.e. pavers) that minimizes the visual impact of parking areas, g. That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the Rock Street frontage as proposed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Recommended Street Tree Guide and. shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. h. That the area within four feet of the curb line along Rock Street shall be graded to an elevation level to the top of curb. ohiar, Director Date department` of Community Development PA #2012-01737 111 Coolidge SUMP Page 8 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6600 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5700 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9700 75 COOLIDGE LLC ALEMAN HECTOR L JR TRUSTEE BAUER CHARLES/LAURA ROE 521 N MAIN ST 135 COOLIDGE ST 487 ROCK ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 -PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9600 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5200 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6001 BOLTJES GREG/MORENO CONROY EVELYN MARIE DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE 725 JOSEPHINE M. 563 ROCK ST ROYAL AVE 499 ROCK ST ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 8800 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9300 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 4800 DILLING KRISTIN FLEMING REGINA R FOGG CHARLES DOUGLAS 11495 65 WOOLEN WY 130 COOLIDGE ST SE 202ND ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 BORING OR 97009 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9000 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9400 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 8900 GARRETT NATALIE TRUSTEE GREENE FAMILY LLC GREGA SHIRLEY TRUSTEE 70 80 COOLIDGE ST 367 OXFORD ST COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9100 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5302 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6400 HAMILTON MARK C/CAMPBELL- LEONARD JESSICA L LEONE BETH A HAMILTON CHERYL 546 SCENIC DR 551 MAIN ST N 96 COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5400 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5100 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5600 LILLY GRETA THERESE MAYNARD JIM MC RAE M J/V L MORELL 535 ROCK ST 559 S MOUNTAIN 151 COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5300 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5301 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5800 MCNAB MICHAEL/MAXINE MENDOZA THERESA MIHAILOV TERRY ANN TRUSTEE 388 POMPANO CIR 1094 SHORELINE DR 55 LAKE HAVASU AVE S F166 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 SAN MATEO CA 94404 LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ 86403 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9500 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5500 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 4700 MURAWSKI WILLOW NOVICK VICTOR C/TSUTAE H OREGON STATE/DEPT OF TRANS 496 SCENIC DR 532 SCENIC DR 434 TRANSPORTATION BLDG ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SALEM OR 97310 i i PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6200 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6300 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6700 PADILLA GISELA PHILLIPS EDWIN L TRUSTEE 950 SECREST DOROTHY TRUSTEE ET 112 MAPLE ST EXECUTIVE WAY AL ASHLAND OR 97520 REDDING CA 96002 PO BOX 929 OCCIDENTAL CA 94568 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9200 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6000 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5900 STRUB CHARLES M/BECKY L SWALES COLIN WILLIAM 143 WALLACE RANDALL TRUSTEE 488 ROCK ST EIGHTH ST 111 COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 i zoo kil a t WWI AT 77, - w"In .J c W 1 ! t - t I VS, Ali l S $ F ~df T i •4y~ i M.~ [ f1~ Y '~df e~ ~ T i hoc ASIT ~ .,brr~l ~ ~ Ar .=~~''~'.Y, } d'~; ,Xa ~ ~~~~~e~~ ~~•p } ~ fi'g' ~ ~v~ FS .~F,'4- ~ N,r', ♦ ~ it ~9J ~t - s' S~I SON Ilk 1? F~ ~L • aft '~;e .t; r < F e S ..'r - lot yr ti is r f } A! T x 7~ a saw ~ i 61 try ~ j~ 6 ~ l - rt 5 4 4 ,k a s1 a s t i 8 44 ' -f ; MAO 0 1r R~ 1 IBS. f ter: d ~k. ~Ly " ~ i { Win it f a q• - _ t a ~ JJ - 7- t, r too, rye;, y ) 4 r'.: 1 _ ~ +yl t NO t W I, j lips Q ~ 4 ~ ^`FY , ~ ~ ~`+d4 ~ - Win.. ~ ~ • ' ~ I~i e r ~ 1 ~ ^ 9 fr' Ar~pbp t f a tit! i~ a sn* -i h ' r _ _ ~ - :l ; ti J , ~ ~ r t . - 3 tea. 1 r Ty t wont • , ~ r dam- ~ 1 r~~ ~ + ~ , 1 1 µ4 f' Y ti f b V ae•_ l' ~I J 1, ~ 1 , i -t Lt ~ r ~ f a yu ~e t ~l C i 111 < ~ r~~ y~'' _ ~'f~ ✓~`s~~ t. 4 7 t ~ " OR PWW2 i ~ f°N~s ' ~ t ~ ~F ~ ~.~-y,r r3 ~ / e! . ~ t~F ~ iJ ~ r I s- ~ i.. t ~ I tx i s E 1 ~ :7 ~=TL:~ R 3 ~ trn ,4.~.~ C e^'~ ~ .-A. a't~ y ~`1 r + t E r,~~ ~l ~ 1 ~ ~ t ,.4 ~ r ~'s ~7~.~ r .~y ~r 'Kc ~ ~ ~'t`~ ~ ~°+,n ~a.,,~ ~ r ~ as:.,~ -.t ~7y~1' J r ~f7 f rY/E ~ F ~ s~ I~ fF r ° ~ ~aP~' < x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti s ~ :asu ~ F j • k { n". J.: a 4F°y ~v ~r GGG""""' ~r ;i fi~ U r I f:: 'y ~ 1 f aS P'K rt 0. -i'~ ~ 'Fig r 1 rl 5 ~f t 1 r r`p- ~ ~r_ _ ~ S s r . t 7 Fy 1 ~ 1 e - 1 - ,-r r y $t t r L 1 ~ 4 . L Mr ~"aC5 Y ~ f~ F F f~ dt_, I L 1 y t 11' L'h 8 ~'1 11 IV- AF. i i 1 i f , t ~ C ~ : ~ J fat ~ ' a~r~h~1 a• ~ '~p~ sal ~ ~ f i I ' ~T~. 3 f y 4 F. '-2• 24w rE mmm _ I i jr- Fop r..,„.~~~``'~ t ~ ~ d[~JIr' . r . r. 4'~ ,ff.'9~:~' ~ ♦ rte.:^_I ll~z gigillp: ii 11 4i L y t ' { Z4 Tr l 1 P, ~ . 17 t ~a v'x , r 1 y l ii l t I I't 1 hT j Y y 1 i ~ si> ~ ~ _ - iA_ Al 71p 2 y ri c f ! z 7 4 s~1 fc rti Rr ~ E e _ j t i J r W ~ t , t I -XIt ~ y 1 t { III 1 J a r~ I l~ _ 4f , . ~--i- r+ ~x y! u Affov 1r9, ! fff ~T4 a {`:v 1 1 xi r u. k w sr, ~'.it"iS l"N,f~ J r- tt1 _ _ .~I ~ t_ 1<~ 1 'l? per K tr# }yam r,r ~f ,1 - '"+r k ~ x r ~ ~ ~ rkd t ~ 5.1! 1'ft~~ z ~ .Tl~ y~y1 F1 t f t+ 1 rk~W4Jj' +~~M,'~7 r<r rrf~yX,*. ~,11C_~h ♦ ''L a ~ I1 ti" ~ ~'~4 ~Ilr`~ 1 w, ti; s•,.... r ~ d~. ~rl J 4, t '3 e r J rt j{y~2,,~ x £ 3'f. ref a~~, -'gk 7 } {}c{ 1:l 1:l'~ t ye ~ ~i k`~ 1~~"G`. t~ 1~' k;f ~ ~~f b~ wy1rY t, 7 re ,i+j rti t~ +ti s. r 4 N11 s r _iE(a0't' f-! V G~.a~ + ~ ~ ~•_l'3t~ 1 4~ ~ ~~t1 5 Ly y'4 ' ~ r ~ ~ jl ~l v r}I 11 • ti I 1 t Ft' _ r 3 l Sg Kd / I T a t j I a i i I v~ i I I rr r z >C n $ rr ag y tN~ ~ 4x Zimbra Page 1 of 2 i ra pinam@ashland.or.u + Font Size - Re: III ICoolidge From : Randall Wallace <randallmartinwallace@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 31, 2013 04:47 PM, Subject : Re: 111 Coolidge To : michael pina <michael.pina@ashland.or.us> Hey Michael, I just got into email territory and I am responding to your time request. Please extend my time frame for one week ending February 8, 2013 to make your decision. I will be happy to have Marianne come to your office tomorrow to sign something if need be. Please let me know by voice mail as to what to do as I have no access to email during the day. Thank you for your patience Randall Wallace On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Michael Pina <michael.oina(cbashland.or.us> wrote: Oops, i forget the attachement. Here it is. 3 Michael Pirha, Assistant Planner City of Ashland, Planning Division 20 East Main St., Ashland Oregon 97520 michael.oina(d)ashland.or.us Desk = 541.552.2052: Fax = 541.488-6006: TTY = 800.235.2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2052. Thank you. Forwarded Message From: "Michael Pina" <michael.oina(2ashland.or.us> To: "Randall Wallace" <randalimartinwallace@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:32:17 AM Subject: Re: 111 Coolidge Randall, thanks for your message. I brought up your issue to my supervisors and they went out and did a site visit yesterday afternoon. The issue is that Per State law, we have a certain amount of time (45 days) to render a decision. That time is up on Saturday Feb. 2nd, which means we have to mail out a decision by tomorrow; unless you grant us an extension to the 45 day time limit in writing, before 3pm on Friday. In doing so, myself, as well as my supervisors will be happy to listen to your concerns regarding the sidewalk installation. We feel about a week extension should be long enough for us to evaluate your issues and attempt to incorporate them into the decision. From here there are essentially two possibilities; either alter our findings to incorporate your concerns, or proceed as currently written and require sidewalks along the Rock Street frontage. If we chose the second option, your next course of action would be to appeal our decision and request a public hearing at the March Planning Commission. Given the same Sate law that dictates our decision, another statute requires that the application be finalized within 120 days from the date the application was deemed complete, which would be approximately April 18th. If you do decide to appeal the decision, we may be up against another "time wall" and requesting an extension of the 120-day may behoove you in the long run. I've attached the required form for this to note a 30-day extension, if you decide to go that route. But again it may not be necessary depending on your decision. But at any rate, if you would like to make your case regarding the sidewalks next week, then we will need a grant us an extension to the 45 day time limit in writing, before 3pm on Friday. i I hope all this information helps you