Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFirst_270_PA-2013-01421 CITY F ASHLAND March 12, 2014 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has upheld the administrative decision of approval for the following request: Planning Action: 2013-01421 Subject Property: 270 First Street Applicant: RNN Properties LLC Description: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. The Planning Commission's decision on appeal becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. (AMC 18.108.070.B.2.c.iii) The approval is valid for a period of one year and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review 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. This decision may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in accordance with Oregon State Law. Please contact LUBA for specific appeal information, http://ivww.oregon.gov/LUBA/FAQ.slitml or 503-373-1265. They are located at 550 Capitol Street N.E., Suite 235, Salem, Oregon 97301-2552. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Amy Gunter in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: RNN Properties LLC Patricia Way John Turman Mark Knox Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ` Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us BEFORE THE' PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2013 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING ACTION #2013-01421, A ) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO EXCEED ) MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) IN THE RAILROAD HISTORIC ) DISTRICT AND VARIANCES TO THE REQUIRED SIDE-YARD SETBACKS ) FINDINGS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY AT ) CONCLUSIONS, 270 FIRST STREET. THE REQUEST INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF THE ) & ORDER EXISTING RESIDENCE. ) APPLICANTS: RNN PROPERTIES LLC ) This matter came before the Planning Commission as an appeal of an Administrative Decision pursuant to the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, AMC 18.108.070. The application was administratively approved on November 20, 2013. A re-consideration request was filed on November 26, 2013, and the request was denied by the Community Development Department Director on November 27, 2013. An appeal request was timely received on December 2, 2013 from Patricia Way, an adjacent property owner, and Patrick Harvard, a citizen. RECITALS: I) Tax lot #1300 of Map 39 lE 09 BA is located at 270 First Street, within the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district, and is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The property is rectangular with an area of 2,300 square feet. The property was created prior to current zoning regulations and is smaller than the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The property is considered a legal, non-conforming lot. 2) The application involves demolishing the existing 524 square foot residence and outbuilding and constructing a new, two-story 1,300 square foot residence. The proposed home requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by 24 percent or 252 square feet. The application includes a request to reduce the standard six-foot side yard setbacks to three-feet on both the north and south sides. The proposal, including the design for the new residence, is outlined on the plans on file 'at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use 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 PA #2013-01421 March 11, 2014 Page 1 evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone; 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 4) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.020 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. 8. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 11, 2014 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application for Conditional Use Permit to exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Historic District and Variances to the required side yard setbacks. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" PA #2013-01421 March 11, 2014 Page 2 E SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Commission finds that the applicant has not proposed to remove any trees which are regulated under the Ashland Municipal Code, AMC 18.61. The removal of trees six-inches in diameter at breast height or less in a residential zone is outright permitted and does not require approval or permits by the city. 2.3 The Commission finds that the proposed development of a single family home in the R-2 zoning district complies with all applicable city ordinances, with the exception of the variance to the required side yard setbacks. The Commission finds that the proposed residence is in conformance with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. The Commission finds. that sufficient public utilities are in place to service the proposed residential use, and exist on the site and within the adjacent public right-of-ways. The property is served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain located in the First Street right-of-way. The Public Works/Engineering Department has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are adequate to serve the .new residence. The existing electrical service is a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a nearby pole; the Electric Department has indicated that this service is adequate to serve a new residence. The Commission finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street. The Commission finds that the First Street right-of-way between A and B Streets is 70 feet in width, and that the current improvements in place including sidewalks, curb, gutters and paving along the subject property's frontage. The alley to the north of the subject parcel is also paved. The Commission finds that the generation of traffic from the proposed home is consistent with that of the target use of the property. The Commission finds that proposed single family residential unit will not create any adverse environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional generation of noise, light or glare. The Commission finds the target use of the property is one residential unit. The Commission finds that proposed residence 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. The Commission finds generation of traffic from the proposed home is consistent with that of the target use of the zone, and less than that generated by the adjacent business uses. The Commission finds that the proposed building is similar in scale, bulls and coverage when compared to the target use of the zone. The proposed site development will cover approximately 55 percent of the lot area, less than the allowed 65 percent coverage. The Commission finds that the proposed residence is architectural compatibility with the impact PA #2013-01421 March 11, 2014 Page 3 area; more specifically the Commission finds that the proposed residence complies with the Historic District Development Standards in the following manner. The height of 22-feet is similar to buildings in the vicinity and is less than the allowed height of 30-feet. The Commission finds that the scale (i.e. height, width and massing) is consistent with the relatively tall,' narrow residences found in the immediate vicinity and throughout the Railroad Historic District. The Commission finds that the proposed single gable roof, smaller gable roof over the front porch and -shed roof over a small bay on the north side adjacent to the alley varies the massing. The second story will be setback from the front facade by three feet with a proposed a roof top deck. The Commission finds that second story setback and the smaller gables provide variation in the facade, and address the Historic District Design Standards in regards to varying the massing of the building. The Commission finds that the proposed front yard setback is consistent with the existing setback of the adjacent buildings and in conformance with AMC 18.68.110 where the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures. The Commission finds that the proposed gable, 6/12 pitch roof, is similar to the existing residence and consistent with other residences in the immediate vicinity. The Commission finds that the metal roof is consistent with adjacent buildings in the immediate vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed double hung windows are consistent with the primary window pattern in the neighborhood. The Commission finds that the proposed base with a half-inch revel provides a well defined base which is consistent with the standards. The Commission finds that the proposed building form which is tall and narrow with a gabled roof is consistent with the form of the adjacent historic buildings and those found throughout the Railroad District. The Commission further finds that the covered front porch enhances the facade and provides definition to the location of the front door. The Commission finds that the proposed building design is contemporary but has connection through the roof form, materials, rhythm of openings, massing and overall design. The Commission finds that the proposed design complies with the Historic District Development standard seeking architectural features that represent our ' own time yet enhance the nature and character of the Historic District, and that the proposed exterior material choices are found throughout the historic districts. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that Variance request to reduce the required six-foot setbacks to three-feet complies with the Ashland Municipal Code. The Commission finds that the 25-foot wide lot is unique and unusual. Within 200-feet of the subject property there is only one other 25-foot wide parcel and it is directly adjacent to the south. The Commission finds that the existing structure does not comply with setbacks and the proposed residence will be providing an increase in setbacks on the north side and maintaining the setbacks on the. south side reducing the non-conforming setback on the north. The Commission finds that the lot's 25- foot width represents unique of unusual circumstances which have not been self-imposed. The Commission finds the benefits of the variance provide a setback from the alley where none exists and permits the construction of a modest sized single family residence. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area and Variances to the required side yard setbacks is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. PA #2013-01421 March 11, 2014 Page 4 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2013-01421. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2013-01421 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That building permit submittals shall include: a) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their November 6th, 2013 meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the. Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. C) That the transom window proposed over the second story French door facing First Street shall be removed from the plans. d) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade. e) Lot coverage calculations including all building, footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas shall be submitted with the building permit. The lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. f) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the building plan submittals. 3) That hinged patio doors shall installed on the patios, not sliding doors. 4) That if the 13-inch DBH Box Elder tree perishes within 36-months of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy a mitigation tree of similar size and stature at maturity shall be replanted on site as mitigation. Planning Commission approval by Date Melanie Midlin, Chair PA #2013-01421 March 11, 2014 Page 5 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On March 12, 2014 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2013-01421, 270 First Street. Signature of Employee Documend 3112/2014 i A STREET ARTS BUILDING LLC ALLEN ANNABEL L ALLEN KATHERINE ET AL 406 IOWA ST 950 PARK ST 4 10732 INTERLAKE AVE N ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SEATTLE, WA 98133 AMBROSE JACQUELENE ASHLAND FOOD COOPERATIVE B STREET LLC 269 B ST 237 FIRST ST N 223 FIFTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BARNARD STEVE BARNARD WHITNEY BASS BRITTNEY 258 A ST 258 A ST #1 240 N FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BASS RONALD E TRUSTEE ET AL BENTON JON J BLUE MOUNTAIN EMPRESA LLC 78 SIXTH ST 263 N SECOND ST 340 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BRINTON VALERIE ROSE CHESTER GENE R CLIFT ROBERT A ET AL 2088 SYCAMORE RD 249 B ST 236 N FIRST ST FILLMORE, CA 93015 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 COHEN LYNN COMSTOCK PAUL H/JUDITH A COYODE AVA 462 A ST PO BOX 35 2491/2 A ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PHOENIX, OR 97535 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CRUZ STELLA DENMAN HILLARY DONNELLY DENNIS P/DARLENE 803 N MAIN ST 236 N FIRST ST 2022 COVE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 DONNELLY DENNIS ENGEL TALOR GOUGE JACOB 246 A ST 258 A ST 240 N FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HANSEN GARY HARVARD PATRICK HAYNES KARL 205 GRANITE ST 65 PRATHER 2253 HWY 99 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HOUK JASON HOUSER THOMAS J/WILSON CHERYL B JENSEN ETSUKO 137 FIFTH ST 185 B ST 249 1/2 A ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 t JUALVEST LLC KELLEY KATHERYN KNOWLES ETHAN 64 THIRD ST 1550 OREGON ST #10 258 A ST #16 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 LEPOLD SHOSHANA LITTLE JAMES J MANNELI LAURA 228 TALENT AVE. 234 N FIRST ST 225 B ST TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MARKS MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLS LESLIE NARDI ASHLEY 417 CLIFF ST 258 A ST 258 A ST ST JOHNSBURG, VT 05819 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 NASH GRETCHEN NEWTON JUDITH REITZ ROBYN 258 A ST #2 205 GRANITE ST 239 SECOND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 RNN PROPERTIES LLC ROYCE LIZZY ROYLE HOWARD A 2640 E BARNETT RD E-431 145 E MAIN ST P 0 BOX 751 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CANYONVILLE, OR 97417 RUSNAK RONALD LISA J ZINGARE RUSSELL SCOTT M SCHNITZER LEE ELLIOT AND PAMELA JE 355 ASHLAND LOOP RD 1074 MONROE ST ET AL ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97402 2560 N VALLEY VIEW RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTT CHERI SCOTT TERI SELIGMAN MAYA 258 A ST. #2 258 A ST #2 258 A ST. #8 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SORIANO JOSE MORILLO SWEENEY DANIEL SKYEN MELISSA 280 N 2ND ST 239 SECOND ST 260 FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALBOOM JOE THOMAS TREVOR TOUGHILL CHRISTOPHER 540 HELMAN ST 258 A ST #8 246 FIFTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 VAN ORNUM IAN WAY PATRICIA WAY PATRICIA 258 A ST #112 260 N FIRST ST PO BOX 1327 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 WILSON DEBRA KNOX MARK TURMAN JOHN 108 CROCKER ST 485 W NEVADA ST PO BOX 862 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SWALES COLIN BRYAN MIKOTA 143 EIGHTH STREET 147 N LAUREL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 270 N FIRST 3/12/2014 NOD 65 i TYPE I APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION 2013.01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 09BA TAX LOT: 1300. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Kaplan, Brown and Peddicord declared site visits, Commissioner Dawkins shared an observation from his site visit and stated the green colored house on the south alley does not conform to the diagrams in the Historic District Design Standards and it seems very out of place. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter reviewed the approval criteria for a single family home in the R-2 District. She explained this is an outright permitted use; however this application requires a conditional use permit because it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 252 square foot and also requires a variance to the side yard setbacks. Ms. Gunter explained the site is located in the Railroad Historic District and the lot is legal/non-conforming, it is smaller than the minimum required lot size. She stated there is an existing residence on the site, however it is in very poor condition and the applicants have already received a demolition permit approval. She stated the applicant's propose to construct a new two-story home in nearly the same footprint as the existing residence, and noted the proposal would widen the side yard setback on the north side from 0 feet to 3 feet. Ms. Gunter brought attention to the Historic Commission's review of this proposal and stated they recommended approval of this application with the addition of the following minor conditions: 1) that there be more space between the double hung windows, 2) removal of the transom window over the second story doors, and 3) for the second story doors to be French doors instead of sliders. Ms. Gunter explained this application was administratively approved November 20, 2013 and following staffs approval a reconsideration request was filed. The reconsideration request was denied by the Community Development Director on November 27, 2013 and the appellant then filed their formal appeal, which is why this action is now before the Planning Commission. In her appeal, the appellant has raised issue with the size of the home, the choice of materials, not being cohesive with the other homes in the Historic District, the front yard setback, trees, parking, and open space requirements. Ms. Gunter provided an overview of the applicant's proposal and site plan and outlined the related criteria. She commented on the trees on the site and the arborists report, and clarified the parking as proposed is outright permitted and is consistent with City standards. Ms. Gunter commented on the maximum permitted floor area and clarified the ordinance allows applicants to exceed this limitation by up to 25% if they obtain a conditional use permit. She added this is a discretionary approval intended to provide a higher level of review for proposed structures in the context of the conditional use permit criteria as well as the Historic District Development Standards. In regards to the variance request for the side yard setback, Ms. Gunter explained the applicant's proposal identifies the unusual circumstance as a narrow lot width and stated this proposal would keep the south setback the same and increase the north setback to 3 feet. Ms. Gunter also commented on the building's design elements and clarified the Historic District Development Standards advocate for design features for new construction that are more contemporary in design in historic neighborhoods. Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation and stated staff believes this application meets the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit as well as the criteria for the setback variance. Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2014 Page 2 of 8 ti, t Questions of Staff Comment was made questioning the use of stucco. Ms. Gunter stated the applicant could address the material selections during their testimony. Staff was asked to clarify the lot coverage. Ms. Gunter clarified the R-2 zone allows up to 65% lot coverage and the applicant's are proposing 55%, which includes the parking. Comment was made questioning if there are other residential structures in the vicinity with metal roofs. Ms. Gunter stated there is an outbuilding at 270 Second Street that has a metal roof and there are two or three more structures with metal roofs off the alley to the east across Second Street. She added most of the commercial buildings in the neighborhood have metal roofs as well. Applicant's Presentation Mark Knox, Nisha Jackson, and John Turman addressed the Commission. Ms. Jackson explained they purchased this home 9 months ago and while they knew it was in bad condition they had hoped they would be able to remodel it. However after the inspection was completed it was deemed unsafe. She stated some of the challenges they have faced with designing a new home are the 25 ft, wide parcel and the existing trees. Ms. Jacksons stated they have worked hard to put together a compact footprint that would allow for a second floor and a second bedroom. She clarified a metal roof was selected because they would like this home to be LEED certified and a metal roof would allow for rain collection. She noted the design has gone through several revisions to accommodate the suggestions of the Historic Commission, and highlighted their decision to increase the setback to 3 ft. off the alley. Ms. Jackson stated they have followed all of the recommendations and have met the codes, and hopes the Planning Commission will approve this application, just as the Historic Commission and staff did. Mr. Knox commented that the lot's depth is much less than that of a standard historic district lot, and stated the current house has no sense of entry and is in very poor condition, He noted the appellant's house is adjacent to the applicant's, and they themselves recently went through a major remodel and addition. He stated the appellant's parking is located in the right-of-way and is a commercial use with ramps out front, and has changed the character of the streetscape. Mr. Knox stated the applicant's proposal is for a residence and the design is very compatible, just as the. Historic Commission and staff has found. He added if the Commission has concerns with the metal roof, it may still be possible to do a LEED structure with another option, but hopes the Commission will not ask for this. Ms. Jackson clarified for the Commission that they intend to save the boxwood tree on the site. She stated the arborist recommended its removal, but that was before he knew they would be doing a slab foundation. She also clarified the collector for the rain water would be placed in the backyard. When asked about the stucco material selection, John Thurman (building designer) explained varying materials were selected to break up the massing. He added in order to obtain LEED certification the slab needs to be wrapped with foam, and stucco siding works well for this. Mr. Thurman commented on the overall design of the structure and stated the proposed home is located in a transitional area and is much more appealing than the existing structure. He added the design combines elements of the more modern commercial structures while keeping some of the elements of the traditional historic homes. Comment was made expressing concern with the two-storydesign and whether this is compatible with the streetscape and the Historic District Design Standards, Mr. Knox noted the adjacent home has two-stories, but the volume is setback, and commented on the importance of having a varying streetscape with undulation. He added there are other houses along this stretch that have two stories as well. Appellant's Presentation Patricia Way/260 N First Street /Stated she owns the property next door and shared her concerns regarding bulk, scale, coverage, and architectural compatibility. Ms. Way stated the proposed home would not contribute to the character of the Railroad Historic District and would chip away at the integrity of the neighborhood. She commented on tourism and the draw historic homes and neighborhoods have, and recommended the Commission preserve the Railroad District character because it promotes tourism. Ms. Way stated the second story of the proposed home should be stepped back in order to not dwarf the other homes in the neighborhood, and expressed her concern Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2014 Page 3 of 8 regarding the contemporary design of the home. She stated it is not architecturally compatible with the impact area and cited the Historic District Design Standards. She commented that the stucco siding, metal roof, sliding glass doors, and steal cable balcony do not match the historic neighborhood, and claimed the applicant's misinformed and misrepresented the basis for their conditional use permit. She elaborated that the applicant's materials included pictures of homes they stated were within 200 ft. of their property and this is outright false information that the Historic Commission used to base their opinion and recommendations on. She added the properties to the north, east and south of this lot are all residential homes, and not commercial businesses as indicated in the applicant's materials. Ms. Way submitted a petition signed 77 people who are against this proposal and asked the Commission to deny the applicant's conditional use permit. Comment was made questioning how the petition signatures were obtained and whether any of the individuals reside on First Street. Ms. Way clarified the petition was placed at Ashland Street Printing for signatures and did not know if any of the signees live on First Street. Public Testimony Colin Swales/143 Eight Street/Stated this is a unique street and noted the curbside sidewalk that was recently installed. Mr. Swales thanked the applicant for complying with the parking standards and stated all of the other structures on First Street have placed their parking in the front yards. He stated contemporary houses can look very complimentary to other designs and thinks the applicant's have done a magnificent job and encouraged the Planning Commission's approval. Bryan Mikota/147 N Laurel/Stated he loves to walk around Ashland and check out the historical buildings as well as the new construction. He stated a lot of thought is being put into these new structures and they are improving the liveliness of the area. Mr. Mikota stated a few of the building near the Co-Op need some work, and this is one of them. He stated this will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood and stated he would have the same opinion if he were a visitor. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the appellant's statement that misleading information was given to the Historic Commission. Ms. Gunter stated that the applicant had said there was an addition with a metal roof; it is not metal but since the structure will be demolished, that information didn't influence the Historic Commission's decision. Ms. Gunter also clarified the applicant's materials included photographs and it was indicated they were on the same block. She stated there are different ways to define a block and does not believe this influenced the Historic Commission's decision. Staff was asked why two Historic commissioners voted to deny approval. Ms. Gunter stated one of the commissioners felt the proposal did not meet the compatibility standards, and the other commissioner did not vocalize her objections during the public hearing. Applicant's Rebuttal Mark Knox/Referenced the Historic District Standards and stated that design can be very subjective, but this is why there is a seven member Historic Commission made up of architects and designers. Mr. Knox stated they have followed the design standards and have followed the input from the Historic Commission. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 8:30 pm. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Miller gave her opinion that the home should conform more to the historic residential character. Commissioner Kaplan commented on the transitional character of this neighborhood and voiced his support for this proposal. He added it is not his desire to redesign this structure and will leave that to the Historic Commission. Commissioner Peddicord agreed with Kaplan. She stated a metal roof is needed for rainwater catchment and t" i ignoring the applicant's desire for LEED certification would be negligent on their part. She added a stepped back second story would be detrimental, and stated the applicant has addressed criteria and issues. Commissioner Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2014 Page 4 of 8 t Thompson stated the criteria for the conditional use permit and the variance request have been met, and believes this is a reasonable request. Commissioner Brown commented on standards for new construction versus reconstruction and gave his opinion that this design misses the boat in terms of scale and massing. He agreed that this is a transitional block but feels a stepped back second story would better fit the streetscape. Commissioner Dawkins disagreed and stated the home does fit the streetscape, as well as all of the criteria. Commissioner Mindlin stated she is comfortable with many of the elements, but voiced her agreement with Commissioner Brown in term of mass and scaling. She added ultimately though, the Historic Commission is the appropriate body to address the design and does not believe this is the time or place to take this up. Commissioner Dawkins/Peddicord m/s to approve PA-2013.01421 with the conditions proposed by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan, Thompson, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Brown and Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-2. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION 2014.00052 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 W. Nevada St. and 811 Helman Street APPLICANT: Wilma LLC DESCRIPTION: A request to modify the Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 W. Nevada Street and 811 Helman Street. The proposed modifications include: clarifications of the project phasing to make clear which improvements are required with each phase and to allow either phase to occur first; changes to the energy efficiency requirements of the development so that all units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be "Photovoltaic Ready"; and changes to the landscaping and maintenance requirements associated with construction of the multi-use path. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential and Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-3.5, R-1-5, R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04B TAX LOTS: 1100,1400-1418. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Brown and Peddicord declared site visits; No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the site and provided an overview of the original land use application. He explained the approved application was memorialized in a development agreement that was adopted by ordinance by the City Council in December 2007, and encompassed the following elements: ® Annexation, Land Exchange with the City, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes. ® Outline Plan approval to develop the property as a 68-unit residential development. ® Site Review approval for multi-family development. ® Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area. ® Exceptions to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on one side of a proposed street, to not locate a street adjacent to natural features, and to not connect two of the proposed streets. ® Variances to reduce the on-street parking requirement to 38 spaces, to reduce the rear yard setback, and to reduce the required distance between buildings for cottages. ® Administrative Variance to have the primary orientation of the buildings to the south in order to maximize use of solar energy. Mr. Severson explained the affordable housing development Rice Park was part of the first phase and has already been completed, and the remainder of the first phase includes the development of a cottage community with a private drive. The second phase of this development includes single family homes, completion of the Bear Creek Greenway connection to Nevada Street, and sidewalk installation along Nevada to Oak Street. Mr. Severson explained the applicant's are here tonight requesting three modifications to their original development agreement: Ashland Planning Commission February 11, 2014 Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name 41-j-'66o, (please print) Address (no P.O. Box) ~'Q(0 0 ~1(2,cA k tN-'s f ~E u Phone D ~l~~ (?l' VL Email VZ Q 001 6t (A Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use„Public I-Iearing For: Against: CK- Cha enge "for Conflict of Inter st or Bias If you are challenging a member (plannit~conunzs o er.),w t~conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Connnission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland:, Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. a Name/ .,c (plg se print) Address (no P.O. Box) Phone Email_ i.id {/r Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak orparticipate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland; Speaker Request Form City of Ashland Housing Commission The following information is required for you to speak, if you need to be contacted, or if information on an agenda item needs to be sent to you. ALWAYS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM Printed name: L / C Complete Street Address (No P.O. Boxes) Phone: I 4 - &!22-= Email: Vh!~ , 2 ii~ 0 c I Wish to Speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that this subject is not on the printed Agenda for tonight's meeting. (please note time during Public Forum is limited to 5 minutes per speaker at the discretion of the Chair) I wish to speak about Agenda Item number , The subject of which is: V or Q-t) ) LP&P es--) 'i z Vp-lyf-P VT) Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of the public may speak upon any item on the Agenda. If such a hearing has been held this fact will be noted on the printed agenda. The Public Forum period is provided for the public to speak on items that are not on the printed Agenda for tonight's meeting. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Housing Commission Chair or presiding officer. 4 City of Ashland Railroad District Comparables Planning Exhibit 25' wide lots & houses NOW . PA t According to Jackson County Records &AIP Address # of Story's Sa. Ft. Lot Dimensions 26015` Street 2 1,098 25'X 90' 2701St Street 2 1,300 25'X 90' 1592 nd Street 2 1,290 25'X 142' 2473 d Street 2 1,633 25'X 142' 2533 rd Street 2 1,400 25X 142' 1314th Street 1 1,005 25'X 142' 435 "B" Street 2 1,526 25X 121' 137 5th Street 2 1,108 25'X 142' 153 6th Street 2 1,614 25'X 142' 1506 th Street 2 1,086 25X 142' Average 1,306 * Typical lots in the Railroad District are generally in increments of 25' in width, but typically are 142' in depth. ~ ~ _ i ,r ~ ~ - i ~ , _ E~, ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i _ L~ ~ - ~ ~ { 1 C _ k ~1. 1f J~ i ~r ~ ~ ~ ] c ' + i.. y ~ ~ r ~ - ~ ti ~ ` I ' :i t _ 1 _ r ~ t ` ~ _ , - _ - ~ 3 - ~ - - _ 1. - ~ it `kS SITE DATA: 270 N. FIRST ST. TOTAL LOT: 2300 SQ. FT. LOT COVERAGE: 1250 SQ. FT. 55% w zoo 000 F r ~ 00=; Xwu ww i 1 c - \ Y \ 3 PAVER I o ~ WALKWAY I \ I- V5 I~ BUILDING U) Z FOOTPRINT or_ N O I_ 816 SQ. FT.-UNDER ROOF\\ " w ® \ w ZO°w ® \ 5'-0" co Q 6" - 611 ~ 00 \ LJL ~ o c~ J~ LANDSCAPING I ~ //x, CON BORDER I 9 a 511 SQ. FT z ~ / i xtz A A o~ 1 STORY BUILDING aN 648 SQ. FT.-FOOTPRINT' U j ~ O ERVIOUS N 7'X 16'P PAVERS 112 SQ. FT. PARKING CONC. WALKWAY O 54 SQ. FT. 1 i - - - - - SCALE: 1/8" 1'0" SITE DATA: 260 N. FIRST ST. j TOTAL LOT: 2300 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN LOT COVERAGE: 1245 SQ. FT. 55% I N i i I' `I I "TIC II~Ii I ~~1, j~ I~;III NORTH ELEVATION f TIn EAST ELEVATION I I W-0" lees LINE F FLOOR r 4 Es TRE¢ S TO BE WE tl.~ i I I leas I 1 i I i 2 PARKIN SPACES I ' 'DRIVEWAY 4085 .FT. InI I ,1025.. FT. L II s i U II I ; s u z I I COVE-RE PAR i i k I X 17W i i ~ I I I i LINE OF DECK I ABOVE I I i i ~ II I i i TREETO eE~°~ I ~ - - ' 1869 S•_0" i j i J es Q i 1994 i i i I BUILDING Ii W / FOOTPRINT Ole 6Q. FT; UNDER RODF i i I I O i i , 1 I 19$8 io 5X1 6 5 ' I TR~TO6E x k R~~ ~ n Esanvi i , i _ 25.00 I 1884 SITEDATA: TOTAL LOT: 2300 SQ. FT, LOT COVERAGE: 1250 SQ. FT. 1 I ~T. 55% i I TR£EST of sY7 ' Ekl9TN1:9ENFWt1K 4 N. FIRST ST. SITE PLAN (A,\ SCALE; 1/8" 1'0" ` ` Decision In Appeal: tV ~f Ashland °lanning Action # PA-2013-01421 1'1i1ttnir,gExhibit PA At 270 N. 1st street OA- STAFF Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature 7 &5? ~ s+ - ~~V-q r) Lt-19- 1660 L ! C c"i rt G J ! 1 fit IY A 'A 2,5 C(/f Le-z vk q, j 16 n 6, ,1, 6 1 qv, U IZ r a r f'/~ V~Se r7 .20 F c +r? / s -S De-0-sl-6nT'v\ Apfcal P[C -(:7R-o A al A+ ow\ -OA~z J h S SG1. (Cc ~ q -f Pr, nf q- [N,.~u~v barmoklM '9fe*l ultk AL st A `li 7 q fV D,~tv-e. ( Sweevk-ey 23q N Zkd S-tye2 CA-uZ nj - yVl{ V) Decision In Appeal: °lanning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature 10 1 . 11'% am K a mLo S ~ ( Ise 5 ctm i~',y r►a o ire ' S b S ' G P teI2 mt--- , c b.~+C b 6-1 r fnc ~\Q- S i n ~K\ c~- 64-\ a~)~ A AOPJ- VAU( A Decision In Appeal: "tanning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature f I :1w i 'l (ob ~r~ a fl~ )cUt~'Asa-)J19<16\111) -~WS L~J,L ShA CLOI-4~' 40\ O~WS~ (-A= L"LA JI) 1 c~ l Decision In Appeal: Planning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature /~W,~So- U-O(J~- A5 k (o-rJ 7 3 a6 e U IT P j - - J AL' 67 A 001, f C w Pasc~ e- A l~ A AA jj e- f r ' Oi a~3 a' s' ~4 << t Decision in Appeal: Planning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signatu 137 37 P a4NT 97 Y-1- p _ e - . a o s i i t ~ f n f, /yam _ r i P s' d - ! '~f t J +31 ,1; 2 o JLA Al A I f r ~ _ r ~ mow, ff _ / Ae)ye f (AL Decision In Appeal: Planning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature sc-ot aq ),-3 01 yfoskinu Ot ArWol k _g,.,~, r„✓°"° 6- _ W +4*Lwa.-,gg.., e; y., f+,.,.. b.~ D~„i ~-hy `O¢ °w.- an• ~ wa i ~ c 0 Decision In Appeal: Planning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature CITY F LL Community Development - Planning Department 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 Phone 541-488-5303 Fax 541-488-6006 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE 120 - DAY TIME LIMIT FOR A FINAL ACTION Planning Action: # 2013-01421 Property Address: 270 First Street, Ashland Oregon Map &Tax Lot # of Property: 39 1 E 09BA Lot # 1300 Description of Planning Action: Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new single-family residence at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. Property Owner(s): RNN Properties LLC Owner Address: 2640 E Barnett Rd. Medford, Oregon Owner Phone Number: 541-944-5987 Contact Name & Phone # (if other than owner): ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions may not exceed 245 days." Applicants request a 30 day extension°td-fthe time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1). Signature Date Signature Date Received by City of Ashland Planning Staff C:\UsersWark\AppDatalLoc ItM]msoft\Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\D9ND421B\First_270_120day_extenslon.doo 110/2014 Planning Department, 51 Winourn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 [ T 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900-i PLANNING ACTION: 2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 First Street OWNER/APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 4 - • ~ ~ - A s - - SU EJ ECT PRO PEI ITY 270 FIRST STREET ! ! - TY] _ 39 1E 096A 1300 - °'1 - l - - - - - - _ o 4-,-jU - r, `i - - Proy arty Zf,,- cxra_for re franca -1y, riot -Z-ble 012. M5 50 Feet Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderVbtailed Notices & Signs\2014\PA-2013-01421 270 First St. APPEAL 2.11.14.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. VARIANCE 18.100.020 Application The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (ORD 2425, 1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (ORD 2775, 1996) GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\Mailed Notices & Signs\2014\PA-2013-01421 270 First St. APPEAL.doc N AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On January 28, 2014 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2013-01421, 270 N.First St APPEAL. Signature of Employee Documentl 1/28/2014 A STREET ARTS BUILDING LLC ALLEN ANNABEL L 406 IOWA ST 950 PARK ST 4 ALLEN KATHERINE ET AL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 10732 INTERLAKE AVE N SEATTLE, WA 98133 AMBROSE JACQUELENE ASHLAND FOOD COOPERATIVE B STREET LLC 269 B ST 237 FIRST ST N 223 FIFTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BARNARD STEVE BARNARD WHITNEY BASS BRITTNEY 258 A ST 258 A ST #1 240 N FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BASS RONALD E TRUSTEE ET AL BENTON JON J BLUE MOUNTAIN EMPRESA LLC 78 SIXTH ST 263 N SECOND ST 340 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BRINTON VALERIE ROSE CHESTER GENE R CLIFT ROBERT A ET AL 2088 SYCAMORE RD 249 B ST 236 N FIRST ST FILLMORE, CA 93015 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 COHEN LYNN COMSTOCK PAUL H/JUDITH A COYODE AVA 462 A ST PO BOX 35 249 1/2 A ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PHOENIX, OR 97535 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CRUZ STELLA DENMAN HILLARY DONNELLY DENNIS P/DARLENE 803 N MAIN ST 236 N FIRST ST 2022 COVE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 DONNELLY DENNIS ENGEL TALOR GOUGE JACOB 246 A ST 258 A ST 240 N FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HANSEN GARY HARVARD PATRICK HAYNES KARL 205 GRANITE ST 65 PRATHER 2253 HWY 99 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HOUK JASON HOUSER THOMAS J/WILSON JENSEN ETSUKO 137. FIFTH ST CHERYL B 249 1/2 A ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 185 B ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 JUALVEST LLC KELLEY KATHERYN KNOWLES ETHAN 64 THIRD ST 1550 OREGON ST #10 258 A ST #16 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 LEPOLD SHOSHANA LITTLE JAMES J MANNELI LAURA 228 TALENT AVE. 234 N FIRST ST 225 B ST TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MARKS MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLS LESLIE NARDI ASHLEY 417 CLIFF ST 258 AST 258 A ST ST JOHNSBURG, VT 05819 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ;ASHLAND, OR 97520 i NASH GRETCHEN NEWTON JUDITH REITZ ROBYN 258 A ST #2 205 GRANITE ST 1239 SECOND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 'ASHLAND, OR 97520 RNN PROPERTIES LLC ROYCE LIZZY ROYLE HOWARD A 2640 E BARNETT RD E-431 145 E MAIN ST P O BOX 751 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CANYONVILLE, OR 97417 III RUSNAK RONALD LISA J ZINGARE RUSSELL SCOTT M SCHNITZER LEE ELLIOT AND 355 ASHLAND LOOP RD 1074 MONROE ST PAMELA JE ET AL ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97402 2560 N VALLEY VIEW RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTT CHERI SCOTT TERI SELIGMAN MAYA 258 A ST. #2 258 A ST #2 258 AST. #8 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 'ASHLAND, OR 97520 SORIANO JOSE MORILLO SWEENEY DANIEL SKYEN MELISSA 280 N 2ND ST 239 SECOND ST 260 FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALBOOM JOE THOMAS TREVOR 'TOUGHILL CHRISTOPHER 540 HELMAN ST 258 A ST #8 246 FIFTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 VAN ORNUM IAN WAY PATRICIA 258 A ST #112 260 N FIRST ST WAY PATRICIA ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PO BOX 1327 ASHLAND, OR 97520 r WILSON DEBRA KNOX MARK TURMAN JOHN 108 CROCKER ST 485 W NEVADA ST PO BOX 862 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 F t t ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT February 11, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: 2013-01421 APPLICANT: RNN Properties LOCATION: 270 First Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: October 18, 2013 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: February 15, 2014 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.24 R-2 Low-Density Multi-Family Residential 18.104 Conditional Use Permit 18.100 Variances REQUEST: Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new single-family residence at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application The application was administratively approved on November 20, 2013. A re- consideration request was filed on November 26, 2013, and the request was denied by the Community Development Department Director on November 27, 2013. The approval was appealed on December 2, 2013 by an adjacent property owner and a citizen. The applicant requested a postponement of the public hearing previously scheduled for January 14, 2014, and provided a 30-day extension to the 120-day required timeline for taking final action a quasi-judicial land use application (i.e. "120-day rule" in ORS 227.178). The appellant requested a postponement of the public hearing scheduled for February 11, 2014, but staff was unable to obtain a second timeline extension. As a result, the public hearing was scheduled for the February 11 Planning Commission meeting. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 1 of 13 t t B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject property is located on the east side of First Street, between A and B streets and adjacent to an east / west trending alley. The parcel is zoned low density multiple- family residential (R-2) and is located within the Railroad Historic District. The properties to the east, west and south are zoned R-2 and the properties to the north and northwest, across the alley, are zoned employment (E-1). The subject property is occupied by a single-family residence and an outbuilding. The property to the east is a single-family residence. The property to the south is also a single-family residence with an attached retail business approved in 2010/2011 (PA2010-01611). The property to the west is the Ashland Food Co-Op, Umpqua Bank and Crane Property Management and to the north and northwest are the businesses, South Valley Auto Body and the A Street Arts Building. The property is rectangular with an area of 2,300 square feet. Similar to many of the residential lots in this block, the property was created prior to current zoning regulations and is smaller than the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. As a result, the property is considered a legal, non-conforming lot. There is an approximately four percent slope downhill to the north. There is a 13-inch in diameter at breast height (DBH) box elder tree to the east of the existing residence, a six- inch DBH box elder tree to the west of the existing residence, and a six-inch DBH black walnut to the north of the residence adjacent to the alley. There are two street trees between the front property line and First Street. A tree survey provided by the applicant's arborist is included in the record. The arborist recommends removal of the black walnut, and both box elders. The applicant intends to retain the 13-inch box elder and remove the six-inch box elder and the black walnut. The removal of the small diameter trees is outright permitted and does not require approval or permits by the city. The existing residence on the site is identified as the Hall-Thompson House in the Historic Resources Inventory for the Railroad Historic District. The inventory notes that the structure was constructed in the late 1940s and while in poor condition, the simply designed house retains sufficient integrity to relate its development during the second period of significance in the history of the Railroad District. The applicant obtained a home inspection which details the conditions of the house. It is included in the record. The applicant has received Demolition Approval from the City of Ashland Building Division. The removal of the residence is pending the approval of the building permit for a replacement structure. Currently the site has a metal fence adjacent to the alley and has no vehicular access. The applicant intendeds to remove the fence and provide two on-site parking spaces accessed from the alley. The parking space access and location is consistent with the City of Ashland Street Standards requirement to use alleys where available for vehicular access. The parking the applicant has proposed is outright permitted and requires no exceptions, special permits or review by the city. The application involves demolishing the existing 524 square foot residence and outbuilding and constructing a new, two-story 1,300 square foot residence. The proposed home requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 2 of 13 Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by 24 percent or 252 square feet. The applicant has proposed to construct the new home in nearly the exact footprint of the existing residence which does not meet the required side yard setbacks. The standard side yard setback is six-feet, and the applicant has requested to reduce the setback to three-feet on both the north and south sides. This requires a Variance. II. Project Impact The request is for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the Historic District and Variance to the required side yard setbacks from six feet to three feet. The request was approved administratively as a Type I and was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The Planning Commission is the final decision of the city and any further appeals would be to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The construction of a single family home is a permitted use in the R-2 zone. If the proposed home was at or under the allowed MPFA and met the standard requirements of the zone, e.g. setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc., the approval would be limited to a building permit and would not require a land use approval. The focus of the request is the house design in the context of the Historic District Design Standards and the placement in regards to the setbacks. A. Conditional Use Permit to exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area Residentially zoned properties located within Ashland's Historic Districts are subject to a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) limitation based on the lot size and number of units proposed. This limitation is intended to preserve the historic character of Ashland's historic districts by insuring that development is architecturally and historically compatible with historic development patterns and fits well into the fabric of these established historic neighborhoods. The ordinance establishing the MPFA limitations provides for applicants to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent when they obtain a CUP; this is a discretionary approval intended to provide for a higher level of review of proposed structures in the context of the CUP approval criteria as well as the Historic District Development Standards. The MPFA calculation for the 2,300 square foot parcel allows for a 1,048 square feet residence. The proposal is to construct a new, 1,300 square foot LEED Certified, single- family residence, 252 square feet or 24 percent over the MPFA. The proposed home is two-story with 664 square feet on the ground floor and 636 square feet on the second floor. A five-foot by six-foot, covered front porch is proposed and an eight foot by seventeen and one-half foot covered patio at the rear of the building. The second story steps back from the front fagade by three-feet with a five-foot deep deck. The rear is cantilevered over the rear patio by four-feet. The applicant has proposed a beige stucco finish on the lower portion and horizontal cedar siding on the upper portion of the structure. Black fiberglass windows and doors are proposed. The applicant has proposed dark brown metal roof. The property has adequate capacity for city facilities to serve a new single-family home. There is overhead electric serving the site. First Street has a four-inch water main, a six- Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 3 of 13 k l inch sewer line and a twelve-inch storm drain line available to continue to serve the site and the proposed single-family home. First Street is classified as a neighborhood street and is paved with curb, gutter and sidewalks. The alley is also paved. The street and alley provide adequate transportation facilities to continue to serve the parcel. The generation of traffic from the proposed home is consistent with that of the target use, and less than that generated by the adjacent business uses. In addition, the proximity to the downtown, shopping and bicycle paths may result in a reduction in vehicle trips over what might be expected for a similar unit not as centrally located. The construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the zone. Generation of light, noise and glare will be no worse than a single family residence. 1. Historic District Development Standards Conditional Use Permit review calls for consideration of whether the proposed single-family home will have adverse material effects on the impact area when compared to the target use of the zone. The target use in this case is the development of one residential unit. Specifically, "similarity in scale, bulk and coverage" and "architectural compatibility with the impact area" is included in the factors to be considered when making the comparison between the proposal and the target use. In addition to the CUP criteria, the ordinance also requires that properties seeking an overage to the MPFA be reviewed using the Historic District Design Standards which address compatibility with historic context in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape and material, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense of entry, imitation, etc. For new construction, these Development Standards generally seek architectural features that represent our own time yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district. Additionally, the Historic District Design Standards state that properties that are adjacent to the zoning district boundaries are provided flexibility to building form, massing, height, scale, placement or architectural and material treatment while not losing sight of the underlying standards Site Design and Use Standards, Section IV Historic District Development, pg. 42). This block of First Street is a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic District. The alley abutting the north side of the subject property is the dividing line for the zoning districts with properties north of the alley zoned E-1 and properties to the south zoned R-2. The properties to the north and northwest of the subject property are established commercial businesses. The property north of the subject property, across the alley, includes a vacant residence, and an auto body repair, painting and detail shop. The property across First Street is split zoned between R-2 and E-1 and is the site of the Ashland Food Co-Op, Crane Property Management and Umpqua Bank. The property directly to the south is residentially zoned but received a Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 4 of 13 Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to have a small commercial business in the front portion of the structure and the back portion is a two-story residential unit (PA2010-1611). Historic District Development Standards, Section IV-C: IV-C-1 Height: RECOMMENDED AVOID 1 1 t Construct new buildings to a height within New construction that varies in height the range of historic building heights on and (too high or too low) from historic across the street. buildings in the vicinity. The proposed building height is similar to buildings in the vicinity and to those structures immediately to the north, south and west. The proposed structure is 22- feet to the peals of the roof, which is less than the allowed 30-feet in the zone. The property across First Street, the Ashland Food Co-Op, is approximately 28-feet tall. The building to the south includes a two-story portion that is 19.74 feet tall. The property to the north includes two buildings, the vacant residence is approximately 16.5 feet to the peals and the auto body building is approximately 1.5 feet tall. IV-C-2 Scale: RECOMMENCED AVOID i Y Height, width and massing of new buildings Height, width, or massing of new contcrm with historic buildings in the buildings that is out et scale with immediate vicinity. historic buildings in the vicinity_ The width of the structure at 16-feet is comparable to the properties in the immediate vicinity. Other properties in the Railroad Historic District have relatively tall, narrow residences due to the narrow lot widths that are found throughout the Railroad District. Tall, narrow residences are a design is characteristic throughout the Railroad District. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 5 of 13 IV-C-3 Massing: RECOMMENDED AVOID i E Small, varied masses consistent With historic Single, monolithic forms that are not buildings in the immediate vicinity. relieved by variations in massing. The applicant proposed a single gable roof, a smaller gable roof over the front porch and a shed roof over a small bay on the north side adjacent to the alley to vary the massing. Additionally, the second story will be setback from the front fagade by three feet and has proposed a roof top deck with door and transom window. At the rear of the property, the second story is proposed to be cantilevered beyond the first floor by four-feet and a four-foot roof over the first level patio is proposed beyond the cantilever. These variations in the fagade address the Historic District Design Standards in regards to varying the massing of the building. IV-C-4 Setback: RECOMMENDED AVOID R t Front walls of new buildings tare in the sane Front walls that are constructed piano as tho focados of adjacont historic forward of or bohind ,otback lino of buildings. adjacent historic buildings. The front of the residence is proposed to be setback eight-feet from the front property line. The proposed setback is consistent with the existing setback of the adjacent buildings. Additionally, AMC 18.6 states that if there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with front or side yards abutting a public street with less than the required setback for the district, the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures. Based on aerial photography and previous land use approvals the adjacent property, the setback of the structure to the north is two-feet and the setback of the structure to the south is nine and one-half feet for an average of five-feet, nine-inches; the applicant has proposed eight-feet, which in compliance with the code. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 6 of 13 IV-C-5 Roof, RECOMMENDED AVOID ti 10 f. y Roof shape, pitches and materials consistent Roof shapes, pitches, or materials not with historic buildings in the immediate historically used in the immediate vicinity. vicinity- The proposed home has a gable roof, with a 6 /12 pitch roof. The proposed shape and pitch are similar to the existing structure and other homes in the neighborhood. The applicant has proposed a metal roof. There is a metal roof across the street at the Co-Op. Metal roofs can be found along A and in limited numbers throughout the Railroad District. IV-C-6 Rhythm of Oyeninzs: RECOMMENDED AVOID Pattern or rhythm of wall to doortwindow A pattern or rhythm of window/door openings on the primary fagade or other openings that is inconsistent with visually prominent elevation is maintained, adjacent historic buildings- Maintain compatible width-to-height ratio of bays in the facada. The applicant has proposed double hung windows as the primary windows of the structure. The windows in the immediate vicinity vary from one property to another but the overall prominent pattern is double hung. The Historic Commission recommended that there be a separation of approximately four- inches between the sashes. One item of discussion was the proposed transom window over the second story doors from the master suite at the front of the residence. This window does add to the availability of light into the space but also gives the appearance of a taller, more voluminous second story. Staff recommends that the applicant reconsider the transom window over the doors facing First St. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 7 of 13 IV-C-7 Base or Platform: RECOMMENDED AVOID 1 a A clearly defined base, or platform Walls that appear to rise straight out of characteristic of historic buildings in the the ground without a distinct platform immediate vicinity- or base at the ground level. The applicant has proposed a base with a half-inch reveal. The base is proposed to be the same facade treatment (stucco) as the lower five-feet of the structure. The reveal proposed provides a defined base that will not make the building look like its rising directly out of the ground. The provision of the base is consistent with the standards. IV-C-8 Form: RECOMMENDED AVOID /vj sy~`~jff~p2l~. J \ ' i Form (vertical borizosntal emphasis of Form that varies from bait of existing building) that is consistent with that of adjacent historic buildings- adjacent historic buildings. The primary form of the building is narrow and tall with gabled roof. The applicant has proposed variations in roof forms such as smaller gables, shed roofs and second story deck on the street and alley facing fagades. The proposed primary form and additional variations are consistent with the form of the adjacent historic buildings and those found throughout the Railroad District. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 8 of 13 t IV-C-9 Entrances: RECOMMENDED AWID 1 - it s ! i E Well-defined primacy eniiw ces with covered F aka des vvith miNinalty defined parches, porticos, and rather architar_tural primary entrances. features compa ible but nut rrnitative cif historic counterparts- The existing front door is behind the front facade of the residence and is not well defined. The applicant has proposed an entrance with a covered front porch, improving the facade and the proposed residence by providing definition to the location of the front door. IV-C-10 Imitation of Historic Features: RECOMMENDED AVOID Accurate restoration of original architectural Replicating or imitating the styles, features on historic buildings. New motifs, or details of historic buildings. construction, including additions, that is clearly contemporary in design which enhances but does not compete visually with ;-adjacent historic buildings. The applicants' home design reflects many of the characteristics and patterns of development in the Railroad Historic District. The applicant has proposed a building that is contemporary but has connection through the roof form, materials, rhythm of openings, massing and overall design. The Development Standards for new construction generally seek architectural features that represent our own time yet enhance the nature and character of the historic district. The Historic Commission reviewed the proposal at their November 6, 2013 meeting and recommended approval with a condition that the double hung windows have a three-and-one-half to four inch separation between windows. A condition to this effect has been added. In staff's opinion, the proposed single- family home meets the Historic District Design Standards and will not have more of an adverse impact than the target use of the zone in terms of architectural compatibility, scale, bulk and coverage. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant; RNN Properties Page 9 of 13 B. Variance to Side Yard Setbacks The request includes constructing the replacement residence three feet from the north and south property lines (side yards). The standard side yard setback in the R-2 zone is six feet. The existing residence is located three feet from the south property line and less than one foot from the north (alley side) property line. The applicant has proposed to retain the three-foot south setback and to increase the north setback (alley side) to three feet. The applicant identifies the unusual circumstance as the narrow lot width. The proposed setbacks remain the same on the south side of the building and increase to three feet on the north side, reducing the non-conforming setback. The 25-foot wide lot in the neighborhood is unusual, within 200-feet of the subject site there is only one other 25- foot lot directly to the south. The applicant's findings also state that the variance is the minimum necessary in order to accommodate basic living areas on the first floor and an ADA accessible restroom and a stairwell that can be adapted for a motorized wheelchair lift. The applicant argues that providing a setback is a benefit to the alley right-of-way and the public that uses the alley. The applicant's did not create the narrow lot because it was platted during the initial planning of the Railroad District. Many of the lots were consolidated in order to create 50 and 75 foot wide parcels. C. Appeal Issues The proposed development was administratively approved and subsequently appealed. The reasons for the appeal are addressed below. The appellant states that the proposal runs counter to the standards from, Section, IV-B, Historic District Design Standards, Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions. Section IV-B standards are for restoration, rehabilitation and additions to existing structures. The application is proposing new construction so these standards are not used in the review of this proposal. The appellant argues that the size of the proposed home will look like a large home on a small lot. The proposed home is two stories, 1,300 square feet, and 24 percent over the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) for the Historic District. The residence is proposed to be 664 square feet on the ground floor and 636 square feet on the second floor. As stated above, when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit to exceed MPFA, compatibility of the proposed structure with historic context is evaluated in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape and material, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense of entry, imitation, etc. is reviewed and whether the request will have an adverse impact on the livability of the impact area. In staff's opinion the proposed design uses a variety of architectural features, such as the offset of the second story, the use of a porch and varying roof forms to break up the home into smaller, varied masses to mitigate the additional 252 square feet over the MPFA. Staff does not believe that the proposed residence will have a negative impact on livability. The appellant argues that the material choices and street facing elements are not cohesive with the other homes in the historic district. The applicant has proposed using a Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 10 of 13 combination of stucco and wood siding, dark colored trim on windows, sliding glass doors, a street facing deck with a steel cable railing and a dark metal roof. As stated above, the proposed design, materials and facade treatment reflects many of the characteristics and patterns of development in the Railroad Historic District. The Historic District Development Standards generally seek architectural features that represent our own time yet enhance the character of the historic district. Specifically, standard IV-C-10 recommends that new construction be clearly contemporary in design which enhances but does not compete visually with adjacent historic buildings. Replication or imitation of the style motifs or details of historic buildings are to be avoided. The home is contemporary but has connection to the Historic District Design Standards through the roof form, materials, rhythm of openings, massing and overall design. In staff's opinion, the applicant's proposed material choices are found throughout each of Ashland's Historic Districts and are found in the Historic Railroad District. Additionally, the standards rely on looking beyond the individual building and to the district as a whole; and in this location considering the transitional area which includes residential and commercial buildings; the proposed residence is compatible with the neighborhood development pattern. 111. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof 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. 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. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 11 of 13 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. In addition to the criteria above for Conditional Use Permit approval, the standards noted in Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards (see pages 39-47 of the document which is available on- line at: http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/SiteDesign-and-UseStandards.pdf ) are also to be considered when evaluating the request. The criteria for a Variance are described in 18.100.020 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes the application meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 24 percent and a Variance to reduce the required side yards from six to three feet. The Historic Commission recommended approval of the proposal. The existing structure on the site does not comply with setbacks. During the initial pre- application conference phase the applicant expressed a desire to retain the existing structure, but following the home inspection it was determined financially unfeasible to meet the current building codes for energy with the existing structures deteriorated state and single wall construction. The application meets the criteria for a Variance because of the narrow lot width, and the side yards are similar to the existing structure on this lot and the surrounding non-conforming side yards in the area. The variance is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. The variance request is increasing the non- conforming setback along the alley and the narrow lot width was not self-imposed. The narrow vertical form of the proposed home is consistent with the pattern of development and homes in the impact area. The height is consistent with homes in the impact area and is less than the maximum allowed height of thirty-feet. The scale and massing reflect the modestly sized residential structures in the immediate area. The covered entrance and the front yard setback are consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. The building design includes a metal roof as part of water conservation measures and some modern material choices, malting the proposed building exterior consistent with the mix of materials found in the impact area on both contemporary and historic structures. The Historic District Design Standards specifically state that new structures are not intended to imitate historic structures and should seek to have traditional architecture that well represents our own time yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district. The standards rely on looking beyond the individual building and to the district as a whole, in this location the transitional area which includes residential and commercial buildings is considered in the review of compatibility. Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 12 of 13 t k The item is time sensitive because the city must make the final decision on the planning application by March 16, 2014. A decision at the February 11 meeting allows time for the Planning Commission to adopt findings at the March Study Session. If the application is continued, the Planning Commission needs to obtain agreement from the applicant for an additional extension to the 120-day time limit. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions attached: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. . 2) That building permit submittals shall include: a) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their November 6tn, 2013 meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. C) That the transom window proposed over the second story French door facing First Street shall be removed from the plans. d) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section' drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade. e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas shall be submitted with the building permit. The lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. f) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the building plan submittals. 3) Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit for the removal of the existing residence, prior to any site disturbing activities and/or issuance of a building permit, the Tree Protection fencing in accordance with AMC 18.61.200 (six-foot chain link fence at the furthest extent of the dripline of the trees to not conflict with the area necessary for construction) shall be installed and inspected by the staff advisor. I Planning Action 2013-01421 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg Applicant: RNN Properties Page 13 of 13 s i Z ~-lam ~ I ~C C C LWL, a` v IUL. ® 019 LULJ 1 Qj- 11 1 / r i Asia T APPEAL MATERIALS Notice of Land Use Appeal - Type Ashland Municipal Code § 18.108.070.132c A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es): kvAC6 '-i v~ 0, Ool~ 6a,V) C 0 2f Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joi ing the appeal. C. Decision Being Appealed Date of Decision: Planning Action Title of planning action: D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below. 'tSl The person named in am the applicant. Box A.1. above received notice of the planning action. qualifies as a party ❑ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. The person named in ❑ 1 am the applicant. Box A.2. above ❑ 1 received notice of the planning action. qualifies as a party ❑ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive because: notice due to error. Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a party. E. Specific Grounds for Appeal 1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in § requires that attach additional pages if necessar : 2. The second specific ground.for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § or other law in § requires that attach additional pages if necessar : 3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § ' or other law in § requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 1 4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other law that were violated. Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $150.00 which is the appeal fee required by § 18.108.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary): s~ Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the Community Development Department, Attn: Planning Commission Secretary, 20 E Main St, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-5305, prior to the effective date of they decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108.070. - ~4'A 10--M v-+ V'1.~ - ~ ~VV1 it) C4 Awl V r 1(4t ~ u VO oAUv ` IVY 1 t 5 December 2, 2013 City of Ashland: It is our concern that the residence proposed at 270 N. 1st Street which you are in charge of approving does not contribute to our existing Historic Railroad District character. You are responsible with caring for the development of strong neighborhoods and in this instance we think you have overlooked the charm and value of our unique block. We do not think you have acted in the interest of this community and ask you to reconsider. These are small lots close together. All currently maintain cohesion with similar size, materials, street facing elements, and roof composition. Of these- none is true of the new proposed residence. 1. The size will look like a large home built on a small lot especially in relationship to all of the porches with sliding glass doors and covered decks sticking out from the already larger than normal structure AND the two car parking they are placing on this small lot. They will have a covered porch on the front and a balcony for a sliding glass doors facing the street plus a 5' x 16' waterproof deck off the back as well as a balcony for a sliding glass door. That is a lot of space to take up and NO other home in this area has anything like that! The conditional use permit the City is granting for a 25% increase is not necessary on this small lot and (being at the discretion of the City) seems inconsiderate of the existing neighborhood that the City would want to contribute to the overdevelopment of a congested area. A very adequate single family home could be built on this lot without the 25% permitted floor increase- there is no need for a 2 bedroom, 2.5 bath residence on this 25' wide lot. 2. The material approved to cover this home is two colors of stucco. Looking in the Historic Railroad District (which is a big value to preserve for charm and tourism in this town) we have not found one home identified as stucco for the siding. They are all wood. There is no benefit to this contemporary material being introduced when other more cohesive choices are available which would be a better fit for this residence. (When asked what other stucco homes were approved by the City in the Historic Railroad District City Planner Amy Gunter has stated that the Ashland Food Coop is stucco but it is neither a residence nor a Historic Contributing Building) 3. All of the other homes on this street have similar street facing elements. The window fiberglass colors are ALL white in this neighborhood, yet these windows will have black trim- a contemporary choice. This home has a covered porch AND a balcony with "cable" railing with a stainless steel finish (per West Elevation plan). Stainless steel cable railing is a VERY CONTEMPORARY design element as verified by any architectural magazine- yet not at all a part of Historic Railroad District residences. The house is designed to have sliding glass doors as part of a front street design element. This is not an element which fits with our neighborhood in any way and will contribute glare street side unnecessarily and possibly with hazard to cars backing out of public parking across the street. These elements should not be approved. 4. The roof composition of this home was approved to be metal. The proposal submitted suggested that the current structure has a metal roof which it absolutely does not as verified by pictures. This alone should be grounds for reconsideration as it is untrue. Again, we have found no other HOMES in the Historic Railroad District to have metal roof composition and see no reason to approve a home that is not cohesive with the neighborhood. As stated in the following pages- it is noted in your own documents preferences for materials other than metal, in the Historic Railroad District- who benefits by not keeping the cohesion? All of these things put together make this house stand out in a non-neighborly way! F, i When a contemporary home is built in the midst of Historic Railroad District homes it chips away at the integrity of that zone and makes the Historic homes loose value. One of the assets of Planning standards (that you have the responsibility to uphold) is that it does create a feeling of cohesion- like we all sat down together as a neighborhood to work together to make our street aesthetically pleasing. We are blessed with a good amount of tourism for the reason that we have such a beautiful town and walking in the Railroad district is a big part of that for many people. It is in all of our financial interests to keep that quality safeguarded. Please put more thought and attention into this residential home and make it fit better within our neighborhood! Thank you for your time and consideration, Residents/Home Owners/People who Care (See names Attached) Decision In Appeal: 'Manning Action # PA-2013-01421 r. At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature ~Sv IVY I~ yl,r1'1 fit av,~ CA- AO9J_ U Decision In Appeal: °lanning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature t r Decision In Appeal: Planning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature t µ F a c r% AS t/a 0 Z) 4e Decision In Appeal: Planning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature C, ~s n,n W 1( C® F t 1~1 r Decision In Appeal: 131anning Action # PA-2013-01421 At 270 N. 1st street Joining this Appeal: Name Address Signature ~k De-"--5i- T", n ~ F r . r .2 4 92J d CA VL x~ 9 F~A r ` ecR as hisfi~r-icu.ll. S'- c6,vIf cU)d~ 5 'J Pl(Xo and lmp[er~entf tj ~ re~ct,la-(~6~ , ~0 C-D , 12~15 ~1 I-q- 008~ cjiv~o dcl)~S ho-A Cov)~oV-M i~ which i-~ cs loCx+cj,T+ \s "o+ add~r+eGtLkall~ 0 l g, og(~ J Sef bc~ a 10 1 Yle-, the, a-0se-St a C-f c)~ --Nt e, b Lk't cti n IS 5 ab ec-A +0 a s4bc"(, I ~-e,.1PAe/vci Co((-v~ /m PC)\(--Ck-(-j St ot,~-41'1+e-G4 LAO, I s~~~o,c~ ~ee~w~~-e~rnev~--fs, C ~iront ~or~C~ O~'12 yx-CA i5 ths~.~ic:!~{ r1e\e SPak,,e-, On 4fie- 10f W~'LiC~~1 1S 2,k(nOb51YIti~%~2c~ a 8N R e~~:ti onsl~, P o~ si ze, oq l o~ e~ h bm ke, on -~6c app~icaf,on 06,S m ot cle-ad ')clucke. p (an s 4 oY J~-u, v-e,unova~ 4CA-C+,abse,~~ 0 h comm'~5io~.S ~o~-~s WN5 ~-aj, Use A C~ va t - a -j ( --)N,~s-t 0 ~c) rr-6 es LLC S-E-ati~l al l ~'In,e~re~5 ~Jo~,d b c,. un c t/~;+, :In -~i e--, No-lice- o~ C(,a;~e(A Oc,-/~abe,; ) ~7J,o~3,~ R IUM -Prbvef-ties U- C, 5-fiCkks no -kee 5 WAl mmaver( -6w~-VvAe- 6t, ~c ~j o cuu~' w as LA) k6uf w as s wU vvi d- -~br puk(ok cxv~ck ap-o\fo\-~ anj nocA-) 0 ~ar~e. dn2 0~ ~-VA 4 u~ S c~~ PEJeA,~~S~, onl~ o 4c", tt.v) cc,~. ~~Sc~.l~ Ig,aB zmI Yl~ col 0'L ~ 5 ~ D1n COl'l~00dJY~LiOA,3 0 +C) o{o~s yla-t- Cc,,,r-I'~' 3bt-~~ 4-o n cnk bk No CA k'i s+Z-Ti C) , I At~rc--a ok s q vf l,aoa8, 0~, o5o) aRD J-96 &e/ne/vochca~-s ~wes-~ will v~e-c~~vc~l 46 o Ule~i~~n~o~l~aac~l a~^~l ~ts Ck +o e-e-oej~ bOCIL-~,c cc~-s o(A-f- o~ sy a Ce- 5 G+ Vl e ~lnA ~Fo 0 c~ C10,0~ , Lav, k V&O- Afeca I --J, -7k~ ) m " I'A (7) M cf ~~e~ haves SLP ~ IC63 C'66-C-5 i n __~k c T~ov~._~ c~~ a h 6-me, ~iY1 "1n e ~I S~CK~ c~ ~-6 act 'Dis`k'i Cl(' o~ Asl/dcmc~l Comronsquef-) al re~a~C ~o~~ ~ O~~c~~ro(,eu~nPmc~m~ in an acea b nvavM A 5 °10 M c treasc-, ftc).+ iV4e/v-~~~' i~ V1b-~IltiQ--T k's U Sb b~l Ca,~ SPr1/ASe. 1 l~ OI~,IC `~,eU <& _(5 no "[D 4hiS -~-a b V114' l ai c` I a,vrr h ow, wkev\ -tf~c, e-)636 OT D, S) 6 b, hv~s 0,\, bij ID-t tv to P Soy- n, UL)) krl or, a4li UrTyl S*c;u,, ~Ie6 Lo cRQ G ~fUljhxJ4 c4ld ~~c~umd ~~~~I 6(s~r i cQkm eflc~ (5 G~ i -7yo qo ~ Ira vy,G-~,~ 6161f tc~ C,,hOOJt,,) O-x2t -~-p h~►~,r ~ rea p c~-,a~ ~~a~,rUe.~°~ a4l ~a~J a1~ oMrsiZeW~ Cm~f~prn~~'~ hri e~c4 S-t Y&M S~f& 5)'-CLI eua-ems read rw- mon wov-A a.,n at T4tdA;Lm wh%ch Ir froyrr~Ce,~ cri,t.Ar CA~ OUNO S*mi ~tNrO6 tj ,~fM c,,) dVA6 C+ tQ U ~ afro o Afl -kA CUn~L -4VA~r3 Co abft4 CA,6,(,) n C o vqi 4 ((f// mp 6Y-"h Oyn-L" 6 1 r166 P O~am (yok, -Irpt." co /0, o (1 270 N. 1 st Cuffent Kjme Home matches f others with _ asphalt roof , r _ wood siding similar size, Back yard will be non-existent etc . with two car parking and deck. iq L4 i Current parking situation on alley they are proposing to add 2 more cars to. This is also right across from A Street Auto parking and a very high traffic alley if you have not seen. 1 SECTION IV Historic District Development A. Development in Ashland's Historic District Ashland's Historic District is very important to all of the City's residents. Not only does this area contain the City's beginnings, but it is also the area of some of the most prominent landmarks in Ashland, including the Plaza, East Main Street commercial area, Lithia Park, and many important residential districts. For the most part, the main architectural themes have already been laid down, and must be considered in the design of any new structures or renovation of existing structures. This does not mean that all new structures must be a lavish imitation of an architectural style whose heyday is past, but sensitivity to surrounding buildings and the existing land use patterns is essential to the successful development. While it is critical that buildings be made habitable and safe, it is, quail 'm,p_er_at P hat the architectural character of a it i be res Lin the ts. Unfortunately, HE has not always been done in Ashland. The architectural merit of a building has too often been sacrificed for a more contem design. For this purpose, the following standar s were conceived as a guide to design decisions in the hope that the architectural integrity of Ashland's homes and commercial buildings will no longer be unnecessarily lost. It is suggested that you think of your building as a whole - a single unit with no removable parts. Every change that you make can chip away at the integrity of the whole, like surgery. Efforts to personalize and update the building will leave you with an assortment of miscellaneous parts that bear no relation to each other, or to the original design. Wrought iron columns, asbestos shingles and aluminum frame windows-ha on4y in common - the local hardware store. Older buildings in Ashland were built one at a time and such added options can obscure their individuality. Restoration, Rehabilitation and Remodeling Because there is so much activity these days in the improvement of older housing, new terminology has been introduced. The difference between "restoring", "rehabilitating", and "remodeling" may seem academic, but each results in a major difference in the way the job or project may turn out. To "restore" is to return a building to its original condition as if it were a precious museum piece. This technique it typically used for structures of particular significance, such as historic landmarks where accuracy will serve an educational purpose as well as a visual one. Restoration is the most painstaking improvement process and usually the most expensive because it requires technical skill and historical precision for successful results. It can involve the removal of extraneous elements as well as the recreation of original features which may have become deteriorated or been destroyed. A fine example of a restoration project in Ashland is the Swedenberg home found on Siskiyou Boulevard. Great care has been taken to assure that the architectural integrity of the building exterior is practically identical to that when it was built in the early 1900s. Restoration is also defined in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.08 Ashland Site Design & Use Standards 39 Sri y~ C(?5~~~-v i C,AAA Gv\ s Remodeling a building is normally at the opposite end of the improvement spectrum from restoration. Unless it is done with sensitivity, to remodel a building is to redesign it so that the generic features are obliterated and the basic character destroyed in the name of modernization. A remodeling job is to often considered a success if the original structure is unrecognizable in the end result. Remodeling is appropriate only for buildings which are not historic and have fallen into a state of disrepair due to vacancy or vandalism. Remodeling can also be a proper course of action when a non-historic structure undergoes a change in use, say from a single-family residence to commercial office space. Uf atel ui on for a house to be re tall divested its valuable characteristics when conditions do not require such radical treatment. Hence, the expression "remodel" can have bad connotations. To many people it suggests a waste of valuable resources. It is possible, however, to remodel with sensitivity, especially with the help of a talented architect. To "rehabilitate" is to take corrective measures which will make a structure livable again. Some aspects of rehabilitation entail renovation and the introduction of new elements. For example, it is likely that inadequate electrical circuits would be required to be brought up to code to ensure safety and to provide adequate service for today's modern appliances. When rehabilitating a building, it is essential to protect osP nortions or,__ feati mes which convey,its histe ' rchitectu a racter. the ve features t . the rm integrity and the economic v Ia !e-of-the h~ re-preserved Modern elements shall be introduced when absolutely necessary, and in a manner l design. An exce en examp e o a successful rehabilitation is the Ashland unity enter on Winburn Way. Rehabilitation is also defined in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18,108. The rewards of sensitive home improvements are many. First there is the satisfaction of S knowing you have done the job right. Second, there is the gratification from compliments of other people who appreciate whafvou have done. Third, there is the pleasure of living in an attractive, comfortable and historically preserved home. While these benefits are difficult to measure, such restoration or rehabilitation can result in significant economic benefits. A perceptive combination of restoration and remodeling will actually contribute to the resale value of your home. Finally, a good rehabilitation project can be surprisingly influential on an entire neighborhood. The City of Ashland has adopted ordinances to assure that all development, including development in the Historic District, remains compatible with the existing integrity of the district. In new construction of a single-family residence, the Historic Commission will use these standards to make recommendations to the applicant. If an applicant requires a Staff Permit, Site Review, or a Conditional Use Permit which involves new construction, a remodel, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker. Ashland Site Design & Use Standards 40 WAWA Q B. Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions The purpose of the following standards is to prevent incompatible treatment of buildings in historic districts and to ensure that new additions and materials maintain the historic and architectural character of the district. These standards apply primarily to residential historic districts, residential buildings in the Downtown Historic District, and National Register-listed historic buildings not located within historic districts. IV-13-1 Historic architectural styles and associated features shall not be replicated in new additions or associated buildings. IV-13-2 Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can be documented. IV-13-3 ERep~lacement finishes on exterior walls of historic buildings shall match the nal finish. Exterior finishes on new additions to historic buildings shall be patible with, but not replicate, the finish of the historic building. IV-13-4 Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except in those instances where it was used as the original siding. IV-13-5 Exterior wall colors on new additions shall match those of the historic building. IV-B-6 Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured luminum siding and artificial stone shall be avoided. IV-13-7 Re lacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions sha mpa able in proportion, shape an size, but not replicate original windows in the historic building. IV-13-8 Reconstructed roofs on historic buildings shall match the pitch and form of the original roof. Roofs on new additions shall match the pitch and form of the historic building, and shall be attached at a different height so the addition can be clearly differentiated from the historic building. Shed roofs are acceptable for one-story rear additions. IV-13-9 Asphalt or composition shingle roofs are preferred. Asphalt shingles which match the original roof material in color and texture are acceptable. Wood shake, woodshingle, the and metal roofs shall be avoided. IV-B-10 New porches or entries shall be compatible with, but not replicate, the historic character of the building. IV-B-11 New detached buildings shall be compatible with the associated historic building and shall conform to the above standards. IV-B-12 The latest version of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and determining whether the above standards are met. f ; Ashland Site Design & Use Standards 41 C. Historic District Design Standards In addition to the standards found in Section 11 "Approval Standards and Policies", the following additional standards will be used by the Planning and Historic Commissions for new construction, restoration and rehabilitation of existing buildings within the Historic ct r ro'ects located at the boundary between zonin districts or overlays, a ro riate ad'ustments uilding form massing, height, scale, placement or architectural and mater al_tr_eatment ma. e cons idered-to-ad~r- ess compatibility with the-ttrransitional area while sin si ht of standards or requirements applicable to the subject property. T~l ~S (-S Vet A ffe-ki ~ VA,Ilca J ivy c~v I L ` ~ IV-C-1 wel I,t to )A-' is A~~ M b~~ 8VA66 s-{ I I6b (~v ve RECOMMENDED AVOID n, vo a VIC'm c s u Construct new buildings to a height within New construction that varies in height the range of historic building heights on and (too high or too low) from historic across the street. buildings in the vicinity. IV-C-2 Scale RECOMMENDED AVOID Height, width and massing of new buildinas Height, width, or massing of new `co f~nrrn '+ta~~rir h~ ~ildinnc in the buildings that is out of scale with iminediate vicinity. historic buildings in the vicinity. ft k &A ~ I 1 'h Ashland Site Design & Use Standards 42 1; c-N IV-C-3 Massing RECOMMENDED AVOID Small varied masses_consistent with historic Single, monolithic forms that are not buildings in the immediate vicinity. relieved by variations in massing. IV-C-4 Setback RECOMMENDED AVOID Front walls of new buildings are in the same Front walls that are constructed plane as the facades of adjacent historic forward of or behind setback line of buildings. adjacent historic buildings. ,;t Ashland Site Design & Use Standards 43 IV-C-5 Roof RECOMMENDED AVOID Roof shape pitches and materials consistent Roof shapes, pitches, of materials iot with histor. ediate call used in the immediate vicinity, vicini y- IN's 1~ I-Wol IV-C-6 Rhythm of Openings CrvNVgwev t C" ~ RECOMMENDED AVOID Skv d Rl - r ' Y-'i S 6v1 +0 I Pattern or rhythm of wall to door/window A pattern or rhythm of window/door openings on the primary facade or other openings that is inconsistent with visually prominent elevation is maintained. adjacent historic buildings. Maintain compatible width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade. Ashland Site Design & Use Standards 44 Historic kailroad District k,,--,,,Lomes e 247 7th 248 7th on 7th IAA a . 4. YI 1 ` F 297 6th 294 6th on 6th ,t 268 6th 267 6th 256 6th ,247 6th 236 5th 235 5th I i MAC 248 5th 259 5th 266 5th Historic ' ailroad District Tomes a. t-A I on 4th 220 4th 247 3rd 71 253 3rd 269 2nd 266 2nd W _ f t U q 1 - 263 3rd 269 2nd 248 2nd I r - .Jb, y I ,ilia `x fi wM +r239 2nd on 2nd on 2nd Ai ,y - "4 236 1st 240 1st 260 1st Historic 7-ailroad District 'lomes h _ - 77 Alley 1 st These homes are all along B Street or between . . i 1 d3 _ 3~ B an C Streets in Railroad District a, # t4` ~~yy . ~ z,Aa I Historic, Railroad istricl- Homes i ! ,!e - Ik vr''. tTl v r,~ ~c=4 s 1 ll ~ l p ~ I~Irllll~fll~rllll `111 I ~Ill~ll~i~~l~l~~tl_ l t x` { s - ~r r r _ j , - ~i _ A T~i Tf~ T I r = - At 1111l~I~E.- ? ~ti &A" ludu,l~aastJxl~a~sari aaekLS4.~in ~ ' ® HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Living With HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 1 Historic Buildings Introduction • Historic preservation is a tool to enhance neighborhood livability, quality of life, civic pride - it also has economic a rewards. `r ( s • Good preservation results in higher property values, helps to stabilize neighborhoods, and creates a skilled labor force. • Preservation is good sustainable practice - like recycling - it minimizes waste and environmental degradation by retaining existing buildings, materials and infrastructure. Ashland's History • Sited on the Applegate Trail which carried pioneers from California to Oregon Territory. • First settlers used Ashland Creek to power a saw mill and flour mill. • Primarily a farming community in early years, until railroad development in 1880s which led to new industries & significant population growth.. • Growth was steady through the 1920s when Southern Pacific rerouted the railroad. That action and the Great Depression curtailed growth, thus the majority of Ashland's historic buildings date to the 1880s to 1920s. Historic Registers Ashland's Historic Total Number • Ashland has four historic districts, which are Districts Properties Contributing regulated locally, and each is also listed on the Downtown 100 73 National Register of Historic Places. Railroad Addition 371 256 • Applicable regulations within a district depend Siskiyou-Hargadine 460 274 on property zoning, use and status (historic, Skidmore Academy 484 300 contributing, individually listed, etc.) • The city maintains detailed information on the historic significance of properties in each district; this can be viewed at the city's Planning Department. • Individual properties are classified as resource by their historic integrity and contribution to the character of the district. Some property owners also pursue special assessment tax benefits by having their properties individually listed. Currently 24 properties use this tax benefit. Local Requirements • Ashland is a certified local government (CLG) because it has adopted goals and regulations for historic preservation that meet state standards. Ashland's comprehensive plan and municipal code establish goals and regulations for the preservation of resources in its historic districts. • The Historic Commission is a nine-member, advisory body that meets monthly. A three-member subset of the Commission meets weekly by appointment on Thursday afternoons to review historic district building permits, and can also help to provide feedback on proposals. • Expedited building permits for small residential rehabilitations and additions are available on k Thursdays. A city planner and Building Department plans examiner are available from 8:30 to 11:30 This project is supported in part by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 6, 2013 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room Call To Order- Regular Meeting, 6:05 pm Chairman Skibby Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Kerry Kencairn, Allison Renwick, Sam Whitford, Tom Giordano, Terry Skibby, Ally Phelps, Victoria Law Commission Members Absent: Tom Giordano Council Liaison: Greg Lemhouse absent High'School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Amy Gunter, Clerk: Billie Boswell APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Renwick made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2013 meeting, Mr. Whitford seconded the motion. Ms. Law abstained due to being absent. The minutes were approved unanimously by the remaining Commissioners. PUBLIC FORUM: There being no one wishing to speak, the Public Forum was closed. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: None PUBLIC HEARING: PA2013-01476 108 N. Second Street Dudley Rood Ms. Kencairn recused herself due to her working relationship with the applicant. No other exparte contact or conflict of interest. i Ms. Gunter reviewed the prior hearing before the Commission for the remodel done. She explained that the applicant, Dudley Rood, has decided to live in the upstairs apartment and rent the two Travelers Accommodations on the main floor. This Conditional Use is for the Traveler's Accommodations. Mr. Rood said that no upgrades or changes need to be made to the structure. He feels the use will not detract from the mixed use neighborhood since 75% of the structures are commercial. Mr. Shostrom and Mr. Whitford both commented on how much they like the remodel that was done. There being no further questions of the applicant and no one in the audience wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Shostrom moved to recommend approval. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA-2013-01388 14 Calle Guanajuato Allan Sandler Ms. Gunter shared the details of the submitted building plans showing exterior detail and finishes. Mr. Shostrom stated that the window should have real mullions applied to the glass and not inside the glass or tape on glass. Overall the Commissioners liked the design. i" F PA-2013-01421 270 N First Street RNN Properties, LLC Chairman Skibby confirmed there was no conflict of interest or exparte contact. Ms. Gunter reviewed the staff report with the Commissioners explaining that the existing structure would be torn down and a new 2-story, 1300 sq.ft. residence built. The front yard setback was reduced to only 6 feet to conform to other front yards along the street. Windows will be primarily double hung. No drivewa would be allows due to spacing issues on First St so the parking would be in the rear off the alley. They are requesting to keep the 3-foot side yard setback due to the narrowness of the lot. The lot is adjacent to commercial zoning on the north and is considered a transitional structure. The roof would be metal to accommodate water collection efforts and Leeds requirements. Ms. Gunter summarized the concern letters received from neighbors stating issues with the parking, the size of the structure (2-story), the metal roof and other window and trim details that seem to give the structure a more commercial rather than a residential look more compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood. Nisha Jackson, the applicant, said the lot has commercial businesses on three sides. Due to the extreme narrowness of the lot the proposed home will only have 1300 square feet on two floors. The exterior finish will be a combination of stucco and wood. Ms. Jackson desires to make the home Leeds Certified at the Silver level. The metal roof contributes to that goal to aid in rainwater recycling. Chairman Skibby commented that the existing house was built in the 40's and is in poor shape and has little to contribute to the Historic district. There were no further questions of the applicant and the meeting was opened to those in the audience wishing to speak. Patricia Way of Ashland stated she was there also representing her daughter that lived next door and they were both opposed to the project. She had concerns regarding the metal roof and other commercial aspects of the design. She also felt the size and scale, specifically the 2-story design, made the house bigger than any other residences on the block. There was also resistance to the parking being in the back yard and felt it would negatively affect the neighboring back yard. Chairman Skibby asked what other type of roofing material could be used. If a composition roof were done it could make the Leeds certification harder to meet. Ms. Way also questioned why a front porch was allowed, when her daughter was not able to add a porch. Ms. Gunter explained the situation was not the same. Ms. Jackson clarified that they would have an eight foot front yard setback instead of the six feet allowed by averaging. There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Skibby commented on the challenge of building on such a small lot size. He was also concerned about the metal roof. Ms. Kencairn pointed out that the metal roof was needed for the rainwater collection system and she did not feel it was inappropriate because of the transitional area. Mr. Whitford agreed. Ms. Law was concerned about the 2-story size and that it blocked views. Mr. Shostrom felt the 2-story mass was an issue but the step-back of the second story made it fit better. Ms. Renwick suggested the two double-hung windows be separated by at least 4 inches to give a more period look. She was also struggling with the scale and size. Mr. Shostrom said the large scale and commercial look was in stark contrast to the other residences in the neighborhood. Mr. Swink supported the project as the best use of the property. Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval of the project adding the recommendation that a minimum of four inches between the double-hung windows be required. Ms. Kencaim seconded the motion. Swink, Whitford, Renwick, Kencairn and Phelps voted to approve the motion. Shostrom and Law voted against it. The motion passed by majority vote. E DISCUSSION ITEMS: t A. Brochures - Discussed the mailing and distribution of the Historic Brochures. Amy needs lists and suggestions sent to her of who to send to. NEW BUSINESS: A. Review Board Schedule November 7 Ally, Keith November 14 Sam, Dale, Tom November 21 Terry, Allison, Tom Wed, November 27th Terry, Allison, December 5 Keith, Kerry, Victoria B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions: BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann) New SFR (under construction) Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fagade on building under construction Shostrom BD-2013-00256 175 Lithia W First Place Partners) 3-story mixed use building under constr Giordano BD-2013-00388 522 Rock Wallace 4 Accessory Units 1 under construction) Shostrom BD-2013-00093 108 Second Dudley Rood) CUP and Solar Waiver for 2,1d story unit under constr Shostrom BD-2013-00378 245 Van Ness Nate Witembur & Brint Bor ilt Addition under constr Kencairn PA-2013-00366 57 N Main St. North Mix Sweet Shop entry door (complete) Phelps BD-2013-00718 5 B Street (Spartan Properties New Comm Bldg under construction Phelps BD-2013-00796 15 N First Amuse Walk in Cooler under construction BD-2013-01363 370 E Man Staunton) Front Facade (under construction Shostrom PreA 19 Gresham / 374 Hargadine Swink PA-2013-01388 14 Calle Guanajuato (Sandlers Restaurant_ Renwick PA-2013-01421 270 N First St Nisha Jackson) New SFR Renwick i I COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Photo boards - Commission needs to identify businesses they can be placed in. Historic District Books - suggest having them scanned in by an Intern to create an online file for reference. ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Next meeting is scheduled for December 4, 2013, 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted by Billie Boswell. r O 1 Y.- --1 i ! - Y/I O I I,~1 'I ~ i~l I I IiI - Imo _ r9~ o "i ag D-J r- z` -j m I If • D I .i I JII I r I - 0 I - I m ~ Ali a~ I u Z Ay Cam. ~ Nooy~ z~ ~ > m m ozo Vim' m f1 mAtrl~m y Q:.f pt~ H rA1 ~y N qy ~ AO Z = 9 i I } ALLEY r _ 1 y ~h C7 oX - I y , t °ti ~ S , f J c m c, -Ij MPZ < 00 o z M Ic: ~za I r _ r r r__y I > Amy -Iz _ z Q° i RECONSIDERATION DETERMINATION { April Lucas From: Bill Molnar [molnarb@ashland. or.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:06 PM To: melissasyken@gmail.com; tishw@osfashland.org Cc: 'April Lucas'; 'Maria Harris' Subject: Reconsideration Request - 270 N. First (PA 2013-01421) Dear Ms. Syken and Ms. Way, I'm writing to respond to your requests for a reconsideration of the decision for a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area and variances to the required side yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence for the property located at 270 N. First St. (PA 2013-01421). Section 18.108.070.B.2.b of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance addresses reconsiderations of an administrative decision (Type 1). I've reviewed your requests as well as the planning application materials, and do not believe a factual error occurred that is crucial to the decision on the conditional use permit and variances. As you've pointed out, there may be discrepancies in the application, such as setbacks and the configuration of the existing structure. However, it is my opinion that the issues raised are not factual errors that change the basis for applying the approval criteria. As a result, the request for a reconsideration is denied. If you believe the decision does not meet the approval criteria for a conditional use permit and variances, I recommend appealing the decision to the Planning Commission. I understand you've been communicating with our staff regarding an appeal, and wanted to get my decision to you as soon as possible so that you could meet the appeal deadline of Monday December 2 at 4:30 p.m. If you have questions or need more information, please feel free to contact me. Bill Molnar, Director Community Development Department 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2042, TTY: 1-800-735-2900 FAX: (541) 552-2050 molnarb@ashland.or.us 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)552-2042. Thank you. 1 RECONSIDERATION REQUEST ti a and ti A Ao~ ox-, a6 + rcuc~ S 0 ca ~A oj . 0~,Cr 6 ~D 0-ri I(VVIC .1 W "Q,J oy) CV, --wvQlrc~ 6y-\ ) no L&54 be~~e l C)T- - ~:fV) Ot-0 CAA-AVLA~~~ VIov e/~,c C,~ yl~-A a) Iv ~u OAa -4 uoa~ ea/n (AD Oj SCkA.e' ~C ca oy~ C O)r\ n OV, U 0 U v a-c6o'' anr,2 v) o+ wl~r~ 0,~, wo~rr~'h~ ~ 4-e y r~ Gis s~~. U 'N I ly\6 ~I S 1/1 O In✓1.lil U"jfC`~ MR D'YL i ° U v A'7 -lk - ~,jyj cto o,~- ,4v A C, Oss;a~n~ wlti~cM.-i--~A~,~ pty iz s, 4v a C067(kc,ct,Aj e1r cj e~ ~ 64velv) 6~-C/o~ CH-4) J,6~t"a/ V1 b + S4- --fop 4~ fi=r Ste-°\. 41r~~W ~ o"A') c s A`-ac+t& Dtp/~4 h (~YJ onlb (ow\ A WIM J'i IZA ~kl 0~- dt O'~- OVCC, f7CA, 4llQ-- C LA, Ova S~ oll, --k&VA Volo CL , 5 LID -k) GIV oJ h(vJ h~A, fo,e,, ct J vt uf, w-6k cctt, vi S 6o, dcs-&~, 's CA/1- d 4v P-1rel, Al +Yb ia" c/vi ~'iCY-C7`~.SgSIn,C,k o s s4 e_ _ C/-~ CA i -viol C3 0,/) oeo'~~ h 0 D<rlv~IK Cyt 01- T c,.~ ~v~,l, c~ ~ ~ c-~,~.~ ~ Cc~~n ~f ~,~5 rti~av~ ~~I~~E' ~~~~~~~,~s~; ► vti~-~ . s/() "may( I r dF-? w. f l 20 - n > - d jtv, s G c s,. f e ~ - 9 ucv ~ ~ i IS c~c~ f 3 tom- AAA) OT~ A~~- C-t oa) A v V a U CO' 1;,,~' 1S C^ Air LAM U~ ~ .a 0\1 kANV'VA61,+,O,/) A s . 'Zo Ain, - ( VA blv~ e,,LCc VNo F SA AW A a * ° 1~ G IAA V rb\)e? At . A An C \~M Vvj - k" Amvs? VU r~ VAC ~ Ovvv~ W&S o~iS~~~ rc \ 0\4 Vol, LLV\JL "I ~,Jw s4WAwvt- VVN~611S k-AN&-,/v\4-4m 4~u C-'Ovilvi IN V~v~ VVII` j~ ,A TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION r. CITY OF ASHLAND November 20, 2013 Notice of Final Decision On November 20, 2013, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2013-01421 Subject Property: 270 N First Street Applicant: RNN Properties LLC Description: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13'b day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of one year and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review 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. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action 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 ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Amy Gunter in the Community Development Department 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 TTY: 800-735-2900 i www.ashland.or.us d k ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi- Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 SUBMITTAL DATE: September 20, 2013 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: October 18, 2013 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: November 20, 2013 FINAL DECISION DATE: December 3, 2013 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: December 3, 2014 DECISION The subject property is located on the east side of First Street, between A and B streets, across from the Ashland Food Cooperative and adjacent to an east /west running alley. The parcel is zoned R-2 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located within the Railroad Historic District. The property is rectangular, with an area of approximately 2,300 square feet, which is significantly smaller than the minimum 5,000 square foot lot size for the R-2 zone, Because the lot was created prior to current zoning regulations, it is considered a legal, non-conforming lot, and therefore permitted to be developed as a recognized lot of record. The parcel to the south and east are also below the minimum lot size in the zone. There is an approximately four percent slope to the north. There are is a Box elder tree, 13-inches in diameter at breast height that the applicant has proposed to preserve. The other trees on the site that are six inches in diameter at breast height and smaller will be removed. The site currently does not have any off-street parking. The First Street right-of-way is 70-feet in width. The current street improvements include curb; gutter and sidewalk.. The alley to the north is asphalt. The applicant has proposed to head-in parking spaces accessed via the alley to be installed at the rear of the property. The existing building on the site is identified as the Hall-Thompson House in the Historic Resources Inventory for the Railroad Historic District. The survey notes that the structure was constructed in the late 1940s and while in poor condition, the simply designed house retains sufficient integrity to relate its development during the second period of significance in the history of the Railroad District. According to the applicants findings the residence is in very poor condition. The applicant stated that the home inspector found the house to be the worse structure he has ever assessed. The applicant has requested removal of the structure due to its condition, the single wall, 2X4 construction, without PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 1 Historic District Design Standards: In addition to the criteria for a CUP, the proposal is reviewed for compliance with the Historic District Development Standards. These standards address compatibility with historic context in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense of entry, imitation, etc. with a general focus aimed at preserving historic streetscapes. For new construction, these Development Standards generally seek a traditional architecture that well represents our own time yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district. The Historic District Design Standards state that properties that are adjacent to the zoning district boundaries are provided flexibility for properties that are adjacent to the zoning district boundaries. This block of First Street is in a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district. The properties to the north of the subject property. are zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including South Valley Auto body, the A Street Arts Building, Plexis Healthcare and Ace Hardware. The property across First Street is split zoned between R-2 and E-1 and is the site of the Ashland Food Co-Op.and Umpqua Bank. The property directly to the south is residentially zoned but received a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to have a small commercial business at front portion of the structure and the back portion is a residential unit (PA2010- 1611). The structures further south are single-story, single-family residences. The structure is proposed to be 22-feet to the peak, -which is similar in height as the property to the south that is 19.74-feet tall and is a standard height for a two-story structure. The property to the north across the alley is zoned E-1. The site is currently the site of an auto body shop and a derelict, vacant residence. It can be assumed that the lot will redeveloped and will likely be multi-story construction. The site has a potential maximum height of a forty foot height. The property across First Street is the site of the Ashland Food Co-Op, though the structure is one-story, the building is approximately 28-feet tall. The proposed 6 / 12 pitch roof is similar to roof pitches found in the impact area and is the same as the structure proposed for removal. As stated above the height is similar to those structures immediately to the north, south and west. The l applicant has proposed a gable end similar to the structures in the immediate vicinity. The width of the structure at 16-feet is comparable to the properties in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the structure to the south is 18 feet wide, additional area- added in 2010 is 12-feet wide. The structure to the east is approximately 17 feet wide. The applicant has also proposed a smaller gable roof on the porch, shed roof on the north side adjacent to the alley. The applicant has proposed that the second story be setback from the front fagade by five feet and has proposed a roof top deck with adouble French door and transom window. The second story is proposed to be cantilevered beyond the first floor by four-feet and a four-foot roof over the first level patio is proposed beyond the cantilever. The front of the residence is proposed to be setback eight-feet from the front property line. This is the same setback the current residence has and the same setback as the house(s) directly to the south. AMC 18.68.110 states that if there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated PA #2013-01421 270 Firs/adg Page 3 Variance to Side Yard Setback: In addition to the Conditional Use Permit request, the application includes a Variance request to reduce the required six-foot side yard setbacks to three-feet. The existing residence setbacks are three-feet in the side yard to the south and less than one foot on the north (alley) side. The applicant's findings state the existing lot is non-conforming and the setback stays the same as existing on the south side and comes more into conformance on the north side. The 25-foot wide lot in the neighborhood is unique, within 200-feet of the subject site there is only one other 25-foot lot and it is directly to the south. Though the lot next door is also 25-feet in width in the surrounding neighborhood, they are the only 25-foot wide lots. The lot to the south has zero setback on the north property line and less than the required six feet on the south side, thus more non-conforming than the subject site which is providing a reduced setback. The proposed setbacks are remaining the same on the south side and increasing by three-feet on the north, which is a benefit to the alley right-of-way and the public that uses the alley. The adjacent property to the south is developed and the proposal for a reduced setback will not have any additional negative impacts beyond those that, already exist. The applicant did not create the parcel nor did they construct the existing structure, which exceeds both the north and south side-yard setbacks. The applicant's proposal lessens the non-conformity on the north side and retains the non-conformity on the south side. Lastly, in order to construct a 16-foot wide structure, that the applicant's findings are the minimum necessary to accommodate future ADA accessibility, a variance to the setbacks is necessary in order to build on a 25- foot wide lot. In researching typical home dimensions, a standard manufactured home is 16-feet in width. Public Comments: Comments were received from the public during the 14-day comment period. They expressed concerns regarding the proposed on-site parking, the variance to setbacks, the size of the structure and the second story blocking their view. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of a landscaping plan, additional traffic, light, noise and glare generated from 270 First Street. Both of the comments received stated they are opposed to the proposed metal roof because it will add to noise pollution and is uncommon on residential historic railroad housing. Conclusion: Staff has found that the applicant has addressed the criteria and the request to exceed the maximum permitted floor area by 262 square feet meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has addressed the historic district design standards, and their findings support the request. The existing structure on the site currently does not comply with setbacks, during the initial pre-application conference phases the applicant had expressed desire to retain the existing structure, following the home inspection it was determined it was financially unfeasible to meet the current building codes for energy with the existing structures deteriorated state and single wall construction. The proposed residence will have the same footprint as the existing excepting that there will be a side yard setback provided on the north side (alley) where none is provided and exists and the proposed residence is two story. The proposed onsite parking is not reviewed as part of this application because the applicant could install surface parking accessed via the alley without land use review. One of the public comments received suggested the property install a driveway from First Street. City of Ashland Street Standards PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 5 7. Other° factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. J The criteria for a Variance are described in AMC Chapter 18.100.020, as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances iyhich apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord 2425 Sl, 1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or pur posely self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996) Planning Action 2013-01421 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 2013- 01421 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That building permit submittals shall include: a) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their November 6t', 2013 meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. c) That the transom window proposed over the second story French door facing First Street shall be removed from the plans. c) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height -16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade. d) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas shall be submitted with the building permit. The lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. e) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the building plan submittals. PA #2013-01421 270 FirsUadg Page 7 HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting of November 6, 2013 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 Recommendation to Planning Staff: Recommend Approval of the proposed plans with the following design recommendations:: 1) That a minimum separation of approximately four-inches shall be provided between the double hung windows. Department of Community Development Tel: 541A88-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ashland.or.us 4 E ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 6, 2013 Community DevelopmentlEngineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room Call To Order - Regular Meeting, 6:05 pm Chairman Skibby Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Kerry Kencairn, Allison Renwick, Sam Whitford, Tom Giordano, Terry Skibby, Ally Phelps, Victoria Law Commission Members Absent: Tom Giordano Council Liaison: Greg Lemhouse absent High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Amy Gunter, Clerk: Billie Boswell APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Renwick made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2013 meeting, Mr. Whitford seconded the motion. Ms. Law abstained due to being absent. The minutes were approved unanimously by the remaining Commissioners. PUBLIC FORUM: There being no one wishing to speak, the Public Forum was closed. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: None PUBLIC HEARING: PA2013-01476 108 N. Second Street Dudley Rood Ms. Kencairn recused herself due to her working relationship with the applicant. No other exparte contact or conflict of interest. Ms. Gunter reviewed the prior hearing before the Commission for the remodel done. She explained that the applicant, Dudley Rood, has decided to live in the upstairs apartment and rent the two Travelers Accommodations on the main floor. This Conditional Use is for the Traveler's Accommodations. Mr. Rood said that no upgrades or changes need to be made to the structure. He feels the use will not detract from the mixed use neighborhood since 75% of the structures are commercial. Mr. Shostrom and Mr. Whitford both commented on how much they like the remodel that was done. There being no further questions of the applicant and no one in the audience wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Shostrom moved to recommend approval. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA-2013-01388 14 Calle Guanajuato Allan Sandler Ms. Gunter shared the details of the submitted building plans showing exterior detail and finishes. Mr. Shostrom stated that the window should have real mullions applied to the glass and not inside the glass or tape on glass. Overall the Commissioners liked the design. t t PA-2013-01421 270 N First Street RNN Properties, LLC Chairman Skibby confirmed there was no conflict of interest or exparte contact. Ms. Gunter reviewed the staff report with the Commissioners explaining that the existing structure would be torn down and a new 2-story, 1300 sq.ft. residence built. The front yard setback was reduced to only 6 feet to conform to other front yards along the street. Windows will be primarily double hung. No driveway would be allowed due to spacing issues on First St so the parking would be in the rear off the alley. They are requesting to keep the 3-foot side yard setback due to the narrowness of the lot. The lot is adjacent to commercial zoning on the north and is considered a transitional structure. The roof would be metal to accommodate water collection efforts and Leeds requirements. Ms. Gunter summarized the concern letters received from neighbors stating issues with the parking, the size of the structure (2-story), the metal roof and other window and trim details that seem to give the structure a more commercial rather than a residential look more compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood. Nisha Jackson, the applicant, said the lot has commercial businesses on three sides. Due to the extreme narrowness of the lot the proposed home will only have 1300 square feet on two floors. The exterior finish will be a combination of stucco and wood. Ms. Jackson desires to make the home Leeds Certified at the Silver level. The metal roof contributes to that goal to aid in rainwater recycling. Chairman Skibby commented that the existing house was built in the 40's and is in poor shape and has little to contribute to the Historic district. There were no further questions of the applicant and the meeting was opened to those in the audience wishing to speak. Patricia Way of Ashland stated she was there also representing her daughter that lived next door and they were both opposed to the project. She had concerns regarding the metal roof and other commercial aspects of the design. She also felt the size and scale, specifically the 2-story design, made the house bigger than any other residences on the block. There was also resistance to the parking being in the back yard and felt it would negatively affect the neighboring back yard. Chairman Skibby asked what other type of roofing material could be used. If a composition roof were done it could make the Leeds certification harder to meet. Ms. Way also questioned why a front porch was allowed, when her daughter was not able to add a porch. Ms. Gunter explained the situation was not the same. Ms. Jackson clarified that they would have an eight foot front yard setback instead of the six feet allowed by averaging. There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Skibby commented on the challenge of building on such a small lot size. He was also concerned about the metal roof. Ms. Kencairn pointed out that the metal roof was needed for the rainwater collection system and she did not feel it was inappropriate because of the transitional area. Mr. Whitford agreed. Ms. Law was concerned about the 2-story size and that it blocked views. Mr. Shostrom felt the 2-story mass was an issue but the step-back of the second story made it fit better. Ms. Renwick suggested the two double-hung windows be separated by at least 4 inches to give a more period look. She was also struggling with the scale and size. Mr. Shostrom said the large scale and commercial look was in stark contrast to the other residences in the neighborhood. Mr. Swink supported the project as the best use of the property. Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval of the project adding the recommendation that a minimum of four inches between the double-hung windows be required. Ms. Kencairn seconded the motion. Swink, Whitford, Renwick, Kencairn and Phelps voted to approve the motion. Shostrom and Law voted against it. The motion passed by majority vote. t DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Brochures - Discussed the mailing and distribution of the Historic Brochures. Amy needs lists and suggestions sent to her of who to send to, NEW BUSINESS: A. Review Board Schedule November 7 Ally, Keith November 14 Sam, Dale, Tom November 21 Terry, Allison, Tom Wed, November 271h Terry, Allison, December 5 Keith, Kerry, Victoria B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions: BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR under construction Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building under construction Shostrom BD-2013-00256 175 Lithia W First Place Partners 3-story mixed use building under cons( r) BD-2013-00388 522 Rock Wallace 4 Accessory Units 1 under construction Shostrom BD-2013-00093 108 Second (Dudley Rood CUP and Solar Waiver for 2nd story unit (under constr Shostrom BD-2013-00378 245 Van Ness Nate Witembur & Brint Bor ilt Addition under constr Kencairn PA-2013-00366 57 N Main St. North Mix Sweet Shop entry door (complete) Phelps BD-2013-00718 5 B Street (Spartan Properties) New Comm Bldg under construction Phelps BD-2013-00796 15 N First Amuse Walk in Cooler under construction BD-2013-01363 370 E Main Staunton Front Fa ade under construction Shostrom PreA 19 Gresham / 374 Har adine Swink PA-2013-01388 14 Calle Guanajuato Sandlers Restaurant Renwick PA-2013-01421 270 N First St Nisha Jackson New SFR Renwick COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Photo boards - Commission needs to identify businesses they can be placed in. Historic District Books - suggest having them scanned in by an Intern to create an online file for reference. ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Next meeting is scheduled for December 4, 2013, 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted by Billie Boswell. CITY OF Planning Department, 51 Wino' r Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND \N, NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, November 6, 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 November 7, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Lithia Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 18, 2013 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: November 1, 2013 i q S7- "R] F:~ T ~rro-F R T .,nFFC C 'zi , t ' F}cyc .y tmrs a r>ef_rance ar.15, rr i ca,_na. a12.ri'6 50 Feet The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 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 same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact.the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. cx CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18,104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property, C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare, 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. VARIANCE 18.100.020 Application The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the, adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (ORD 2425, 1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (ORD 2775, 1996) GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2013\PA-2013-01421 270 N First,docx APPLICANT'S MATERIALS It Request for Demolition permit for single-family residence Located at: 270 North 1St Street Ashland, OR 97530 October 21, 2013 Project Name: 270 North 1St Street-Ashland OR 97530 Type- of Planning Action: A request for demolition permit located at 270 North 1St Street, Ashland, OR 97530. Project Information: Owner/Applicant: RNN Properties Rick and Nisha Jackson 2640 E Barnett Road E431 Medford, OR 97504 Designer: . John Turman . Design /Structural Engineer: Chad Brancacio Landscape Designer' Kerry Ken carin Surveyor: James Hibbs - Friar & Associates Engineer: Mike Thornton- Thornton Engineering Property -Legal Description: 391E09BA1300 Zoning: R2 - Single Family Residence Proposed Per City of Ashland Municipal Code: 15-04-216 - the following findings are provided for the demolition of. 270 North 1St Street - Ashland, OR 97530. **PLEASE SEE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS BELOW UNDER THE CITY OF ASHLAND GUIDELINES. For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of "the application: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply: a. The structure' cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of the .property, the Demolition Review committee may require the applicant to: (i) Furnish an .economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, 'or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the estimated market value of the. property on which the building lies,. both before and after demolition or removal, or (ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demolition Review Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible from the street, for the same 90 day period. b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure. "According to the records, this home was constructed in 1949. The home is small approximately 500-524 sf and is in very poor condition. The home was not built with a foundation around the entire footprint, and.overtime the foundation has eroded in places that are now compromising the floor. The floor. is unstable in many ;areas and the rodents have made home in crawl spaces throughout the underground of the home; due to holes in the O C Y 2f-WAdation that rodents are making nests in. The walls are single t -wall. framed without adequate conventional studs, and do not have adequate load bearing which is currently compromising the integrity of the roof, with the ceiling sagging in many areas. The- home was built right onto the ground in most of the square footage of the footprint and most likely was added onto over the years without adequate planning or engineering or structure. , The roof has reached is lifespan and is now not only sagging but leaking in many areas. 2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also: a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or rebuilt structure for the structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished or relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is.less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if- (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would; or j I (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a non-habitable \ accessory structure. b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be practicably relocated to another site. As mentioned above it is impossible to upgrade this structure; due, ' to the inadequate foundation and the lack of safety of fixing a. foundation in a home with inadequate structural studs and weight bearing walls. The home due to the poor foundation and built onto the dirt in many areas would not be able to be moved and would most likely not survive a move due to the poor structure and stability of the walls, floors and roof. 3: If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as. provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt structure, unless the site is restricted to open spaces uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. The applicant has submitted a plan for a replacement dwelling - single-family residence. This application is submitted for demolition once submitted review is completed and approved. No demolition will occur until the permit for replacement is reviewed and accepted. 4. The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the city a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined by the city administrator, ensuring the safe demolition of the structure and the. completed performance of the redevelopment plan. B. For demolition or relocation of structures erected less than 45 years from the date of the application: l The applicant: a. H~ ~ toe burden of proving the structure was erected less than 45 years from the date of the application. Any structure erected less "I V than 45 years from the date of the application, which replaced a structure demolished or relocated under section 15.04.216, shall be considered, a structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216. b. Must submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a replacement or rebuilt structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished ore relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or- rebuilt structures: No replacement structure is required, however, if. (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a non-habitably accessory structure. _i i 2. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until a building permit has. been issued for the structure or structures to be replaced or rebuilt, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.& C.. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris, in accordance with a demolition debris diversion plan that complies. with the requirements adopted the Demolition Review Committee. The applicant shall submit such a plan with the application for demolition. (Ord 2891, 2002). Per city guidelines, the demolition approved under this section is required to, sell or recycle under the Demolition -Debris Diversion Plan. The applicant intends to recycle and repurpose as many cabinets, and doors as possible and will donate to the Habitat for Humanity the remainder of the. items collected during the demolition. The wood will be reused as reclaimed lumber and used in parts of the new home to reflect the original design for purposes of design and not construction. - There is also a small shed on the property that will be removed during the demolition and is approximately .100 square feet in size. All wood contained in the project will be recycled. For any relocation approved under this section, the applicant must also comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.08. - (Added 2/21/2000 Ord 2852;Ord 2925,2006) k Ashland Planning Department Request: Conditional Use Permit - to exceed the MPFA Variance to side yard setbacks. Description of Project: 270 North 1St Street Ashland, Oregon 97520- residential home Applicant: Nisha Jackson and Rick Jackson - RNN LLC 2640 E Barnett Road #E431 Medford, OR 97504 541-944-5987 Property Owner: RNN LLC- Rick and Nisha Jackson 2640 E Barnett Road #E431 Medford, OR 97504 541-944-5987 Description of Property: 270 North 1St St. Ashland, OR 97502 Lot 13 block A in Railroad Addition to the City of Ashland j We purchased 270 N. 1St Street, which included a home of approximately 500 sf that was in need of repair. The proposal for this home is present a replacement dwelling for the existing home that is in disrepair, and beyond the point of repair or remodel. The proposed replacement dwelling will have a slightly reduced footprint with a reduced setback to allow for more buffers to the North Alley way. The home is proposed to be a 2 story; as there is no possible way to have a home that can be utilized as a residence that could fit into a 500 sf frame. The home is proposed to be a certified LEED standard home. • This application will be for a single-family home to be used for our personal family use. This proposed space will not be used for the following conditional uses: 1. Retail space or commercial space 2. Multi-family use • The proposed space will not include any environmental pollutants and will be built according to the LEED requirements and be considered a "green home". • The proposed space will also NOT increase any traffic in the area, as it will have its own parking within the property, which it currently does not have. • The proposed property will inhabit the same number of people that the current owners have and will not increase traffic in the area. • The proposed residential dwelling replacement will meet the standards for "walk-ability" explained in LEED standards - to ultimately reduce traffic and the need to commute with a vehicle. This application is for a TYPE 1- Conditional Use Permit and for a Variance approval for side yard setback reduction on the North and South Property lines. Conditional Use Permit: This application is for the consideration of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) to be 1310 sf, which is a 25% increase from the permitted square footage for this property. This increase in square footage will allow for 2 bedrooms, and the basic living areas needed for a home. The proposed residence will be on 2 floors. To accommodate 2 bedrooms in the narrow 25' wide lot space provided, it is requested that there be an approval on increased permitted floor space allowed. The request for increased square footage will in no way: • Increase car traffic • Increase foot traffic -or • Increase the noise in the neighborhood, as this home will continue to be a single-family residence. Conditional Use Permit Criteria from Chapter 18.104.050 for a CUP: • The home is currently located in the Railroad historical district on the bordering lines. This home currently has a paved access to it, has utilities (city water, city sewer, electricity, storm drain, and adequate access /transportation supplied to it) and is currently fully functioning as a residence to a local couple. • The home proposed will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area, due to the fact that it is currently a home that is occupied and lived in by local residents, and the proposed remodel and expansion will have the following benefits to the community: 1. Improve the landscape and landscape buffers 2. Parking spaces (current residence offers no parking spaces) 3. Improve and maintain a front facade to be in line with surrounding structures. 4. A front door that faces the street instead of the current front door that faces the alley/North side of the home. .5. There will be no increased traffic on any streets including 1St street or the alley connecting with 1St street. 6. The home will be the same footprint that it currently has. 7. There will be parking on the residence lot; which is currently not offered and only available on the street - competing with local businesses. 8. The architectural design will be in line with the surrounding homes - including a gable roof -just like the one next door to the South, with the second floor of the home set back from the first floor, with a pitched roof over the front porch, along the front siding. There are accommodations and detail for the Street Facing facade and side alley facade that create shadowing and residential detail, that help tie this home into the neighborhood. The ()C+ z ti home additionally is a significant improvement over the existing shed-like home that does not currently have front door - but rather a side door that opens into the alley way with no set back to the North side/alley way. So the door literally steps you into the alley. The new proposal additionally will clean up the landscape in the area, provide for 2 parking spots that are NOT currently part of the residence, will improve the health of the property trees and vegetation, and reduce the home hazards that are currently present. 9. This building will be built to certified LEED standards and will not emit excessive dust, fumes, or odors. 10. There will be no generation of additional noise. 11. The current home has electrical lines intertwined in the trees and the trees are creating a hazard on the property. The proposal will be to keep the trees around the home and to bring in an arborist to clean up the trees and to eliminate any housing hazard and to eliminate the hazards potentially caused by electrical connections to the current trees. 12. The 2 homes to the South have both been renovated and additional square footage added to each home. This home will be in line with the 2 previous remodels performed including height standards. Attached to this document are pictures of homes and the heights of the homes in the surrounding 200- foot radius to this lot showing similar heights in many of the surrounding home. 13. This home will also create an atmosphere that is conducive to the uniqueness of Ashland and will eliminate the current ill conditions that the home is under - failing fences, drooping electrical and phone lines, rodent infestation under the home, excessive dust caused by the dusty front and back and side scape and previous construction that was not up to the standards for safety, no front entry-but side entry directly into the alley way and no parking. Historic District Design Standards from the Site Design and Use Standards- The overall design of the home utilizing common materials seen in neighboring homes in the historic district will represent the time and will hence the nature and character of the district. The goal with this residential structure is to maintain livability, pedestrian scale, authenticity, distinctiveness, and communality consecutiveness. This lot is an interesting setting as it is across the street from a large commercial business and it has commercial businesses on both the north and south sides with a public alleyway in between. Because this home is completely surrounded by commercial businesses and a public alley way- we are suggesting that possibly this home could lend itself to some appeal to the industrial area and yet still be clearly a residential IV-C-1 Height: Included in exhibit 1-pictures of surrounding homes within 200 feet of this property, you will see that the height is similar to 7 other close residences. This home is a 2 story home, because the foot print is so small and it would be impossible to have the entire home fit onto a 25 foot wide piece of property that would not allow for parking and the preservation of the existing beautiful large trees on the property. Because we are suggesting a 2 story home in line with neighboring homes, t it will allow us to not only preserve the existing trees, it will keep the home on the same foot print as the existing home, with the exception of reducing the alley way set back and it will allow for better use of the very small lot, while still provide the necessary elements of a single family residence. The property to the South is the same gable roof as the suggested roof here and the same height as the height suggested here. In addition it is the exact same height as the home across the street (1St street) and the same gable roof design. Due to the narrowness of the lot - 25 feet - and the fact that there are setbacks to meet on both the north and south sides - the 2 stories may appear to be an increased height, when indeed the proposed height is the same as the homes in the surrounding area. Additionally we have upon your historical recommendations reduced the height by 1 foot; including a reduction in the pitch of the roof. IV-C-2 Scale The home is within the scale of the historical neighboring residential properties. The height, width, and massing conform to the historic building within the immediate vicinity. The home is directly across the street from 2 large commercial businesses and the home directly faces a large commercial property. The home is surrounded by a very busy street, and excessive foot traffic. The home is not located in a "quite neighborhood" that would be expected in a historical area. This particular area is very busy and industrious. The home with regard to scale and mass fits nicely into this neighborhood and will not look out of proportion or scale to the surrounding homes, or neighboring buildings. Additionally we believe it could be acceptable to have a "different residential" feel due to this area being heavily commercialized and having daily and evening heavy traffic. IV-C-3 - Mass There are small-varied masses consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. The hip roof off of the front porch along the front flat single planeside of the home allows for varying mass and residential feel. The facades added to the front and sides allow for residential detail and design and shadowing that will further allow this residential structure to fit into the historic standards of the immediate area. There are double hung windows, consistent with the historic standards, a front facing porch - front door and a modified rhythm of opening from the current structure. We have altered and implemented all historic committee review suggestions thus far, by: 1. Adding a gable roof instead of a flat roof 2. Added facades along the alleyway 3. Changed the front door opening placement 4. Revised all siding to be more consistent with the historic standards 5. Added a hipped roof to the front porch on the street side of the home, to be consistent with the immediate area homes. 6. We reduced the pitch of the roof ' t 7. We reduced the height of the residence 8. We increased the front door entrance detail -9. We added skirting to the front of the home for additional residential detail. 10. We eliminated the roof top decking 11. We were able to design the foot print to keep all existing trees 12. We changed the alley detail to allow for more residential detail on the alley side that is more visible. 13. We have applied a base/step back off the front and alleyway to show a difference in the previous "straight sides and front of the home". VARIANCE for side yard Setbacks: The second proposal is to reduce the North side yard set back to 3 foot in the front half of the home and 4.6 feet in the back half of the home. Currently the home is built right on the property line- along the alley or within inches of the property line. This would change would move the home back 3 feet off the property line - facing the alleyway. This property line is currently non-conforming. This additional footage towards the North property line, facing the alley would allow for the home to have a width of 16' and would allow for a wheelchair to enter the home and use the ADA approved downstairs bathroom, which the owner will have a personal need for. The setback on the North side would be facing the ally and not a residence. Neighboring setbacks noted: ® The business to the North of the home has a non-conforming less than one- foot set back and appears in the front to be built right on the property line or possibly in the public right of way. ® The home/business to the South a zero lot line - with no set back noted on the side yard. ® The set back for the home 2 homes to the South has what appears to be less than one foot setback and the home to the East -directly behind the home has a non-conforming side set back of less than 1 foot. ® The set back of the home across 1St street that is also a 2 -story home has what appears to be less than a one -foot setback on the North side yard. "Please see pictures in the addendum to this proposal on the neighboring setbacks. Additionally Unique or Unusual Circumstances: ® This is a unique lot that is 25 feet wide ® We did not create the size of this lot, this is the size it was when we purchased this. ® We are requesting a variance on the side yard set backs due to the fact that it would be impossible to build a home that is 12' wide (which is what it would be if we conformed to the allowed residential setbacks) 1. z • All homes that are on a unique 25' wide lot have less than a 2-foot setback noted and are mostly found to be 12 -18 inches off the property line or have a zero lot line. • We are increasing the setback to the north/alley way, which will improve the standard and look of the residence to not be encroaching into the alleyway. This set back variance on the side yards would give the needed 16'+ wide residence needed to accommodate basic living areas on the first floor and the needed ADA approved restroom on the first floor with the width needed to accommodate a stairwell that will adapt to a motorized wheelchair lift up the side of the stairs. VARIANCE to the Setbacks-FRONT: The front yard setback in the historic district is 20-feet. There is a provision in the code (AMC 18.68.110), which allows for averaging of front yards. "If there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abusing lots.. The front or side yards abutting a public street with less than the required setback for the district, the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures." The property to the south has an approximately a 9 foot set back to the front and the property to the south has less than a one foot setback to the front property line. This would allow for the averaging of the front set back to 5 feet. We are proposing a 6-foot front set back. Based on the code the front yard setback suggested complies with the averaging provision. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN: • With the current plan - there will be NO trees removed from the lot/parcel. • A chain link fence with a minimum of 6-feet in height with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or drip line, whichever is greater. • The fencing will be flush with the initial undisturbed grade • There will be a slab concrete foundation that will eliminate the deep skirting of excavation needed for crawl space. • There will be approved signs around the fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from Staff Advisor for the project. • No construction activity will occur within the tree protection zone, including dumping or storage of materials. • Bartlett tree service will be maintaining the trees and observing all of the preservation before, during and after the construction. • There will be no hazardous dumping or chemically injurious material used such as liquids, paint thinners, construction debris, or m-off. • No excavation or trenching will occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. • Inspection will take place prior to any construction activity. i, /f 1 ~ t NARATIVE REGARDING ASHLAND HISTORIC REVIEW COMMENTS AND VARIOUS CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS APPLICANT: Nisha Jackson 2640 E. Barnett Rd. Medford, OR 97504 ~ g € 541-944-5987 OWNER: Same as above AGENT: Design Residential, Inc. P.O. Box 8062 Medford, OR 97504 SUBJECT PARCEL DESCRIPTION: MAP: 39 1 E 09 BA TAX LOT: 1300 270 N. First St. Ashland, OR 97520 Regarding the Historic Review Board Comments dated 9/12/13: I 1. Suggestion: Hip roof and lower plate heights. Action taken: The Upper door Bedrooms are Vaulted and therefore we cannot Hip the East and West Upper ends. We have changed the North two story pop out and the covered Entry to Hip from Gable The Main Floor plate height remains at 9' but we have changed the Upper Floor from 9' to 8', all the more reason to Vault the Bedrooms. These changes will lower Building Height and reduce Mass 2. Suggestion: Add trim around Openings. I Action taken: Trim has been applied to all openings even though it is not an industry standard for Stucco or Cladding. 3. Suggestion: Front Porch to small on not well defined. Design conflict with front deck. Action taken: We have widened the porch from 4'6" to 6'. This gives more definition to the front porch. The North interior wall of the Living Room should not be decreased to add to I Entry because the Living Room Is 13'6" wide as it is, a very minimum. A separation from The covered Entry Roof to the upper deck has been created to eliminate the design conflict. We feel we have made as many adjustments to our design as possible in light of the very minimal building envelope dictated by the lot dimensions. E Regarding Conditional Use permit and Variance applications: 1. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area. I 1 t i 4 The S.F.D. has been specifically designed to meet the requirements as outlined on the Ashland Planning Dept. Pre-Application Conference Comment sheet dated: 3/14/13. The requirements with a 25% increase are 1310 Sq. Ft. We are at 1300 Sq. Ft. 2. Front and Side yard Setbacks: We have a 6' Front Setback. The Comment Sheet indicates an average adjacent Front set back is 5'6". The existing S.F.D. has a building width of 19', which means side set- backs would be 3', We maintain this as a minimum with some at 4'6". 3. Garage: We have proposed a 19'X 20' Garage with a height less than 15', separated from the main S.F.D. by 15' and the street by 33'. The back-up dimension is 19', so a Variance Will be required. We feel this justified as the property directly to the North also has a Similar back-up. With the physical constraints of the very narrow lot (25') and the need to Provide off-street parking with alley access, we feel a Variance is justified. 7Re rds ohn W. Turman Design Residential, Inc. 2 Dear City of Medford Attached to this application are home and commercial businesses located within 200 feet of the proposed home construction on this application (1St Street) These homes are a combination of: 2-story homes 1Y2 story homes Not lines to the front and sides Less than 2-foot lot lines to the side The lot to the directly to the EAST is a large commercial building The lot to the directly to the North is a large commercial building The lot to the directly to the North-West is a large commercial building The lot to the directly to the South is a commercial business and home Please see attached pictures for homes/businesses within 200 feet of proposed space. . 1 ~I VIII` "no -,z , 14 ar~~ . _t i , W, . ~ Y wY I r 4 Y, Y, ) r !t '~9,~ 1 i rev k Pie- f 41 !jq - spy 1 .F _ Nfj 3 "s "47 0, 4 AO ® q' ' r ~a 1 M 44 4 ,,J A A V moll I ` ~ F e-I 3 ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ 1 V y b it ~ TB ~•x ~ k ~ a~ ~ ~ r e ~ ~f Y ~ ~ a ~ 9~w r I I All- . i etVV ~ .4 r~ F ~ C"1 ~cF a Y f ~ F4 'F:-° yQ' +H~~ ` ~ bM1a` gy- y ~ a 1T { ^ ~ y~ `-1 F a ~o f 2I a ' 1 f 10- A~L ~a J ~xo r V-W W , 's w - -tom ? x ,4 ~r }e J ` k a OF , -71 n ~1 7r7 r!` + E cr p, 1 All , e ~ Is ~ 1 I i(i I p -~2 t u atk-..~ .+n # # ~ S t@ a t 0,0 i \ ~ I 4 top m }C ~ i \j ~ ) i 1 <11 ~ I1~ /,,li~, ~ ' _ ~ + J" li , r I ~ , J, ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 r r Y~ i ~ _ ~ 3' I _ 1~,~ f ` t. i ~'1 M13x..~ € G ~ t~ ~ n r'~ ~ ~ ~ . } ~ 1 ~ ~ ~y_-_.„ ~r ~ ~ _ ! _ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ 4. ' _ f Y y~,~ r" ~ . ~ • - ~ ~ _ _-.r~ n1'~ ~ sz, x ~Jv t jh Kh Y , k ~ ~ ~ C' ~ 1 ~ ~ ^ JJ1 ~ >1 • ~I , ~ I y Y 41, n j t~ c 1 { wll ~ -4 1 1. A r~ rip -F s I9 t ~ /c k ry ^ t r r ,s krl K ;j C can . w K - iS a: Q _ t} k fi PMT . ~y a u V-4 - Y ~ A r ~ r Ti~YDT'cML rte'. ~Aw ~ ~ vh'..• 'fir ~ _ - ~,y y~13~~ y a - I k. r ~ I i r ~j I ` V l a 4 - i t s., 41 ~ f f r _ ~ l R' - J Ill _i 11 1 •I 4 1 I~ I t w 'F a _rN i Pi Its n t I ~ r~ i 7w t XT, r a z d B e I} - Nk, s 10 1 i 3y 4t } a ~4. t~~-a~--,a: ~..r~..~.T..,<~a mow:.--,.'_ ~ ~ ~ fa. 'A" ,.4 ~y~ ".'Sig ~P- 1 F r V v ~40 : A ~ I ~ NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 8'-0- 1888 LINE F FLOOR 4-0" VE $4 ° 25.00' A O T - _ _ r fr I I I I i % I I 4 1886 I I I IORIVEWAY 2 PARKIN SPACES I I I ,102 SQ. FT. 408 S . FT. 0 I i i ~ I I 1 I _ I I I I III COVERED P X 17'6" N I I LINE OF DECK i i ABOVE I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I 1888 I I ~ I I ~ I I i Lu I °I i 1884 i I ~ I I ~ BUILDING I co FOOTPRINT - 816 SQ. FT: UNDER ROOF i I I I I I If I I I I BEI f, saes - ATER PROD DECK I o~ r 5'X 16' I I d 1884 8 8" F _ SITE DATA: TOTAL LOT: 2300 SQ. FT. I I LOT COVERAGE: 1250 SQ. FT. I I 55% I O r EYJ514 (G 554hlINJ( 6 6 N. FIRST ST. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" 1'0" BAR 'l0 Mike Bartlett Certified Arborist - International Society of Arboriculture 2288 Old Stage Rd. Central Point, Or. 97502 541-601-6780 To whom it may concern, This report is written in regard to the trees located on the property of 270 First St. in Ashland, Or. It was explained to me that the existing structure is to be torn down and a new, two-story dwelling be built in its place. The new home's footprint will be very similar to the existing one. With this information given I was asked to develop a tree protection/preservation plan and implement it before, during and after the demolition/construction project. As a Certified Arborist I am passionate about trees and their care. Being a professional in my field, I am compelled to give an honest, educated opinion regarding tree situations in which I become involved. There are many procedures that can be done to preserve and protect a tree during i construction. There are some instances where these procedures would be an unrealistic utilization of time and effort. i At 270 First St. there is a 6 inch diameter Box Elder tree growing from the base of the stem wall on the west side of the house. There is another Box Elder on the east side of the house also growing from the base of the stem wall. It has diameter at chest height of 13 inches. Box Elders have a very invasive, extensive root system. They require a large area for root growth. The new construction would require these roots to be cut back to the trunk on the house-side of the trees. This would create an unstable situation for the Box Elders and place them in a high-risk category for toppling over. This amount of root removal would also put the trees in an irreversible decline spiral. It is my intention to preserve trees when and where reasonably possible. I feel this would be a futile and failed attempt to preserve these two trees and they should be removed. The other tree of concern is a 6 inch diameter Black Walnut on the northeast side of the property. It is growing within inches of the asphalt alley to the north and within 6 foot of the house. Black Walnuts can reach a height of 100 feet and a crown spread of that or more. They require a large area of available root space. Their roots tend . 63 i. i to be on the invasive side. Because of its proximity to the alley, it has already had limbs broken off by the nearby traffic. The roots will cause extensive damage to the road and future home. It does not have a bright future in its present location and should be removed. After the new building is constructed, I would recommend an assessment of the property for the possibility of planting new trees. I would also encourage seeking the opinion of a Certified Arborist as to what trees would be best suited for the improved site. Professionally, Mike Bartlett Certified Arborist P.N.W. & Western Chapter, I.S.A. International Society of Arboriculture P.N. # 0984 I f MISCELLANEOUS SUBMITTALS, We would like to submit this additional information to our packet as this is a new development in our understanding of the effects of this project. Up to this point it has been unclear which trees are to remain and which will be cut but the ribbons have made it obvious. It has come to our attention that there is a tree at the 270 N. 1 st property marked for cutting ' which is erroneously designated a bush. A "tree" is defined as being over 6" diameter at breast height. This tree is 13"+. Unfortunately for this tree it has been signed off as a bush by the City Planner in charge of this F ~a project. In fact, in the proposal ' presented to the Historic Commission it was stated that ` NO trees would be cut and (at . the subsequent meeting) many of the members were surprised to learn that anything under 6" diameter at breast height is not considered a "tree" and only two of the many trees on this property will actually remain.This tree should not be cut unnecessarily to build a larger than permitted house on this small lot. Without cutting this tree a home with plenty of square footage for the City guidelines can be built and the only reason to cut this tree is to build a bigger house. This should be a top consideration of granting the conditional use permit for a 25% expansion which is out of scope with other homes in this neighborhood. Does it make sense to grant an exception for a larger home to be built on such a small lot when it requires cutting down this healthy tree? There has obviously been some kind of tree protection plan created for 270 N. 1 st already as it clearly states in the proposal findings that the two trees they have identified as "trees" which will not be cut must be adequately protected by a 6' chain link fence before any work can begin on the property, (We have not seen the plan as it is not part of any of the packets we have received.) This tree pictured has been overlooked and is a HUGE oversight/unspoken accommodation on the part of the planning staff. I This tree alone is reason to send this project back to the Historic Commission for review. This whole project had many misrepresentations when presented to the Historic Commission (such as the existing residence having a metal roof which it does not and the statement that no trees were to be cut) which is the information they were given when making their decision. If anyone makes a decision based on misleading information it is reasonable to imagine they may make a different decision when presented with true and more accurate information and the Historic Commission vote was already split which rarely happens. This project has seemed like it is being pushed through and it may be that one planning staff member is in charge of too many aspects or gets too sympathetic to the person and forgets the larger picture of the neighborhood and guidelines. It is very important that the City remain impartial when looking at projects and make sure that they are legally making fair and just decisions without making too many accommodations for one project. Our neighborhood (as evidenced by the 50+ signatures of many of the owners of these properties) feels that this project is receiving a green light on a project which is not compatible for the Historic Railroad District neighborhood where we live. A residential home with stucco siding, a metal roof (that is the commercial coop design!), a sliding glass door facing the street, a stainless steel cable railing balcony as a contemporary street element, and a 25% increase in square footage with two car parking on a 25' wide lot- there are many people questioning why the City would allow/encourage this when other options which better fit their design guidelines are available. Please read your own documents and be careful of using as an "excuse" that this is a transitional house between commercial.and residential. There is no definition for transitional in your records- it is an arbitrary term. A slippery slope as so much of the charm of this area is mixed use commercial/residential side by side. Another misleading statement is that this property is bordered on three sides by commercial property. In fact there is a residence still on the auto body lot which may be a residence again in the future and the only other commercial property is the Ashland Food Coop. Many many many properties border commercial in these neighborhoods. If standards of homes looking like homes are gone it will quickly turn into a very different looking town. This will be a project many will look to for future developments as it is just R-2 property ...so many of us border businesses in this area! *Because the Historic Commission made us aware of how many ordinances there are that all parties on the Commissions may not be aware of we have copied some of it here to hopefully be helpful: Chapter 18.61 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION 18.61.010 Purpose. The City of Ashland recognizes the importance of trees to the character and beauty of Ashland as well as the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare. The City has therefore determined that reasonable regulation of the removal of certain trees is necessary and that this regulation of trees is based upon the following general guidelines: A. The City recognizes that trees can provid . soil stability, noisA buffering, and wind protection benefits The City of Ashland greatly values trees for their ecologic importance, temperature mitigation enhanced wildlifa habitat and aeattek B. The City recognizes the special significance of heritage and distinctive trees, and values the contribution, which such trees make to the beauty and quality of life of Ashland. C. The City recognizes that because of the known benefits of trees, development property should be protected from unregulated removal of tree prior to the approval of development plans Trees on su h properties should he prey rued so that they may be considered for incorporation into development plans, E. The City recognizes that city-owned property and properties located in multi-family residential zones often have special landscag circumstances, and that these- special circumstances have the potential to affect significantly larger numbers of persons if unregulated. Because of this, su rp O ie squire reasonable regulation. 