in your decision. PLEASE don't hesitate to contact me for ANY questions. I will be around all day today and tomorrow. Thanks again, and i look forward to hearing from you. https://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=25746 2/1/2013 j Zimbra Page 2 of 2 Michael Pina, Assistant Planner City of Ashland, Planning Division 20 East Main St., Ashland Oregon 97520 michael.Dina2ashland.or.us Desk = 541.552.2052: Fax = 541.488-6006: TTY = 800.235.2900 This email transmission is official business of the City 6f Ashland, and it fs sul[Jj6~ to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2052. Thank you. Original Message From: "Randall Wallace" <randallmartinwallace(a)amail.com> To: "michael pina" <michael.pina@ashland.or.us> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:43:32 AM Subject: 111 Coolidge Hey Michael, Thanks for the info. Can I ponder this for a couple of days? I was thinking of doing a mock up and maybe having you and a supervisor come over and look at it and the other challenges that this sidewalk offers. I am in Central California and I can't get out right now, but my wife Marianne knows all of the issues as well and maybe she could take my place. Let me know at your earliest convenience if this is possible and will arrange everything from here. Thanks Randy Wallace https:Hzimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/-orintmessage?id=25746 2/1/2013 January 12, 2013 Michael, Thank you for passing on this email to me for my review. I must correct some of the comments from Colin Swales. s~ 1. Even though planning might have suggested the neighborhood outreach to gather consensus for my future development it is certainly not required and is why your office posts these development ideas on my property, in the newspaper, and in written form to all neighbors within 200 feet from my property. That being said, I informed everybody of our desires to create a beautiful living environment on my R-2 zoned property including Colin Swales on the very same day that we agreed to pull out some of his volunteer weed trees. Please understand also that our four one bedroom apartments could not possibly contain "families" as Mr. Swales would like you to believe. While Mr. Swales is correct in that my pre application showed three new units and not four, we made the change to four units for two reasons. First, it shields us more from the apartment complex and their associated parking lot while creating a wonderful commons for all of us to enjoy, but secondly and more importantly, it corrects my misinterpretation of your ordinances concerning R-2 zoning in that a minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated density - Please see zoning ordinance 18.24.040.-This decision came after discussion with staff and makes economical sense as well as provides more affordable small units to the Ashland Housing Market. This decision was also based on my reading of the City's 2002 and 2012 Housing Needs Analysis where both documents clearly encourage an increase in smaller apartments. My understanding of the code is we could have proposed three larger units that would be counter to the density and affordability goals of the City and would likely create a greater volume of structure the surrounding residential neighbors would have to look at. I understand attempting to balance infill within existing core historic areas is challenging, but I believe we have painstakingly considered the possibilities and alternative scenarios and have concluded the proposal is a sensitive proposal and complies with the code and its policies, but I'm prepared to address this issue in detail with the City Council. In my review of both documents, the data is pretty conclusive that Ashland needs more multi-family rental housing and our proposal complies with that fact 100%. 2. Reminiscing back through history doesn't really matter to me as I purchased the home exactly as it is seen right now. Mr. Swales offers opinions and a picture of times gone by. We are simply taking a rundown garage and turning it into something more beautiful for the neighborhood. We have even suggested to planning, after the approval from the historic commission, that we favor installing a carriage door on Rock St. to further enhance its historic beauty. As for the triplex, it is within the Ashland master plan and meets current zoning ordinances. In addition, the 2012 Housing Needs Analysis, pages 5-5, encourages redevelopment and adaptive reuse of existing structures as a strategy to accomplish additional small residential units, specifically in areas close to the downtown. 3. As to adding sidewalks to nowhere on Rock St., We couldn't agree more that a neighborhood with sidewalks is advantageous and more charming. Together with planning, building and safety, and city engineering, let's get this sidewalk dilemma corrected. I will personally offer my 30 years of general contracting and development experience to head up this effort as a volunteer and let's get the sidewalks completed as a whole and make it correct. 4. Is Mr. Swales insinuating that I'm going to build some sort of slum? If he would look to my site and landscape plan, he might notice that we are improving this property in a great way and from his property perspective will add value to his house because it will enjoy the wonderful hardscape/landscape that we are submitting. Please look to my attached before/after pictures of my property and notice the clearing away of all the debris and falling down sheds that offered an attractive nuisance to neighborhood children, a nice home to vermin, and a possible lawsuit to the previous owners? 5. Planning's suggestion of running a near street through the middle of my property and put a parking lot in what we want as our commons, would degrade, not enhance both of our properties. Mr. Swale's comments to the tree commission telling us of his huge negative impact by the parking lot from the apartments to his north would make this suggestion even more negative to his property in that he will now have parking lots to his west and north of his property as well as a long and ugly driveway by his tenants windows creating a nuisance to those residents. 6. The curb cut that was installed in 2012 was in fact a joint effort with Ashland public works and myself in trying to create a more cohesive workable parking condition for our property. Specifically, it was a tradeoff of curb cuts. I worked with the City's Public Works and Engineering offices to create my Coolidge curb cut in trade for filling in the existing curb cut in front of my old garage structure. Please see permit PW-2012-00751._ 7. The new dog kennel will be constructed because my boys want a dog and I am allergic to some dogs. I cannot find anything in the ordinances that require setbacks for a dog kennel, but will agree to a condition of a setback if need be, but only if it's a requirement of the City's codes The chickens are an experiment that my wife tried. It seems to be well liked in our corner of the neighborhood as everyone, including Mr. Swales tenants, like the eggs. If he wants to argue over this point, then I'll enjoy some fried chicken next week. 8. The week that we moved in to our new home, I asked Mr. Swales if he might want to go in with me and remove the existing chain link fence and install a new cedar fence, but sadly he didn't want to pay anything for mutual benefit of both properties. It seems odd that now he is in favor of this as he is trying to make me pay. I think that the new beautiful hedges that I show on my landscape plan will suffice for screening and he may remove the chain link fence at his leisure. 9. Lastly, I stand corrected on my units vs. the apartments to my immediate north. I would never dream of putting such a drab, mundane apartment complex in the "historic zone", we believe that we are adding value to all parties around my property. Michael, I would like to pursue further discussions with the next door property owner, but in my opinion, given his email to planning, it would not serve any purpose and would not result in a different mindset. I would like to continue with my beautiful plans for this property as anyone can see adds value to our home and our neighborhood as well. I have attached some photos of the renovation to our property for your perusal and file. Please let me know if you need anything more. Randall Wallace I! Zimbra Page 1 of 2 Zimbra pinam@ashland.or.u + Font Size - Coolidge PA 2012-0:1737 111 From : Colin <colinswales@gmail.com> Wed, Jan 09, 2013 08:26 RM ;r Subject : PA 2012-01737 ( 111 Coolidge Street) To : Michael Pina <michael.pina@ashland.or.us> Cc : April Lucas <lucasa@ashland.or.us> Michael, (cc April - Please acknowledge receipt of this) Thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment on this planning action before Staff arrives at a decision in this matter. My wife and I own the adjacent home at 95, Coolidge St. which we are currently leasing to a family. It obviously came as a shock to us to learn of the recent proposal to add another 4 new family studio units to the existing lot adjacent to our home, especially as the pre-app had been submitted to the City Planners early last April. At no time during the last 18 months that the Applicant has owned this property was any mention ever made to us about such a development - especially on this scale. (In spite of Staffs recommendation that the applicant does some "Neighborhood Outreach') Indeed, the 3 additional units (garage conversion to residential, plus a duplex) that was earlier proposed in the pre-app seems to have now grown to include a new triplex plus garage conversion - and I see no evidence of the further "follow-up pre-app "suggested by the Staff in their 5/2/12 report . The existing single-family home at 111 Coolidge, like our own home at 95 Coolidge, dates from the late 19th Century. Terry Skibby once provided me with a historic photograph from the early twentieth century showing both homes as originally built. Sadly the roof of #111 burnt off and was replaced with the current non-historic hipped gables (1960's?). Similarly, although the existing shed/garage sits on the site of an earlier accessory structure, the current roof is quite dissimilar to the one shown on the historic Sanborn Fire Maos, suggesting that this structure is either much newer than original, or else has been extensively remodeled, like the old home itself. I seem to recall that George Kramer's SHPO narrative for the Skidmore/Academy National Registry stated that 111 Coolidge no longer reflects the period of historical significance. To remodel this non-conforming, non-historic shed/garage into a living unit right on the street property line seems contrary to the development pattern envisioned for the Historic District. Indeed, with the large amount of neighborhood pedestrian traffic travelling to both the Hospital and the new Scenic Neighborhood Park the requested Exception not to install (defer) a sidewalk on Rock Street seems perverse. To wait for a possible, future LID does not seem the best answer to the requirements. While I am completely in favor of encouraging, small unit infill in our close-in, transit-oriented, historic residential neighborhoods, the predominantly single-family character of these critical districts has been very much compromised over the years with often very ugly apartment complexes being allowed by the blanket re-zoning of the 60s & 70s (when a large portion of such old neighborhoods were then foolishly considered suitable for "slum-clearance"). While the subsequent Historic District designation and the hard work done by Kay Atwood and George Kramer have done a lot to help preserve some of Ashland's early homesteads, it must be emphasized that it is all to easy to destroy the historic character of these neighborhoods if infill is carried out without appropriate sensitivity. It is probably for this reason that the design guidelines for our historic neighborhoods were recently revised. Staffs sensible suggestion to utilize one of the 2 older curb cuts on Rock Street and put parking behind the existing home seems to have been ignored by the Applicant and instead, and already in advance, a third driveway curb cut has now recently been installed on the Coolidge Street frontage. ("There is a segment of curbing thatshou/d be rep/aced" - Staff pre-app comments [Could Staff please explain to us what this in fact means?]). Is such front yard parking allowed for new multi-family developments? The applicant states "...Bybeing a cornerproperty and historically having a driveway on each street..." I thought this driveway cut on Coolidge was installed i 2012. While the driveway exception request quotes the Performance Standards Option, I was not aware that this PA was submitted under that option. It also seems a shame that there is no covered parking and seemingly little tenant storage included in this 5 dwelling development. The Historical development pattern usually include on-site accessory garage/horse-buggy storage. The dog kennel shown in the Applicant's plans adjacent to our mutual boundary is also new. Is this the same as the chicken run that the current owner put in recently, before the new setback requirements were passed? What in fact is the required setback for such kennels/dog- runs? j The old Oft. chain-link metal fence currently existing between our single-family home properties begins to look a very inadequate for ensuring sufficient privacy when a total of 5 families is proposed to be living next us. (previously, 2 sisters owned these adjacent properties) Is a boundary fence/screen required between properties? Should the adjacent trees on our property be also shown on the landscape plan? Should the (non-conforming) setbacks of the existing old structures be indicated on the plan? Finally, so as to not degrade the value of our own, as well as other nearby historic homes, we feel that the design should really try its maximum to achieve the very best in architectural quality while also complying with the Historic District design guidelines as much as feasibly https:Hzimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/,nrintmessage?id=24956 1/9/2013 Zimbra Page 2 of 2 possible. It is sad that the Applicant's narrative states that the triplex unit is "compatible andreflective of the most adjacent buildings to the north" (Mr. DeLuca's 1963 apartment complex). Optimum Architectural and site design quality is obviously more difficult to achieve when a property is completely maxed-out. Please could you keep us fully informed by email on this planning application [ colinswales2gmail.com ] as we shall not be back in town until March, and are not receiving snail-mail while we are away. Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on this proposal as Staff ponders their decision. Colin & Sarah Swales (owners 95 Coolidge Street) i et?ro'i i I i https:Hzimbra.asWand.or.us/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=24956 1/9/2013 January 4, 2013 To: Michael Pina Ashland Planning Dept From: Randall Wallace 111 Coolidge St. Re: Proposed 111 Coolidge St. apartment - neighbor comments Michael, I've had a chance to read the comments from Colin, my next door neighbor, and would like to respond to them. I You can see by our site/landscape plan that we are attempting to remove some older and less beautiful trees and mitigate them with other more vibrant and healthy trees. We would not have any problems with adding a couple of other trees to help soften, even more, the exterior of the building from 95 Coolidges' perspective. As you can see on our landscape plans, we are planting some hedges along the mutual property line to help further soften the hard lines of the existing neighbor fence. In looking further at the existing trees on Colins' side of the fence, there doesn't appear to be any trees that have a six inch caliper at breast height within 15 If of property line and I believe that is why nothing shows up on the plan. I would also like to apologize in that I believed Colin, my wife, and myself had discussed the upcoming apartment while helping him to remove some unsightly volunteer trees and in no way was there an attempt to cover up our plans for our property. Lastly, we certainly understand, as we see the same thing, the parking lot view directly to Colin's north. It is unsightly and frankly is why we have situated our triplex the way that we did. Given this existing parking view from our two homes, we believe the further creation of road like entrances with even more parking through and adjacent to our two homes would create more of the same unsightly conditions. If you have any questions or thoughts, do not hesitate to call me to discuss. i Regards: Randall Wallace 111 Coolidge I I i i ASHLAND EE COMMISSION PLANNING APPHCATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET JANUARY 3, 2 0 13 PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01737 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 111 Coolidge APPLICANT: Randall Wallace DESCRIPTION: A Site Design Review Permit approval for multi-family development for three new dwelling units and one converted structure, all less than 500 square feet; a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing non-conforming garage into a dwelling unit; an exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to install parking in between buildings and the street; and an Exception to the Street Standards for more than one curb cut on a residential lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential ; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05DA TAX LOT: 5900 Recommendation: 1) The Tree Commission recommends approving the application as submitted with the exception of the 10-inch Almond, which is not to be removed. 2) Also to provide a vegetative screen between the subject parcel and 95 Coolidge. II I Department of Community Development Tel: 541488-5350 CITY F 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 SHLAf www.ashland.orms I Zimbra Page 1 of 1 i r pinam@ashiand.or.u + Font Size - For Tree i Coolidge. From : Colin <colinswales@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 03, 2013 01:34 PM Subject : For Tree Cornish - e 111 Coolidge. 