18.61.020 Definitions. B. Caliper Inch refers to a manner of expressing the diameter inches of a tree as calculated by measuring the tree's circumference and dividing by Pi (approximately 3.14159). Specially calibrated "diameter tapes" or "calipers" are used to determine caliper inches. D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the trunk, at its maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. M. Tree means any woody plant having a trunk six caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but ,h. below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree if greater than six inches DBH. 18.61.042 Approval and Permit Required. B. TREE REMOVAL - VERIFICATION PERMIT: 1. If a site has received development approval through a planning action consistent with the standards of this chapter, then a Verification Permit shall be required for those trees approved for removal through that process. To obtain a verification permit, an applicant must clearly identify on the property the trees to be removed by tying pink tagging tape around each tree and submitting a site plan indicating the location of the requested trees. Vegetation 4" to 6" DBH that is to be removed shall also be marked with pink tagging tape. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application. The Staff Advisor will then verify that the requested trees match the site plan approved with the planning action. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the original development permit. 18.61.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Removal Permits. A. The City may impose conditions of approval on any Tree Removal Permit if the condition is reasonably related to preventing, eliminating or mitigating a negative imps or potential negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is as created or contributed to by the approved tree removal B. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to: 1. Rewiring modifications in the location, design or intensity of a development or activities on a site or to require or prohibit certain construction methods. Modifications may result in a decrease in size of residential or commercial structures, but modifications shall not reduce the density of residential development below the permitted density allowed by the zone; 18.61.200 Tree Protection. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; t g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. B. Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or run-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Amy Gunter From: Tish Way [tishway@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:15 PM To: guntera@ashland.or.us; melissa syken Cc: TISH WAY Subject: 270 North First To whom it may concern; On an additional note, it is inaccurate to state the lot is surrounded by commercial businesses. The fact is there is a residence directly behind the lot,(not commercial property), a residence to the south of the lot (not commercial property), and a residence to the north of the lot (not commercial property). The proposed house would also look proportionately out of scale to the existing houses it borders. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Patricia Way P O Box 1327 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tish Way Oregon Shakespeare Festival Company Management Team 541-601-8474 1 Amy Gunter From: Tish Way [tishway@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:04 PM To: guntera@ashland. or.us; melissa syken Subject: 270 North First Street R To whom it may concern; I am writing to you regarding my concerns about the the property, located at 270 North First Street, adjoining my own, located at 260 North First Street. The proposed design for development contradicts existing zoning rules for the neighborhood. I believe that if the proposed plan is approved, it will diminish the value of my own property and that it will diminish the pleasure that my neighbors and I take in living in the historic railroad district. Two years ago, when I was building my own home/business, next-door, I had requested the same or similar variances of code that my neighbor is asking for and my requests were denied. Hence, there is also the big issue of fair treatment. When I began the renovation to my home, we had asked the planning commission for permission to; - Add covered porches - Add square footage The current owners are saying it is impossible to build a home 12' wide, so they need to increase the residential setbacks. They knew exactly what they were purchasing when they bought the property. They can do a remodel and use the current existing footprint. If they needed to build a larger home they ought to have purchased a larger lot. They did not create the size of the lot, but they are responsible for purchasing it exactly as it is. I oppose their requests for additional setbacks. A steel roof proposal; - Put a steel roof on the building I oppose the steel roof because it will add additional noise pollution to the neighborhood and not be in compliance with the residential historic railroad housing. The many variances to the code that my neighbor is proposing will: Crowd an oversized building on a tiny little lot that will block the beautiful upstairs view from my home. While my neighbor should be as free as I to construct an upstairs in his home, his upstairs should be scaled back so that its footprint is does not exceed the zoning rules and does not block my existing view and sunlight. I am concerned about the lack of landscaping in the plans at 270 North First Street also and opposed to not following through with the existing rules around this issue. I am concerned and oppose the additional traffic as a result of more than one parking space on such a small lot. The neighbors on the opposite side have a lot half again larger than the 270 lot and only have one parking space. I am concerned and opposed to the increase in noise, light, and glare from the proposed plan at 270 North First Street. I am opposed to changing the front set back also. If the city will allow this setback for this property will you allow all the neighbors to also change their set backs to 6 feet in the front? Please consider these ideas and follow through with the existing laws of the Historic Railroad District already in place. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Patricia Way 260 North First Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-601-8474 1 October 28, 2013 Melissa Syken 260 N. 1St Street Ashland OR 97520 541-842-0642 To whom it may concern: I am writing with concerns about the proposed building to go in at 270 N. 1St Street. As the closest neighbor (our homes will be 3 feet apart) I would like to voice some things I have noticed about the planned building. • Home does not look like it will be to scale with others on street in relation to size of lot. • Noise, Light & Glare WILL GREATLY increase if parking is allowed behind residence in current back yard and home is allowed to be built bigger. • A metal roof will be confusing (if this is indeed a residence) as that is not in any way contributing to the historic feel of the neighborhood. PARKING: I am greatly opposed to the idea to put parking behind the building at 270 N. 1st when all the other homes on N 1St park on the street. Before the new sidewalk went in last year past renters who lived there previously always parked in the front on the lawn there as matched all the other homes. By allowing parking in the rear of the home you are allowing my current back yard where my two young sons play to become open to the alley (as the fence will be removed which is currently in place). This will seriously negatively impact my quality of life here as one of the things that makes our super small residence work for our family is that I feel safe with my kids in the backyard. I did not build my home thinking that there would be no yard next door to me. That is my buffer from the alley pedestrian traffic especially! Parking behind the house will degrade the neighborhood feeling for my home unnecessarily and contribute light, noise, and glare to where I live which is currently not there at all. NO QUESTION! Me and my children sleep less than ten feet from where lights will be pulling in and out and cars will be warming up pouring exhaust up into our windows. That alley already has its own traffic as well as permanent parking for the home right behind 270 which you should be aware of. There is no street access to the home at 272 N. 1St so the only option is parking right there. In my view, it would be more compatible with our neighborhood if the car were to park in the front of the home as all the other cars on N. 1St do. The home just two up from mine is also on the alley and they have made it look really nice. I do realize the existing trees there would need to be removed but these trees cost the city money every year to cut back as they are right in the power lines and grow very quickly and I have heard there was talk of removing them anyway for this reason. Cottonwoods are not a good street tree and some other replacement more appropriate could be put in in their place. Also, 4 x of the 5 homes on the street will have pavers soon, 270 is the only one that will not so there could be a nice consistency along the street. To go from zero parking on a 25' wide lot to two spaces is a definite increase. All of the parking for other homes in this area allows for one car and families share a car and bike/walk. This is not a large lot nor is there any need for two parking spaces. If, when the City put the new sidewalk in, they did not cut a parking spot it seems that should be a signal that there is no parking on this lot. Where is the room for the landscaping then? I think the idea that two car parking should be allowed is extremely inconsistent with this lot and neighborhood. The second thing about allowing the back area to be parking is that I see a potential for this to easily turn from residential to commercial at anytime as one space can become residence and one handicap and they are set. They are using a very similar layout as our "commercial" front to our home (a big open space closest to the street with home upstairs and behind) which is fine if that is what they intend but I feel this is a tricky way to get all approved and then I am next door to a commercial parking lot in my backyard. I noticed they are paying attention to ADA accessibility and have made ADA bathroom downstairs as well as front door facing the street. While these may currently be personal concerns these are all conditions for a commercial application which I feel they are adding in now as a potential for down the road and I don't want to be surprised when that presents itself. They may be living in it for a time but then may decide to do their private practice from their home or sell/rent to someone else and that would be the reality so I am looking to the future and that impact. Again, per stated page one of the proposal: "The proposed space will NOT increase any traffic in the area, as it will have its own parking within the property, which it currently does not have" is in no way possible. If there is currently no traffic- adding car parking adds traffic. They are also welcome to continue to park where they are currently parking (street side) and have no parking on the lot as many homes of this size in the railroad district do. That IS another option and that really would not increase traffic. i *Side note: the parking surplus on this particular street is due to the coop over- use not residential use. Rather than burden the neighborhood by putting parking in backyards perhaps the coop should be more responsible with their parking and find other solutions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME SIZE EXPANSION: To me it looks like this home will stick out on this street as it will be a much bigger home per lot size than any other. These are small lots which mean they should be small homes. To me, they are trying to build a large home on a small lot and if they wanted a big home they should have purchased a bigger lot. This is still in the historic railroad district... These homes are a little community and I think it is important to look at that quality and not allow a home to be built that will not contribute to that community. Four homes of the five homes on this block have went through ownership changes and/or remodel work in the past year so we are all invested. Again- I think there is a big assumption stated in their proposal: "there is no possible way to have a home that can be utilized as a residence that could fit into a 500 sf frame" They also state on page 5 that it would be "impossible to build a home that is 12" wide". AND YET- that is what the size of my residence next door is! This is all a matter of perspective and many families live in small spaces including mine with two children... I do not think this idea should be the basis for any increase in home size conditional use permit. To get a relationship to lot size: our exact same size property next door has a 1000 square foot building with 600 square foot shop in front and our residence is only 400 square feet. They are asking for a 327.5 square foot increase which is almost the size of the home space we are living in! A 1,000 square foot home on a 25 wide lot does not need to accommodate 2 bedrooms with walk in closets and 2.5 baths necessarily. Buy a bigger lot if you want a bigger house O My understanding is that the footprint of the home will not increase but by adding a covered porch to the bottom story they can essentially increase their air footprint. The size of the upstairs area will then go over the porch blocking my upstairs windows entirely from natural light and the only views I have of the mountains. I would request that this be considered when looking at how our two homes relate to each other as we are only 3 feet apart. More home always equals more light and any light in their home will greatly increase light in my home- at the 3 foot distance you can pretty much read by it. I request that the covered patio and waterproof deck be removed as they are more space taken up by building on the lot and they already have an outside porch to the front of the house. That way I can still see the mountains out of the farthest upstairs corner window in my home at the least. I feel the home they are proposing to build in not similar in scale, bulk, and coverage to surrounding homes as they are trying to build something bigger and utilizing more than all the allotted space and leaving no room for vegetation. These decks will have to be built around the existing tree... Another concern I have is how the windows on our buildings will match up with one another. I would prefer to not have to look into their rooms or have them looking into mine as it was before our remodel. METAL ROOF: I see no reason for a metal roof on this home unless the intent is for it to one day be commercial. There are NO surrounding homes in this historic residential area with metal roofing and I think the metal would look commercial and/or California home like. How would that contribute to the historic feel? I was also denied the request to put a metal roof on our building and we are commercial in the front so I would be greatly surprised how their metal roof would be more contributing than mine could have been. Thank you for your consideration, Melissa Syken CITY OF Planning Department, 51 Winb, Nay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 - a `I`mo ,CO 4111 f PLANNING ACTION: 2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 First Street OWNERIAPPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: a _ F - - Ile i SU EJ ECT PRO FERTY / --z s r 270 FIR-ST STREET - 7g 1E 09BA 1300 , ! J ; v l i J_ t_ iJ J r r ~ t °royrri~ tinas arrs for rr-{ar~r>.ce ort.fy, not scnicab:c 012.M5 50 Feet Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing PolderWailed Notices & Signs\2014\PA-2013-01421 270 First St. APPEAL.doc AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On December 26, 2013 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2013-01421, 270 First Street APPEAL. Signature of Employee II', Documentl 1212612013 t 14- e.. , 1IM6 SEARCH RESULTS 29 Fs r;a four: t:,r EuY~rc'_ T1-.111 11E02 = 5 F.c_crca Or:erea by S,ggt- Ti Jat, E,, L:C a It ,lei 0 Lest 1 l q? 1 1, ru 5 olepla 61 q, ,200 - , 11m JOSE 6DRIL1_O Wkp z 1500 E-[u51-_iFtf Zc'J ~STF.E-_-i rEH~_~\C 140 cc:=_Te5-01 1-10-117-c 1Cml 14b SW- =.CTI! E Feraic 1 'I ,Id00 ,IM 1CM 20M - 1IT00 21M 5560 - - 51M O.'.n= TFIrSTEE 51M 4X-0 LIE.'=.I 7F. IST EF 5200 610 p+ 'J Fn;.;;..LC D LCS J Z [i'.G ~S L FVS:". I-F-.`,fIL-, T;.UST - 11ST 1 [ - - DOJO F -L 12661 63 s CO NC 5 5~-Z%E, ©O cl,~ T- 5-l1 1 2 of 24 • CCipboa Item not collected. 4 A STREET ARTS BUILDING LLC ALLEN ANNABEL L ALLEN KATHERINE ET AL 406 IOWA ST 950 PARK ST 4 10732 INTERLAKE AVE N ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SEATTLE, WA 98133 AMBROSE JACQUELENE ASHLAND FOOD COOPERATIVE B STREET LLC 269 B ST 237 FIRST ST N 223 FIFTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BARNARD STEVE BARNARD WHITNEY BASS BRITTNEY 258 A ST 258 A ST #1 240 N FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ;j BASS RONALD E TRUSTEE ET AL BENTON JON J BLUE MOUNTAIN EMPRESA LLC 78 SIXTH ST 263 N SECOND ST 340 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 9752.0 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 BRINTON VALERIE ROSE ! CHESTER GENE R CLIFT ROBERT A ET AL j 2088 SYCAMORE RD 249 B ST 236 N FIRST ST FILLMORE, CA 93015 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 COHEN LYNN COMSTOCK PAUL H/JUDITH A COYODE AVA 462 A ST PO BOX 35 249 112 AST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PHOENIX, OR 97535 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CRUZ STELLA DENMAN HILLARY DONNELLY DENNIS P/DARLENE 803 N ,MAIN ST 236 N FIRST ST 2022 COVE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 DONNELLY DENNIS ENGEL TALOR GOUGE JACOB 246 A ST 258 A ST 240 N FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HANSEN GARY HARVARD PATRICK HAYNES KARL 205 GRANITE ST 65 PRATHER 2253 HWY 99 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HOUK JASON HOUSER THOMAS J/WILSON JENSEN ETSUKO 137 FIFTH ST CHERYL B 249 1/2 A ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 185 B ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 t. JUALVEST LLC KELLEY KATHERYN KNOWLES ETHAN 64 THIRD ST 1550 OREGON ST #10 258 A ST #16 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 LEPOLD SHOSHANA LITTLE JAMES J MANNELI LAURA 228 TALENT AVE. 234 N FIRST ST 225 B ST TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i MARKS MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLS LESLIE NARDI ASHLEY 417 CLIFF ST 258 A ST 258 A ST ST JOHNSBURG, VT 05819 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 NASH GRETCHEN NEWTON JUDITH REITZ ROBYN 258 A ST #2 205 GRANITE ST 239 SECOND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 RNN PROPERTIES LLC ROYCE LIZZY ROYLE HOWARD A 2640 E BARNETT RD E-431 145 E MAIN ST P O BOX 751 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PANYONVILLE, OR 97417 i RUSNAK RONALD LISA J ZINGARE RUSSELL SCOTT M SCHNITZER LEE ELLIOT AND ; 355 ASHLAND LOOP RD 1074 MONROE ST PAMELA JE ET AL ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97402 2560 N VALLEY VIEW RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTT CHERI SCOTT TERI SELIGMAN MAYA 258 A ST. #2 258 A ST #2 258 A ST. #8 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ! ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 1 I` SORIANO JOSE MORILLO SWEENEY DANIEL SKYEN MELISSA 280 N 2ND ST 239 SECOND ST 260 FIRST ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALBOOM JOE THOMAS TREVOR TOUGHILL CHRISTOPHER 540 HELMAN ST 258 A ST #8 246 FIFTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 VAN ORNUM IAN WAY PATRICIA WAY PATRICIA 258 A ST #112 260 N FIRST ST PO BOX 1327 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 WILSON DEBRA KNOX MARK TURMAN JOHN 108 CROCKER ST 485 W NEVADA ST PO BOX 862 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i ij II I i j i CITY F ASHLAND f t November 20, 2013 I Notice of Final Decision On November 20, 2013, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2013-01421 Subject Property: 270 N First Street Applicant: RNN Properties LLC Description: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N, First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. l The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of one year and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are C available for review 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. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action 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 ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Amy Gunter in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 7 t SECTION 18.108.070(B)2 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals. B. Actions subject to appeal: 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action ds approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below. i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the' Staff Advisor that a factual error . occurred through no fault of the party. asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Staff' Advisor shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. Appeal. i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Staff Advisor's final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12a` day after the notice of decision is mailed. ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. iii. The appeal shall be considered at the neat regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us f ti ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi- Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 SUBMITTAL DATE: September 20, 2013 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: October 18, 2013 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: November 20, 2013 FINAL DECISION DATE: December 3, 2013 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: December 3, 2014 DECISION The subject property is located on the east side of First Street, between A and B streets, across from the Ashland Food Cooperative and adjacent to an east / west running alley. The parcel is zoned R-2 ("Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located within the Railroad Historic District. The property is rectangular, with an area of approximately 2,300 square feet, which is significantly smaller than the minimum 5,000 square foot lot size for the R-2 zone. Because the lot was created prior to current zoning regulations, it is considered a legal, non-conforming lot, and therefore permitted to be developed as a recognized lot of record. The parcel to the south and east are also below the minimum lot size in the zone. There is an approximately four percent slope to the north. There are is a Box elder tree, 13-inches in diameter at breast height that the applicant has proposed to preserve. The other trees on the site that are six inches in diameter at breast height and smaller will be removed. The site currently does not have any off-street parking. The First Street right-of-way is 70-feet in width. The current street improvements include curb; gutter and sidewalk.. The alley to the north is asphalt. The applicant has proposed to head-in parking spaces accessed via the alley to be installed at the rear of the property. The existing building on the site is identified as the Hall-Thompson House in the Historic Resources Inventory for the Railroad Historic District. The survey notes that the structure was constructed in the late 1940s and while in poor condition, the simply designed house retains sufficient integrity to relate its development during the second period of significance in the history of the Railroad District. According to the applicants findings the residence is in very poor condition. The applicant stated that the home inspector found the house to be the worse structure he has ever assessed. The applicant has requested removal of the structure due to its condition, the single wall, 2X4 construction, without PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 1 r 1 t insulation, lack of foundation and decades of neglect. The applicant has requested the approval of a demolition permit to remove the structure. The demolition request has been approved pending no appeals and the approval of replacement plans. The application is a request to construct a new 1,300 square foot, two story single-family residence on the site. The applicant is proposing to construct the new residence to Leadership in Energy and Efficiency Design (LEED) Silver Standards. The application includes a variance request to the required side-yard setbacks of six feet by proposing the new residence to be setback three-feet fiom the south and north property lines. The rear portion of the residence is proposed to be setback four-feet, six-inches from the north and south property lines. The application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed the maximum permitted floor area in the Historic District. There are a number of small trees on the property six-inches in diameter at breast height and smaller, which will be removed. There are two larger trees greater than six inches in diameter at breast height, which are proposed to be preserved. Conditional Use Permit to Exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area: Residentially zoned properties located within Ashland's Historic Districts are subject to a Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) limitation based on the lot size and number of units proposed. This limitation is intended to preserve the historic character of Ashland's historic districts by insuring that development is architecturally and historically compatible with historic development patterns and fits well into the fabric of these established historic neighborhoods. The ordinance establishing the MPFA limitations provides for applicants to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent when they obtain a CUP; this is a discretionary approval intended to provide for a higher level of review of proposed structures in the context of the CUP approval criteria as well as the Historic District Development Standards. Conditional Use Permit review also calls for consideration of the adverse material effects of the proposal on the impact area in comparison to the target use of the zone, which in this case would be the development of the site with a single unit built to the maximum permitted floor area of 1,048 square feet. The applicant has proposed to construct a 1,300 square foot structure, 24 percent over the maximum. As previously noted, the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot that was created prior to current zoning regulations. As a legal lot of record in the R-2 zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of only one residential unit. The proposal is for one residential unit. The property has adequate capacity for city facilities to serve a new single-family residential unit. There is overhead electric serving the site. First Street has a four-inch water main, a six-inch sewer line and a twelve-inch storm drain line available to continue to serve the site and the proposed single-family residential unit. First Street is paved with curb, gutter and sidewalks, the alley is also paved and these provide adequate transportation facilities to continue to serve the parcel. In staff's view, the generation of traffic is consistent with that of the impact area, and less than that. generated by the adjacent business uses. In addition, the proximity to the downtown, shopping and bicycle paths may indeed result in a reduction in vehicle trips over what might be expected for a similar unit not as centrally located. The lot will continue to have one residential unit and that is in conformance with the zone. Staff finds-that a new single-family residence will not generate more light, noise, glare, and odor than the existing single-family residential unit. PA #2013-01421 270 Firstladg Page 2 Historic District DesiLyn Standards: In addition to the criteria for a CUP, the proposal is reviewed for compliance with the Historic District Development Standards. These standards address compatibility with historic context in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense of entry, imitation, etc. with a general focus aimed at preserving historic streetscapes. For new construction, these Development Standards generally seek a traditional architecture that well represents our own time yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district. The Historic District Design Standards state that properties that are adjacent to the zoning district boundaries are provided flexibility for properties that are adjacent to the zoning district boundaries. This block of First Street is in a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district. The properties to the north of the subject property.are zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including South Valley Auto body, the A Street Arts Building, Plexis Healthcare and Ace Hardware. The property across First Street is split zoned between R-2 and E-1 and is the site of the Ashland Food Co-Op-and Umpqua Bank. The property directly to the south is residentially zoned but received a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to have a small commercial business at front portion of the structure and the back portion is a residential unit (PA2010- 1611). The structures further south are single-story, single-family residences. The structure is proposed to be 22-feet to the peak, which is similar in height as the property to the south that is 19.74-feet tall and is a standard height for a two-story structure. The property to the north across the alley is zoned E-1. The site is currently the site of an auto body shop and a derelict, vacant residence. It can be assumed that the lot will redeveloped and will likely be multi-story construction. The site has a potential maximum height of a forty foot height. The property across First Street is the site of the Ashland Food Co-Op, though the structure is one-story, the building is approximately 28-feet tall. The proposed 6 / 12 pitch roof is similar to roof pitches found in the impact area and is the same as the structure proposed for removal. As stated above the height is similar to those structures immediately to the north, south and west. The applicant has proposed, a gable end similar to the structures in the immediate vicinity. The width of the structure at 16-feet is comparable to the properties in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the , structure to the south is 18 feet wide, additional area added in 2010 is 12-feet wide. The structure to the east is approximately 17 feet wide. The applicant has also proposed a smaller gable roof on the porch, shed roof on the north side adjacent to the alley. The applicant has proposed that the second story be setback from the front facade by five feet and has proposed a roof top deck with a 'double French door and transom window. The second story is proposed to be cantilevered beyond the first floor by four-feet and a four-foot roof over the first level patio is proposed beyond the cantilever. The front of the residence is proposed to be setback eight-feet from the front property line. This is the same setback the current residence has and the same setback as the house(s) directly to the south. AMC 18.68.110 states that if there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 3 t by. an alley or private way) with front or side yards abutting a public street with less than the required setback for the district, the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures. In this case the average is six-feet, the applicant has proposed eight, in compliance with the criteria. The proposed pitch of the roof is 6/12. The roof form is a gable roof, which is the common roof form in the vicinity. The applicant intends to collect rainwater as part of the attainment of LEED Silver Certification and though the material is not common in the Railroad District on residences, it is a common building material on the commercial structures in the Historic Railroad District. Additionally, there is an addition at the rear of the structure proposed for removal that has metal shed roof and the existing fence of the subject property is metal. The applicant has proposed double hung windows as the primary windows of the structure. The historic Commission recommended that there be a separation of approximately four-inches between the sashes. One item of discussion was the proposed transom window over the second story French doors from the master suite at the front of the building. This window does add to the availability of light into the space but also gives the appearance of a taller, more voluminous second story. Staff recommends that the applicant reconsider the transom window over the French doors facing First St. The applicant has proposed a base with a %2 inch reveal at the base of the structure. The base is proposed to be the same fagade treatment (stucco) as the first five-feet of the structure. The remainder of the structure is proposed to be naturally stained, cedar, four-inch reveal, horizontal siding. This is consistent with the material choices, and treatments of the structures on all sides of the proposed residence. The applicant has proposed a front facing door. The structure proposed for removal did not have a street facing door that was visible from First. It is adjacent to the alley. The applicant has also proposed a small five-foot by six-foot front entry porch to add definition to the front entrance. The Historic Commission reviewed the proposal at their November 6, 2013 meeting and added a condition that the double hung windows have a three-and-one-half to four inch separation between windows. A condition to this effect has been added. The applicant has proposed a metal roof and more contemporary material choices than a typical historic residence. The applicant has proposed a metal roof and more contemporary material choices than a typical historic residence. The applicants have worked with the Historic Commission's review board to arrive at an architectural style that is compatible with the historic buildings on First Street and A Street. The applicant finds that the design thus borrows some common elements including the roof pitch, the mix of hips and gables, the multiple layers of roof planes, and the window size, shape and spacing. The applicant has proposed a more contemporary design that the directly adjacent residences but is not completely departed from the general historic district design residence and commercial building characteristics that are in the immediate vicinity. The material choices are historically appropriate. The pitch and form of the roof are in-line with other structures in the Historic Railroad District. The structure is proposed to have a full two-story presence at the front, which is similar to how the property to the north would be setback from First St. The recently remodeled structure to the south is also two stories with the second story setback further that the subject site and the two residences to the south of that are single story. The proposed structure provides a transition to the commercial zone from the residences to the south. PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 4 Variance to Side Yard Setback: In addition to the Conditional Use Permit request, the application includes a Variance request to reduce the required six-foot side yard setbacks to three-feet. The existing residence setbacks are three-feet in the side yard to the south and less than one foot on the north (alley) side. The applicant's findings state the existing lot is non-conforming and the setback stays the same as existing on the south side and comes more into conformance on the north side. The 25-foot wide lot in the neighborhood is unique, within 200-feet of the subject site there is only one other 25-foot lot and it is directly to the south. Though the lot next door is also 25-feet in width in the surrounding neighborhood, they are the only 25-foot wide lots. The lot to the south has zero setback on the north property line and less than the required six feet on the south side, thus more non-conforming than the subject site which is providing a reduced setback. The proposed setbacks are remaining the same on the south side and increasing by three-feet on the north, which is a benefit to the alley right-of-way and the public that uses the alley. The adjacent property to the south is developed and the proposal for a reduced setback will not have any additional negative impacts beyond those that already exist. The applicant did not create the parcel nor did they construct the existing structure, which exceeds both the north and south side-yard setbacks. The applicant's proposal lessens the non-conformity on the north side and retains the non-conformity on the south side. Lastly, in order to construct a 16-foot wide structure, that the applicant's findings are the minimum necessary to accommodate future ADA accessibility, a variance to the setbacks is necessary in order to build on a 25- foot wide lot. In researching typical home dimensions, a standard manufactured home is 16-feet in width. Public Comments: Comments were received from the public during the 14-day comment period. They expressed concerns regarding the proposed on-site parking, the variance to setbacks, the size of the structure and the second story blocking their view. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of a landscaping plan, additional traffic, light, noise and glare generated from 270 First Street. Both of the comments received stated they are opposed to the proposed metal roof because it will add to noise pollution and is uncommon on residential historic railroad housing. Conclusion: Staff has found that the applicant has addressed the criteria and the request to exceed the maximum permitted floor area by 262 square feet meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has addressed the historic district design standards, and their findings support the request. The existing structure on the site currently does not comply with setbacks, during the initial pre-application conference phases the applicant had expressed desire to retain the existing structure, following the home inspection it was determined it was financially unfeasible to meet the current building codes for energy with the existing structures deteriorated state and single wall construction. The proposed residence will have the same footprint as the existing excepting that there will be a side yard setback provided on the north side (alley) where none is provided and exists and the proposed residence is two story. The proposed onsite parking is not reviewed as part of this application because the applicant could install surface parking accessed via the alley without land use review. One of the public comments received suggested the property install a driveway from First Street. City of Ashland Street Standards PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 5 prohibits new driveway accesses when a parcel has alley access. All of the adjacent properties to the south in the same block have off-street parking but it is within the public right-of-way and not on private property. The parking the applicant is proposing is outright permitted and requires no exceptions or special permits from the City to utilize the public right-of-way for private benefit. The variance criteria discussion as addressed by the applicant is addressed above. For new construction of a single-family residence, a landscaping plan is typically not required; the applicant has indicated that the landscaping would be upgraded from its current condition. Based on the application material and information available in the public domain, staff finds the request to exceed the maximum permitted floor area in the historic district complies with the Conditional Use Permit criteria and the Historic District Design Standards. The Historic District design standards provide. flexibility in the standards when the subject property is immediately adjacent to commercially zoned lands. Staff finds that the request for a variance to the side yard setbacks is no greater than the existing situation; the variance request is reducing a non-conforming setback by providing three-feet where none exists. The 25-foot wide lot is unique as there is only one other in the 200-foot impact area and it is directly adjacent, does not comply with setbacks or parking requirements and has a commercial component. The lot size is unique in that the minimum lot size in the zone is 5,000 square feet and the subject site is less than half of the minim lot size. The application, accompanied by the attached conditions meets all applicable criteria for approval for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area and a Variance to the side yard setbacks. 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. 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. PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 6 i? 7. Other factors found to he relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. J The criteria for a Variance are described in AMC Chapter 18.100.020, as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 SI, 1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996) Planning Action 2013-01421 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 2013- 01421 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That building permit submittals shall include: a) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their November 6th, 2013 meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. c) That the transom window proposed over the second story French door facing First Street shall be removed from the plans. c) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height -16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade. d) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas shall be submitted with the building permit. The lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. e) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the building plan submittals. PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 7 f) Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit for the removal of the existing residence, prior to any site disturbing activities and/or issuance of a building permit, the Tree Protection fencing in accordance with AMC 18.61.200 (six-foot chain link fence at the furthest extent of the dripline of the trees to not conflict with the area necessary for construction) shall be installed and inspected by the staff advisor. Bi oln Director /Date epartment f Community Development i PA #2013-01421 270 First/adg Page 8 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1000 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1900 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 2100 A STREET ARTS BUILDING LLC ALLEN ANNABEL L ALLEN KATHERINE ET AL 406 IOWA ST 950 PARK ST4 10732 INTERLAKE AVE N ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SEATTLE WA 98133 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5100 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 13401 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5200 AMBROSE JACQUELENE ASHLAND FOOD COOPERATIVE B STREET LLC 269 B ST 237 FIRST ST N 223 FIFTH ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1600 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 2000 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 14600 BASS RONALD E TRUSTEE ET AL BENTON JON J BLUE MOUNTAIN EMPRESA LLC 78 SIXTH ST 263 N SECOND ST 385 WILLIAMSON WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1400 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5300 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1700 BRINTON VALERIE ROSE CHESTER GENE R CLIFT ROBERT A ET AL 2088 SYCAMORE RD 249 B ST 236 N FIRST ST FILLMORE CA 93015 ASHLAND OR 97520 :ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 14602 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1200 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 12700 COMSTOCK PAUL H/JUDITH A DONNELLY DENNIS P/DARLENE ROUSER THOMAS J/WILSON PO BOX 35 2022 COVE RD CHERYL B PHOENIX OR 97535 ASHLAND OR 97520 185 B ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5500 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1800 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 12800 JUALVEST LLC LITTLE JAMES J MARKS MICHAEL ANTHONY 64 THIRD ST 234 N FIRST ST 417 CLIFF ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ST JOHNSBURG VT 05819 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1300 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 12900 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 900 RNN PROPERTIES LLC ROYLE HOWARD A RUSNAK RONALD A AND LISA J 270 FIRST ST N P O BOX 751 ZINGARE ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 CANYONVILLE OR 97417 355 ASHLAND LOOP RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 4900 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5400 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 800 RUSSELL SCOTT M SCHNITZER LEE ELLIOT AND SORIANO JOSE MORILLO 1074 MONROE ST PAMELA JE ET AL 280 N 2ND ST EUGENE OR 97402 2560 N VALLEY VIEW RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1500 PA-2013-01421 WAY PATRICIA Melissa Syken 25 PO Box 1327 PO Box 1327 270 N First ASHLAND OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 11-20-2013 NOD HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting of November 6, 2013 PLANNING APPLICATION-REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 Recommendation to Planning Staff: Recommend Approval of the proposed plans with the following design recommendations:: 1) That a minimum separation of approximately four-inches shall be provided between the double hung windows. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 T www.ashland.or.us uzn - Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y t - d 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 Y NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2013-01421 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09BA TAX LOTS: 1300 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, November 6, 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 November 7, 2013 at 6:00 p.m, in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Lithia Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 18, 2013 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: November 1, 2013 Sr t i J ue~E rraIDFtrI 70 FRS ISTRLLT _3 i~ 9~n n_ao L 012.M5 50 Feet »9Pe,ty ones arel rn•,fi.ence Doty, not s<atcable The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior 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 same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. cx PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1000 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1900 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 2100 A STREET ARTS BUILDING LLC ALLEN ANNABEL L ALLEN KATHERINE ET AL 406 IOWA ST 950 PARK ST 4 10732 INTERLAKE AVE N ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SEATTLE WA 98133 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5100 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 13401 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5200 AMBROSE JACQUELENE ASHLAND FOOD COOPERATIVE B STREET LLC 269 B ST 237 FIRST ST N 223 FIFTH ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 i PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1600 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 2000 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 14600 BASS RONALD E TRUSTEE ET AL BENTON JON J BLUE MOUNTAIN EMPRESA LLC 78 SIXTH ST 263 N SECOND ST 385 WILLIAMSON WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1400 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5300 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1700 BRINTON VALERIE ROSE CHESTER GENE R CLIFT ROBERT A ET AL 2088 SYCAMORE RD 249 B ST 236 N FIRST ST FILLMORE CA 93015 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 14602 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1200 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 12700 COMSTOCK PAUL H/JUDITH A DONNELLY DENNIS P/DARLENE ROUSER THOMAS J/WIL SON PO BOX 35 2022 COVE RD CHERYL B PHOENIX OR 97535 ASHLAND OR 97520 185 B ST ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5500 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1800 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 12800 JUALVEST LLC LITTLE JAMES J MARKS MICHAEL ANTHONY 64 THIRD ST 234 N FIRST ST 417 CLIFF ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ST JOHNSBURG VT 05819 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1300 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 12900 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 900 RNN PROPERTIES LLC ROYLE HOWARD A RUSNAK RONALD A AND LISA J 270 FIRST STN P O BOX 751 ZINGARE ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 CANYONVILLE OR 97417 355 ASHLAND LOOP RD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 4900 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 5400 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 800 RUSSELL SCOTT M SCHNITZER LEE ELLIOT AND SORIANO JOSE MORILLO PAMELA JE ET AL 1074 MONROE ST 280 N 2ND ST EUGENE OR 97402 2560 N VALLEY VIEW RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2013-01421 391 E09BA 1500 a S WAY PATRICIA 260 N FIRST ST X70 N FIR5T ASHLAND OR 97520 I LINE JF FLOOR A OVE~ T I I li I; ~ a I I li I I q li COVERED i H COVERED PAO li a~xi;s° N I I li I I Ii I M I I i Io I ~ I I j I al~J~ F,h F~~ ,TFl~;II,T ~H1sscaFT U11 -R i a BEI Tw- for L_ ms ~ 25.00' 6-0 SITE DATA: asrzws.n~ rru N. FIRST ST. SITE PLAN SCALE: 118" 1'0" - i - LE11, NORTH ELEVATION t EAST ELEVATION - - - - - - - - i NORTH ELEVATION - - - - - - - WEST ELEVATION - 25.00' I ( I N I § I I :COVERED I PATIO 8'X 17'8" I I~ ~ I I , I i I I , I _ _ I r mi IN w ll Q I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I 6UILDIvG FOOTPR'NT X827 00. FT UNDER ROOF - I % I I I TUT I r ~,20 4 TEL.. _ -i5 kV SITE DATA: To- o o era.".cswEwux J~ N. FIRST ST. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" 1'0" 1 f APPLICATION Planning Division ZONING PERMIT { 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 - CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE -ASHLAND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? DYES ❑ NO Street Address t i S Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E °I f I Tax Lot(s) - I Zoning Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Phone - E-Mail Address City Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name r - Phone E-Mail ' .Address, City Zip b SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title- Name° Phone E-Mail Address _ Ci _ Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City. I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in alt 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, l 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 fumished justifies the granting of the request, 3) that the findings of fact fumished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard 11 result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in~ny structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be remov,q of my expe , e. If i have any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature Date As owner oh e property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and.its consequences tome as a property owner. Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [To be completed by City Sbdf] 0 Date Received = Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ < t OVER 0* G.Acomm-dmAplannin9Tonw&Handoi %aningPmmhApplicatiomdoc Job Address: 270 FIRST ST N Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: RNN PROPERTIES LLC O Phone: P Customer 07482 N State Lic No: L RNN PROPERTIES LLC T City Lis No: L Applicant: 270 FIRST ST N R Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: T Address: N Applied: 09/20/2013 O T Issued: R Expires: 03/19/2014 Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E09BA1300 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: CUP- for non conforming structure CUP-exceed MPFA I VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Conditional Use Permit Type 1 1,996.00 Variance (Type 1) 998.00 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 www.ashland.or.us CITY OF Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 -AS H L AN D'