1 attachment To : Michael Pina <michael.pina@ashland.or.us> re: PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01737 ill Coolidge St. (please confirm receipt) Tree Commissioners, We are the owners of the adjacent property at 95 Coolidge Street, adjacent to the proposed subject development. On our own property we have had a number of tree deaths in the last decade along our mutual boundary and the few that remain on our property (pussy willow?) do not seem to have been shown on the plans. The applicant already seems have to removed some trees from his property since his recent acquisition and remodel (compare to most recent photo attached). I would not want any more removed for this scheme if at all possible. (The applicant did not inform us in advance of his plans for building to the minimum side yard setback, and we only learned about this proposal yesterday as we are away at the moment.) Could you please ensure that, within your permitted purview, as much is done as possible to help to visually screen this proposed new multi- family development from #95 as we are already hugely impacted by the apartment complex and parking lot to our rear and other side yard thanks Colin & Sarah Swales Owners, 95 Coolidge Street. Ill Coolidge.PDF roa 1 MB J )1 e~ https://zimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbra/h/Printmessage?id=24810 1/3/2013 HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting of January , 2013 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: 2012-01737 SUBJECT PROPERTY. 111 Coolidge APPLICANT: Randall Wallace DESCRIPTION: A Site Design Review Permit approval for multi-family development for three new dwelling units and one converted structure, all less than 500 square feet; a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing non-conforming garage into a dwelling unit; an exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to install parking in between buildings and the street; and an Exception to the Street Standards for more than one curb cut on a residential lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential ; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 05DA TAX LOT: 5900 Recommendation to Planning Staff Advisor: 1 The Historic Commission expressed concern about the proposed Exception to Site Design and Review Standards for placement of the parking between the proposed buildings and Rock Street. The proposed setback of the new units is not consistent with the facades of the adjacent historic buildings, and the design turns its back on the street frontage and the does not provide orientation to the public right-of-way. Recommend Approval of the proposed building elevation plans with the following design recommendations: 1) Revised building elevations and plans shall provide a well defined sense of entry. A minimum 4-foot X 4-foot covered entry porch over the front doors of the units shall be provided with a 4-foot X 4-foot landing, posts and beam supported roof where the decorative dormers are shown. 2) High windows shall be placed in converted garage structure to provide a rhythm of openings and sense of orientation along the Rock Street frontage. 3) The front doors shall have rectangular (prairie or cottage style) glazing for the windows. The doors should be preferably constructed of wood. 4) Smooth texture, 1X6 Hardiplank siding with a minimum 6-inch exposure shall be used for the siding material. 5) The trim on the windows, doors and corner boards shall be 1X4. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050 Ir- Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ( , NPS Form 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior r National Park Service National Register Historic Continuation Section Number: 7 Page: 38 Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR 96.0 ALBERTS, ELI HOUSE 1900c 111 COOLIDGE ST 391E05DA 5900 Other: Vernacular [I-House] Historic Contributing This single story vernacular dwelling was constructed sometime after 1898, when the site is vacant on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and before 1907, when the dwelling is shown standing. The original owner was probably Eli Alberts, who purchased this site during the period. (JCD 84:302) Alberts, a Union Army veteran, was born in Pennsylvania. In 1910, aged 73, Alberts was a widower and was living with his son and daughter elsewhere in Ashland although he retained ownership of the Coolidge Street property. By 1920 Marie Perrine had purchased the house(JCD 113:258) and it remained in the family at least through 1949 when Nell Perrine had inherited it. (Probate Journal, 57-178-9) In 1948 the city directory lists this house as the home of Collins J. Perrine, who operated a longtime department store on the Ashland Plaza. A single-story gable volume with projecting clipped-gable wing, the Alberts House retains original siding, glazing, and door and window trim. The Albert House retains sufficient integrity to relate its period of construction. I Planning Department,'51 WinbU,,. Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y F 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: 2012.01737 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 111 Coolidge APPLICANT: Randall Wallace DESCRIPTION: A Site Design Review Permit approval for multi-family development for three new dwelling units and an existing garage converted to a fourth dwelling unit, all less than 500 square feet; a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing non-conforming garage into a dwelling unit; an exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to install parking in between buildings and the street; and an Exception to the Street Standards for more than one curb cut on a residential lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 05DA TAX LOT: 5900 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 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 Planning Action on Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 21, 2012 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: January 4, 2012 0 l' SUBJECT PROPERTY: j 111 Coolidge St 139 1 E 05DA 5900 COOLIDGL_ 012.85 50 Feet The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected properly owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4`30 p,m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if 'a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the sarne properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\PAs by Street\C\Coolidge\Coolidge_111\Coolidge_I11_PA-2012-01737_NOA.docx 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. 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 j 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. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a"unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. (ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2836,1999) EXCEPTION TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72.090 i An exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that-equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. (Ord 3054, amended 12/16/2011) i G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\PAs by Street\C\Coolidge\Coolidge_ll l\Coolidge_111_PA-2012-01737 NOA.doex P CI1 X' Of ASI-da j Ot PgO. ' 7dckson i:l?Ullty' FI-.,, T!?n~s 41) 17-11 -~I 4 0M, 400M 2 U0.4f ZOOM ;EILLI' DEStLLCP 1SUFt CR PRINT A_,GSOR IN 401- BACK LULL PAtt TAXLQI TAXL01 rVLLi MAP MAP NMI! 4Gc`0 i.. 1'1611 _ 11 4 O erz~ SEARCH RESULTS 4260 Records found for PUfferej T,-.>'Ict r Page= of = Le _cAs Ordered by status. T WO 11 --count ~1va - C1 ~t n ac I_Is c-r III pi L to aai 1 thiu ~ Hi plaided Pao I aAes (411ne. I^', Asses !dent 't Plc`II11 ing Detak, - i - -~ZOorn mj-) to tills t_x info F.,r Omer p Lu or. I D rltap c'.7> j-o!E1D2-C S01o_o Cdr Titus Addy-_s r,I§Irl ST ISHLRr1b 9761 as Cod Ta _ ~ a1 hom E-= otdttis ~111.._TI`:E taula ,:°-vs- 9rtaro Rey of ~1 1 16609 ~ jai sua k _i Int?Yf-Pt 1CIN% i I Frifiav naramhar?1 gn1q A-.r,7-'1R AM PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6600 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5700 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9700 75 COOLIDGE LLC ALEMAN HECTOR L JR TRUSTEE BAUER CHARLES/LAURA ROE 521 N MAIN ST 135 COOLIDGE ST 487 ROCK ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9600 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5200 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6001 BOLTJES GREG/MORENO CONROY EVELYN MARIE DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE 725 JOSEPHINE M. 563 ROCK ST ROYAL AVE 499 ROCK ST ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 8800 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9300 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 4800 DILLING KRISTIN FLEMING REGINA R FOGG CHARLES DOUGLAS 11495 65 WOOLEN WY 130 COOLIDGE ST SE 202ND ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 BORING OR 97009 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9000 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9400 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 8900 GARRETT NATALIE TRUSTEE GREENE FAMILY LLC GREGA SHIRLEY TRUSTEE 70 80 COOLIDGE ST 367 OXFORD ST COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9100 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5302 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6400 HAMILTON MARK C/CAMPBELL- LEONARD JESSICA L LEONE BETH A HAMILTON CHERYL 546 SCENIC DR 551 MAIN ST N 96 COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5400 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5100 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5600 LILLY GRETA THERESE MAYNARD JIM MC RAE M J/V L MORELL 535 ROCK ST 559 S MOUNTAIN 151 COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5300 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5301 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5800 MCNAB MICHAEL/MAXINE MENDOZA THERESA MIHAILOV TERRY ANN TRUSTEE 388 POMPANO CIR 1094 SHORELINE DR 55 LAKE HAVASU AVE S F166 FOSTER CITY CA 94404 SAN MATEO CA 94404 LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ 86403 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9500 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5500 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 4700 MURAWSKI WILLOW NOVICK VICTOR C/TSUTAE H OREGON STATE/DEPT OF TRANS 496 SCENIC DR 532 SCENIC DR 434 TRANSPORTATION BLDG ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SALEM OR 97310 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6200 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6300 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6700 PADILLA GISELA PHILLIPS EDWIN L TRUSTEE 950 SECREST DOROTHY TRUSTEE ET 112 MAPLE ST EXECUTIVE WAY AL ASHLAND OR 97520 REDDING CA 96002 PO BOX 929 OCCIDENTAL CA 94568 i PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 9200 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 6000 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 5900 STRUB CHARLES M/BECKY L SWALES COLIN WILLIAM 143 WALLACE RANDALL TRUSTEE 488 ROCK ST EIGHTH ST 111 COOLIDGE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-01737 391 E05DA 8700 WILHELM MARTHA E TRUSTEE 1867 HOLTON RD TALENT OR 97540 i I. I i i 4 I i I 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. U 2. On December 21, 2012 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 I 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 #2012-01737, 111 Coolidge St. f i Signature of Employee I E i I i i i G:Icomm-devlplanninglTemplateslTEMPLATE_Affidavitof Mailing-Planning Action Notice.dot 12/2112012 I ( i City of Ashland Planning Application 111 Coolidge Street Tax Lot Summary of Requests: 1. A basic site review approval to construct a three unit triplex and converting a garage into a one bedroom apartment in a Multi-family Residential zone (R-2). 2. Exception to constructing a sidewalk and park strip running 160 linear feet down the East side of Rock Street beginning at the North/East side of Coolidge Street. 3. A conditional use permit to convert the existing stand-alone non-conforming old garage into a one bedroom apartment. 4. Exception to parking spaces being located between building and street and two driveways on one tax lot. Project Information: Owner/Applicant: Randall and Marianne Wallace 111 Coolidge St. Ashland, OR 97520 541-201-8808 randallmartinwallace@gmail.com Landscape Architect: SQLA INC. 530 Molino St, # 204 Los Angeles CA 90013 PHONE : 213-383-1788 Surveyor: Polaris Land Surveying PO Box 459 Ashland, Oregon 541482-5009 Zoning Designation: R-2, Multi-Family; Low Density Residential Project Data: Total Lot Area: 13,600 sq. ft. Total Lot Coverage: 3,280 sq. ft. Total Landscaping: 10,084 sq. ft. Total on-Site Parking: 720 sq. ft. Total building Heated Area - Unit #1: 483 sq. ft. Total building non heated area - Unit #1: 0 sq. ft. Total building - Unit #1: 483 sq. ft. i Total building heated area - Unit #2: 498 sq. ft. Total building non heated area - Unit #2 0 sq. ft. Total building - unit #2 498 sq. ft. Total building heated area - Unit #3 499 sq. ft. Total building non heated area - Unit #3 0 sq. ft. Total building - Unit #3 499 sq. ft. Total building heated area - Unit #4 499 sq. ft. Total building non heated area - Unit #4 0 sq. ft. Total building -Unit #4 499 sq. ft. Maximum permitted floor area: 3,774 sq. ft. Existing house 1280 sq. ft. Existing garage: 483 sq. ft. Proposed 3 units: 1496 sq. ft. Total sq. ft. 3,259 sq. ft. Allowable Density / Proposed Density: 4.26 units / 4 units Applicable Ordinances: Site Design & Use Standards, Chapter 18.72 Adjacent Zoning: West: R-2, Multi Family; Low Density Residential East: R-2, Multi Family; Low Density Residential South: R-2, Multi Family; Low Density Residential North: R-2, Multi Family; Low Density Residential Subject Site: R-2, Multi Family, Low Density Residential Narrative: This property is located on the northeast corner of Rock Street and Coolidge Street. It is backed on the north by 13 apartments and on the east by a single family residence at 95 Coolidge Street, which is also backed by the adjacent apartments. Located in the Skidmore Historic District, the property is 85 ft. x 160 ft. (13,600 sq. ft.) is zoned R-2 and the proposed plan is a logical and appropriate use of this lot. Currently there is a 1280 sq. ft. house fronting Coolidge Street and stand-alone garage fronting Rock Street. There is a 15 linear foot drive approach on Coolidge Street that will provide for 2 parking spots for the existing house. On Rock Street, there is currently a 14 linear foot drive approach to the immediate north of the existing garage. j The existing single family structure that sits on the south end of the property is 1,280 sq. ft. with -an attached deck of 400 sq. ft. There is an existing garage 21 ft. x 23' (483 sq. ft.) which sits midway down the property on Rock St. The property drops in slope from both the Rock Street and Cooliclda~S rek areas by approximately 13%, steeper near the existing house, but more gradual at the rear of the property. There are many trees on the property which we hope to retain. Proposal: This application is for a Site Review Permit to construct three 498 sq. ft. one bedroom apartments into a triplex and convert one 483 sq. ft. stand-alone garage into a one bedroom apartment on the property located at 111 Coolidge Street. The four units will be rented on a month to month basis. The four units will face toward each other and provide a communal feel with the central area as a commons complete with sitting areas, a picnic table, fire pit, barbecue and walking paths to visit the varied gardens. We are striving to provide to us and our tenants a feeling of privacy and retreat from outside the property as soon as they park and walk through the gates. We will extend the existing 14 linear foot driveway approach to 16 linear feet for two new parking spaces and would request two off-street parking places thus fulfilling the 1 car/500sf cottage parking requirement Maximum Floor Permitted Floor Area: We are in a Historic District and are required to have a maximum floor area of 3,774 sq. ft. using the formula provided for the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA), we show the following: Lot size = 13,600 Adj. factor = 0.59 Graduated FAR for 5 units = 0.46 ((13,600 x 0.59 = 8,204)) 8,204 x 0.46 = 3,774 Maximum Permitted Floor Area House: 1,280 (existing) ADU 483 (old garage) 3 units 1,496 (new) 3,259 total sq. ft. Solar Requirements: The tri-plex was designed to meet the Solar Setback requirements. The height of z the building is 11' and the property has a slope, based on survey and Jackson County information, of 4.5%. Based on the Solar formula, the setback would be approximately 12'-6" which is what is identified on the plans. i i Site Permit Approval Criteria -18.72.070 A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. To the applicant's knowledge, all applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met. At the time of the building permit submittal, the application will be substantially consistent with the proposed application and will meet all conditions of approval imposed by the approving authority, 8. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. " All of the requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter, Section 18.72, have been met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. i The development complies with the City of Ashland's Site Design Standards, adopted August 4th, 1992. We have provided a thorough response to the Site Design Standards, Section II-B, Approval Standards and Policies for Multi-Family Residential Developments; Section II-D, Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards; and Section II-E, Street Tree Standards, has been provided below. 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. All utilities to service the project are within either Rock or Coolidge Streets. None of the utilities are at capacity to service the development. A pre-application was completed on May 2"d 2012. Follow-up calls were made to the leaders of the electrical, water, sewer and drainage utilities with subsequent visits by their representatives and there was no indication the proposal could not be accommodated by all City services. Site Design Standards: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the following design standards: II-13-1a) Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street. Yes, the main house is oriented towards the Coolidge Street. The remodeled garage is oriented southward with no windows fronting Rock St. We like this orientation because we intend to have the gate and patio positioned to look like Rock street orientation but can supply more feeling of privacy since the unit is so close to the street. The three small apartments are more than 30 feet back from the street, but are oriented to Rock Street. 11-13-116) Buildings shall be set back from the street according to ordinance requirements, which is usually 20 feet. The existing garage is to remain where it currently sits, directly on the Rock Street property line. We are including a Conditional Use Permit with the application to retain the garage in this location and convert it to a residence. The three other structures meet the 20' setback. II-13-1c) Building shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall not be located between buildings and the street. An exception is being requested to this requirement (see below). The reason for the exception is the size of the property will not accommodate parking, turn -around, and drive isles without removing trees and causing other problems on the site such as Variances to front setbacks because the buildings would be too close to the front property line. We have attempted to design the plans with internal parking, but it created multi-story development that looked severely out of place for the neighborhood, odd designs, solar access problems, and handicap constraints. The preferred site plan is compatible to the, neighborhood. II-B-2a) One street tree for every 30 feet of frontage, chosen from the street tree list, shall ` placed on that portion of the development paralleling the street. Where the size of the project dictates an interior circulation street pattern, a similar streetscape with street trees is required. Yes. One new tree every 30' along the street frontages will be planted. All trees will be chosen from the City Street Tree List. II-13-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in residential neighborhoods, with appropriate changes to decrease water use. The landscape plan has been designed to reflect the landscapes found within the neighborhood. The small size of the front yard and proposed planting types are similar to what could be found in other neighborhoods around the community. Only small amounts of turf are proposed in order to decrease water use. II-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one year of installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years. The landscape plan has been designed to meet 50% coverage after the first year and 90% coverage prior to the fifth year. The landscaping plan was designed by a landscape professional. II-13-3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species well adapted to the local climate. i The landscaping plan includes a variety of deciduous shrubs and flowering plant species for the Southern Oregon climate. II-B-30 As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably feasible. The extensive landscape design for the property intended to keep as many existing trees as possible and was designed accordingly. The exceptions are "four" on property trees. One is the existing plum tree on property line that is too close to the existing garage structure footing and has grown in an under maintained environment for several years . We prefer to ensure that tree continuity coming down Rock Street will continue through our property and thus propose new maples to replace the plum tree. Another is in the central commons and is an almond tree. While nice in general, an almond tree does not give the visual impact that our proposed flowering cherry tree would. The other two on site trees are unmaintained pear trees. The trees in the neighborhood that are in sight of all four trees are varied in type with many evergreens and many deciduous trees. None of the four tree removals would interfere with any soil stability, flow of surface water, wind breaking or protection of other trees. Our new landscape plan mitigates these trees and then some with varieties that enhance the general feel of the neighborhood. i We would like to note that the landscape plan shows an existing willow tree to be removed in the common area. We would like to correct this error here and note that that tree is the existing almond tree that we are asking to remove and replace with the flowering cherry tree. II-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least 10 feet in width. Other than the small existing garage building to be converted to residential space, a 10' landscape buffer will be provided. II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses. i Yes, the site's two two-space parking areas are shaded by trees and shrubs. The upper parking area off of Coolidge Street is buffered by a number of trees and a line of hedges and the two lower parking spaces are buffered by a 10' landscape area that include hedges per code. II-B-3f) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping successes. Refer to Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards for more detail. An irrigation system will be installed with the landscaping. A plan will be provided with the building permit plans if the application is approved. All irrigation will be installed prior to an occupancy permit. 11-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development. A total of 1,100 square feet is required (8%) and the proposal is for approximately 1,321 square feet of recreational space to be used by the tenants. II-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which do not provide a suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this requirement. The calculations presented for recreational space exclude all areas not suitable as recreational space such as side property areas, walkways, etc. II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. The application is only proposing four units. Incorporated into our plan are small semi private cottage sitting areas, a larger area that will include a picnic table, fire pit and barbecue and general walking paths that will add general interest for our tenants. II-B-5) Natural Climate Control: Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the south sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade and warmth. The sites street trees will be deciduous trees including many deciduous trees within the property. II-13-6) Building Materials: Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are unacceptable. No bright or neon-type paint colors will be used on the buildings. We prefer to paint our units in the same manner that we painted our primary home. The use of natural tree like colors adds a natural feel and provides a calmer more soothing environment. Our plan is to paint perimeter of cottages with j "pitch pine" and the trim in dark brown as you may see on our primary house. Historic District Design Standards: W-C-1) Height: Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and across the street. I All of the proposed buildings are single level buildings and their heights are consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. However, there are many styles and height of homes, but the new units are E1 compatible and reflective of the most adjacent buildings to the north. IV-C-2) Scale: Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings.. See above section, but yes, the proposed buildings relate to the size and proportions of the adjacent buildings. The new units are compatible and reflective of the most adjacent buildings to the north. Overall, the area has an eclectic mix of building designs, scales, setbacks, heights and massing, but the new buildings are clearly in keeping with a conservative look so as not to stand out and different from the surrounding neighborhood. IV-C-3) Massing: Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on most buildings from the historic period. The proposed building designs are simple facades, but are not boxlike. The designs are similar to those found in the neighborhood and will be interesting. We can see that the use of hedges in and around the new units help to create a sense of privacy also. IV-C-4) Setback: Maintain the historic facade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing setback pattern by, placing new buildings in front or behind the historic facade line. The little garage building is to remain at its historic street line. The new building does setback from the street, but it's not a significant deviation and due to the adjacent property's non-historic design, the setback has little impact on the house patterns found along this short block of Rock Street. IV-C-5) Roof Shapes: Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area. Avoid introducing roof shapes, pitches, or materials not traditionally used in the area. The roof line, roof pitch and roof orientation is very similar to traditional practices found in the area. IV-C-6) Rhythm of Openings: Respect the alternation of the wall areas with door and window elements in the facade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade. Avoid introducing incompatible facade patterns that upset the rhythm of openings established by the surrounding structures. According to the designer, the new building has a balance of windows to volume. The proposed facade pattern is very respectful with the historic facade patterns than some of the adjacent and nearby homes. The design also respects the window-to-height ratios often found in the area. IV-C-7) Platforms: The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristics of most of the older buildings in Ashland. Avoid bringing the walls of the building straight out of the ground without a sense of platform. The proposed building will have a concrete foundation, but not a typical raised platform as there are many structures in and around the property that do not have this type of element. However, the building has horizontal siding and bottom trim that give it a sense of a platform as described. IV-C-8) Directional Expression: Relate the vertical, horizontal or non-directional facade character of new buildings to the predominate directional expression of nearby buildings. The tri-plex's directional expression is towards Rock Street which is in context to all/most of the other buildings within the nearby vicinity. Again the garage unit is facing southward with an appeafi-rie )af facing to rock street as explained above. i IV-C-9) Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other pronounced architectural forms. Avoid facades with no strong sense of entry. The proposed units have a mixture of covered entrances and patios to articulate-the entrances. A large 24" box - Flowering Cherry Tree will be located at the center of the new units intended to create a courtyard atmosphere while at the same time relate to Rock Street. W-C-10) Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. Avoid replicating or imitating the styles, motifs, or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if well done, present a confusing picture of the true character of the historical area. We have met with.a number of local contractors and designers to obtain advice and to ensure the proposed design is in keeping with the area's traditional architecture. The result is a front facade that does not copy existing buildings nor replicate a false style (Colonial, Tudor, etc.). We believe the proposed building is traditional, yet contemporary and will add positively to the area. Tree Removals 18.61.080.6 The extensive landscape design for the property intended to keep as many existing trees as possible and was designed accordingly. The exceptions are "four" on property trees. One is the existing plum tree on property line that is too close to the existing garage structure footing and has grown in an under maintained environment for several years . We prefer to ensure that tree continuity coming down Rock Street will continue through our property and thus propose new maples to replace the plum tree. Another is in the central commons and is an almond tree. While nice in general, an almond tree does not give the visual impact that our proposed flowering cherry tree would. The other two on site trees are unmaintained pear trees. The trees in the neighborhood that are in sight of all four trees are varied in type with many evergreens and many deciduous trees. None of the four tree removals would interfere with any soil stability, flow of surface water, wind breaking or protection of other trees. Our new landscape plan mitigates these trees and then some with varieties that enhance the general feel of the neighborhood. We would like to note that the landscape plan shows an existing willow tree to be removed in the common area. We would like to correct this error here and note that that tree is the existing almond tree that we are asking to remove and replace with the flowering cherry tree. Exceptions: First Exception: II-13-1c) Building shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall not be located between buildings and the street. An exception is being requested to this requirement as stated above. The reason for the exception is the ,size of the property will not accommodate parking, turn -around, and drive isles without removing trees and causing other problems on the site such as Variances to front setbacks because the buildings would be too close to the front property line. Trying to put internal parking in the only area that seems to have enough room, wiped out the entire commons feel and divided the property into two non-cohesive sections that defeat our entire sense of community feel we are striving for. Continued pre-design `of a plan with internal parking, creates possible multi-story development that would look severely out of place for the neighborhood, odd designs, solar access problems, and handicap constraints. Most importantly, the preferred site plan and building design is compatible and sensitive to the neighborhood. The exception criteria are found under 18.72.090 A. and B. and are listed below: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. In our opinion, there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the requirements due to a unique circumstance with both the existing structures, site trees, slopes and size. The approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties and is actually far less impacting. If the parking was to be placed internally, it would create an approximate 45' swath of parking and turn around area leaving approximately 40', but with a front setback of 20' and landscaping requirements between property lines and the units themselves, the remaining area is practically impossible to obtain multi-family units that are attractive, have yard areas, and don't feel as if streets are on all sides of the units. The design would also eliminate most of the site's trees. We definitely believe the approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty. We also believe that granting the exception will result in a design that better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. Second and Third Exceptions: A second and third exception are being requested to the street standards to have two driveways on the property, one on Coolidge Street and the other on Rock Street. And, an exception to defer sidewalks until a Local Improvement District can be established. The exception criteria are found under 18.88.050 F. and are listed below: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 8. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty, and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The second exception for two driveways is intended to maintain the historic pattern of t roperty, but most importantly, to distinguish the property as two fronts - one along Coolidge Street with has a more single family pattern and one along Rock Street which has a more multi-family pattern. By being a corner property and historically having a driveway on each street, the criteria should be justified as the site is unique in its historic pattern. The exception clearly is equal to the areas transportation facilities as a single driveway would equate to parking lot behind the existing houses, including neighboring houses, which conflicts with other standards and most neighbors livability values. The exception is the minimum necessary. Previously the application included three off-street parking spaces along Rock Street and the proposal was reduced to two with all remaining parking for the new units to be located along the street as directed by the pre-application report: Finally, the exception request is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. Performance Standards Options Chapter -18.88.010 Purpose and Intent states "The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood." The design is clearly attempting to work around pre-existing conditions such as trees, slopes, houses, structures, small areas and within the confines of a historic district and old and new houses. Because of this, we strongly believe the exception is justified which will "provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood." Finally, the exception to the sidewalk is really not an exception request, but a deferral request. We agree sidewalks are important and we desire to see safe and convenient sidewalks in and around our neighborhood. Unfortunately, there are multiple reasons why the exception (deferral) is being requested which include the fact our property has severe grade changes between the curbs and the houses, narrow dimensions between the curb and house and garage, numerous utility conflicts - combined with the fact the surrounding neighborhood / neighboring have much worse conditions which include more severe grades, mature trees, and buildings that are on or beyond the property lines. Because of this fact, we simply would like to defer the sidewalk requirement until a fully developed plan could be created that accounts for all of the nuances and hardships that exist on our property, immediately adjacent to our property and within the nearby vicinity. Conditional Use Permit: I The proposal includes a Conditional Use Permit to convert the stand alone garage into a one bedroom apartment. The garage sits directly on the side street property line and is considered a legally grandfathered structure and according to City standards any conversion of the space requires a Conditional Use Permit. Originally we had considered demolishing the garage, but after discussion with the Historic Commission, neighbors and other local contractors, we decided the garage was salvageable and part of the neighborhood's historic feel. Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria -16.104.050: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is i 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 use of the garage is to be residential in conformance with the R-2 zone and the Comprehensive Plan's Residential category. The garage is pre-existing and meets, to the best of our knowledge, all City, State and Federal laws. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. The garage is in place and the goal is to utilize its internal space by converting it into a small apartment. The property is located in a relatively high density area with services such as water, sewer, paved streets, and electricity. The new units will connect to existing services in accordance with Building Codes. As mentioned above, discussion with the utilities services confirmed adequate capacity for this unit as well as the triplex. Adequate transportation is already provided by the existing streets; Coolidge and Rock Streets. 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 Nearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The Conditional Use Permit is being requested by my family in order to preserve a historic structure that adds greatly to the neighborhood's feel. By obtaining the Conditional Use Permit and retaining the garage, but converting it to a little residential unit, we sincerely feel the neighborhood's livability will be maintained. We definitely do not see how there would be any "greater adverse impact" when compared to the target use of the zone which would probably eliminate the garage and all of the property's trees and replace them with a parking lot. In fact, this area has a mixture of developments, some aesthetically attractive and some not so attractive, but the primary difference appears to be how those developments integrated pre-existing historic buildings and mature landscapes to comply with the R-2 (multi-family density residential) requirements that require added units, added parking and in many I cases forces loss of trees. In many ways, we feel the neighborhood is slowly improving most likely because of the City's design controls and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to retain the garage structure should continue that positive progress. Since the garage is really not changing its exterior appearance other than added windows, it will be similar in scale, bulk and coverage to many of its surrounding neighbors. The traffic from the garage unit is minimal. In talking with City staff, it's expected this small residential space will generate 6.5 car trips per day which can easily be accommodated by Rock Street and surrounding streets. Because of the i small size of the garage unit, it's likely my parents will live in it, the number of car trips will probably be less. The garage's new design is very compatible to the architecture in the neighborhood. There are many styles found in the area, many of which are very basic and vernacular to their period of construction. The garage's new design is simple and discrete with the goal of not over emphasizing its existence or competing for attention with the main house. I II U I Irl N ap"~.O 1 0 O~ J m aY M pRp ir~~l ^~~1 ^OY fwd [x~ P'. Y q a uWH P~! D Z S 05< 'I g aoz ~ y aaA `c ~ IL ZLl ~a o IL A W 25' 2 25 2 I II{ ~ N~ i W R~ O~ I ! ® 2 II h m 1 UO p 1 ~Q o S 895924°E - 85.51' yiy \ 1 6";ODD FENCE 1 ' 1 L \ ° i z x ~ 1 ~ o ~~88T ~ i \ 1 1 m 3 I n7., .\24.3"... 11 q pn ^ I W _ S Rio z ~ iiA N \ ~ z ~ yg a~ ° x i r t n 2 ICrY 1U ME NOJSF o ~'7.< <n ro J,4 ~ i G4ETF F UIt~U~-'OTv ~ -r ~ ~ ,n r ? 1 OCLIDGE „I RLFT 'c 18:3' Ni Z\ h o k e ~ ' n \ y ~ x ~ N A x u~ _ o agx-72 - 84.91' \ k W - _ vF~~' F° U 1 d ~ CONCRETE CURS" in N N O 4 3 VALVES ~l 1 WAFER LIME iWv + h _ _ _ - N y Qt NC C C G E S T R E E T H HYDRANT 25' I 25 ELI { £ 22 C - N a a a gl ode - o~;o aaaa a I I I I W --i a a x z s w a o a z 7 0 0 _ _ - ►~I-w - - - - - - - - W ~ d W ~til I z4 a~ ~s ~s ~0ll~C,A ~ ~ ]I~NG,~OG P;0 Y - _ '700M nb015 Z `".I _ I ~ S6t I~ ~ v v v v v v v - ~ 4~~.. m y 6 d o 0 0 o a o 0 k= -4bN)I o s ~o Li E 6g i< Q d L~ ii. oW- r 1 lI - -I U C4 ono a y~ s n' 11 ~ _ ~ II I zw o~ ~m~ F o m `o ll~I n a mo g ~ ~,5 di J ° Q Q V Q ~farv~ m& ~ Ell a Q Q Q Q Q _ J O Z. m a Z H COU CG~.~J7c a _p wl~l LLI m > r s V, G - W- U JOJ II M R ~,Qm (tl N ~SJR' ~'ns a''. O e W ~ fl- a Z ~i S 3 g~ d y OOOC CJO to _ O wy ~ a x y. ~ ~ ~ ¢~oz m °NU 4a ~w ~~L°droi O~ ~GJ w3~ wxw o~°go s°' $$~a~Woo °~WOo a zLLgJ~ o No Nagyw` z~- m € g z$y ~f8°~°s~°~ Zoo=m€y~ O=°~$Qa~°~~=w-m QH- w H Ha¢_~~w 91 UF- LL9 Lu G - w - J w < LL CIO. - M Q Q O C? LLJ CD cnw gLLr nw Lu W Y w ~ Of . "ra g~ oc ~ za w a_ 00- > { a z ✓ - S - J F- vx - " -i Q Z - O a~i zz w w w LU - co r< D a: 00 n ri w 2 S'•' r x. y w ? U CD LLJ CD 0 CL co w e=i X i s 5 ZO O _ ^ s w - tF `~S Z ? s cry ® a w Z) z C? Z (!1 Z Lu a C7 w Z ¢ Cl) 1Yf' Qy<r' 7. LU *.krkt dT~ F'a. p p f _ Z_,?.; r' LL- .N Z Q LU Q - Q F' m LL (L LL 4r n+ f ' -4y, I' p LA- p ~ Q a c cn LU p r' 4 Q } IT V Z LL LLJ Z Q a p co -j LU L) L) U) `Lr Z r lei 1; } p Y _ aUJ W 0 q - X LL 4DQO ~z 0z C9 w Z 2 -s.i - z f:. EY O S qi L W p -r> cn a LL. < e rtes Z0 C"J C0 K' Q C Q o Q o W C7 J Q M O > ro U J W r W J t ~ Q r C4 U W CO 12 3Nn ALa3dOHd v - ON4-J y I I I I li i i ---t-- IL I I I w Q ~ i t Iw o°o~, WI I ~~/1 w ' - 1 I w z/ M 7 G b U w ~ J- ~ 1 „9rtzl ,~I ~ ~ «z CKI) a I 3 Hn7d , 0't /0 ot /i~ 8Jn0 Qn0 O&n0 JOlly/d7d ¢ G&n0 d12N'3NC N00 A-3A&,9S w J W Q n W -3N/7 b'dMdS R® C K S T R E E T N O N O_ N N O Q LU o (7 w II J mO U a W _ N. J Q T 3N11 A EdOdd cU) - - I - - - z q P~ - I of ~ ~ I L,01 O iro ❑ r.~ LLd \~j 1-111 LtJ ~ 7 d z z 33m i I LNINO ROOM = / - w. r m bATlj~ - I 3Nn ALa3dOad EDH s NO®® N N O 0 a w g o ~ o n W~I 00 N w W z a U Z o > J L T LL y¢ W W z OI O ~ JQ T z S o bo of blo N 4 ~ 4 QW i~ J J J ~ 4l [Q d3 ~ Q Z¢¢ u' W~ ~ W W ILIi W tl~ 0.'1 cR ~ ~ I lD CL L 7 W W W l W I N ~ ~ I~ W W I,9 I ~q~ Z 51 W LLI us LLJ fel ~I I I I i I I 4 { LS\ I :r lItl PIN N D I IW`~I,~I~ ~N .k I I I ~Z I I o~ I _ I i I i N N / - I i ~ W I eL L ,~I VV ~ ~ Ul ~ ~ Lam. ~ `1 W ~ ~ z Z W W=z° N W il Y ¢ J _ LZ I - J i r x~ U J~ W~zzV~¢ QI FAN «~oN Nut pzp ~~u=iq WoU N~~~~II~ xN oi~ <€J =50 J Z ¢Z _Z~~W 3> 3D3 xi QO ¢\d1 NZ~sR ~Z~' }LL~I~L- li C, U-1 a G - < ~ W Ll O ~p R I... J W €w y12 N ~2 l_ ~r 0 o Q Q w Z = ~I N In _ ~ Q N W ~O < j z¢ L Z I I J w vI w I pa Z co O O q p O O q cILL¢ r 0 N b N bl- Ib ~z LJJ r lkk~ ~ a a U 1Q, 11 1~1 LL ° w w wl [q w w ww ww z, I ,I -,nl ~i ~ a I I ;r, II I a I z I I Q ® N~ I I 1 ~2g o W W Q / Q w w Fggi w ~o w W Z w Niv Z I _ I I I I v I N I \ z~ °zIL I II= I I I p A \ I= OOV w wz lt I- 1 6"-II" I ~ I I > Lu J I _ I z N~ I / r I 2g~ I N I ~J~ rl I zw ~uw Z 2: Qom Nz ~ I i?, ~ w I ~ uj z s Li W I I ~ ~8i I I o a I I I w LIJ a m I I I II ~ I i I II ~ o I Z LU > LLi 9g~ IV! I ~`I IE ' j I I~ I I w it - 1 ~OS2pz Q L-_-~--__ ~n ~ cvn n~ p6 W ~ J) 1< g8%. utJ Nw~ ~z~ ¢~tvZ i' OLU w¢U xJ wo is _ F'~ ~9 i- Z L wIL 5 ~z Fo o wo €a~ = X Q ZOOCL ~Z0(1 w _ ¢ 2 0 w N n ¢ CD o Q _ w z Z o D o O O n J ~ ° Co O r Q w of O m W > zj w U J z0 tLIi ° z i ~ U o q 4 ~ U w a N. o q w U) C9 o W Li l u U ~I WI I ILL C7 1 4- CID 8 9-,Z w w n LLI z z W~ O O W w 2 _ ~ o I l L~ ' q L L~ cI,cCa- \I LL, o U O o cn = w ~ w z :Z LL z' z p q qi c O w o' U ~I, C7 s w 0 Lul cQ7 ql J J Q w w C7 Cl) s U) O U w w zz z W LU w LLI U a ui J N O N O N i`« h & a J a z ' m 5 w ~ ~ w 3 LL 3~~~ o ~ a ooo~w _ yy I ~ i s a a u z s s Q z 7 0 0 I II III - i I I I I _ ~ II I I I I J I ~ ~ I-~, ~ III I ~I 11~ w I ~ `u x II li I o LL a, I II I I I I~ a f ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION i Planning Division I ` OF 1 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE j CITY ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO Street Address Z/ Assessor's Map No. 391 E Tax Lot(s) -I Zoning Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip V PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone E-Mail ` - I Address fz`" City zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title , Name Phone ` E-Mail I Address I City Zip Title , Name Phone' E-Mail i Address ' City Zip 1 hereby certify that the statements and infgrmation contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. 1 understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection, In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. I 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 1 have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature' bate 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? - Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [ro be completed by City Staff Date Received Z Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER /0 GAcomm-dev\planningTorms & HandoutsVoning Permit Application.doc Job Address: 111 COOLIDGE ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: RANDY/MARIANNE WALLACE ® Phone: P Customer 06454 N State Lic No: P RANDY/MARIANNE WALLACE T City Lic No: L Applicant: 111 COOLIDGE ST R Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 201-8801 T Address: N Applied: 12/10/2012 0 T Issued: Expires: 06/08/2013 R Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E05DA5900 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Residential Site Review for three additional units & a conditional use permit to convert a non-conforming stucture VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL - I i r i t ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL I L PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Conditional Use Permit Type 1 982.00 Residential Site Review 1,177.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 j www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF -ASHLAND