HomeMy WebLinkAboutNutley_143_PA-2014-00710
't
CITY 1.
September 10, 2014
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: 2014-00710
Subject Property: 143 Nutley Street
Applicant: Robert Baldwin
Description: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed
maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition
of 1,695 square feet on to the existing 896 square foot residence on the property at 143 Nutley
Street. The request is to exceed the allowed MPFA of 2,591 square feet by 13.29 percent or
306 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 08AD TAX LOTS: 2300
The Planning Commission'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 1 year through September
23, 2015 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 Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to
the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with Chapter
18.108.110(A) of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal shall be limited to the criteria listed in
Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. Theappeal 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
I
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
wvww.ashland.or.us i
i
SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City
Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the
appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or
the appeal will be considered by the city as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or
considered.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision
sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date
of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific
grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the
appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.13.
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall
be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The
record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it;
documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at
other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded
testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Planning
Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City
Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the
parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record
of the appeal proceeding.
B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if
such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with
the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the
City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated:
a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of
the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and
that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the
error; or
b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of
the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the
decision; or
c. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was
unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the
proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could
have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this
exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an
approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly
construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and
testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of
additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of
evidence before the City Council.
C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument
shall be limited to ten (10) minutes for the applicant, ten (10) for the appellant, if
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 7 '
eve r.us
different, and three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party
shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely
submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten (10) days prior to
the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal
shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal;
similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument.
D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City
Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining
whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning
Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission.
Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in
the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not
raised before the Planning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the
Commission and the parties to respond.
E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or
deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings
and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification
for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council
may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City
Council elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or
otherwise, the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City,
unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.B.5.
F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined
as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure
to participate in the public hearing, either orally, or in writing, precludes the right
of appeal to the Council
3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
I
www.ash[and.or.us a
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 12, 2014
IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLANNING ACTION #2013-01421,)
A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO EXCEED )
MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) IN THE SKIDMORE HISTORIC ) FINDINGS,
DISTRICT FOR THE ADDITION OF 306 SQUARE FEET TO THE EXISTING ) CONCLUSIONS,
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 143 NUTLEY STREET ) & ORDERS
APPLICANTS: ROBERT BALDWIN )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #2300 of Map 39 lE 08 AD is located at 143 Nutley Street, within the Skidmore Academy
historic district, and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-7.5).
2) The application involves exceeding the Maximum Permitted Floor area by adding 306 square
feet to the existing 896 foot residence. The request is for a 1,695 square foot addition. The
proposed home requires a Conditional Use. Permit (CUP), to exceed the Maximum Permitted
Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by 13.29 percent or 306 square feet. The proposal,
including the design for the new construction, 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.
8. 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.
PA #2014-00710
September 9, 2014
Page 1
F
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 12,
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.
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"
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 property is rectangular with an area of 6,534 square feet.
The Commission finds that the property was created prior to current zoning regulations and is
smaller than the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The Commission finds that the property is
considered a legal, non-conforming lot.
2.3 The Commission finds that the proposed addition to an existing single family home in the
R-1-7.5 zoning district complies with all applicable city ordinances with due exception of the
request to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area. The Commission finds that the proposed
addition is in conformance with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies.
2.4 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. There is
overhead electric serving the site. The property is served by a four-inch water main; a six-inch
sewer line and an 18-inch storm drain line. The existing services will continue to serve the site
and the enlarged single-family home. The Public Works/Engineering Department has indicated
that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are adequate.
PA #2014-00710
September 9, 2014
Page 2
The Commission finds that Nutley Street is classified as a neighborhood street and is paved with
curb, gutter and partial sidewalks. The four-foot, six-inch curbside sidewalk stops at the east
property line. The Commission finds that extending the existing sidewalk along the frontage of
the parcel will add to the available transportation facilities.
The Commission finds that proposed addition to the existing 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 additional square footage 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 residence is consistent with that of the
target use of the zone.
The Commission finds that the proposed building is similar in scale, bulk and coverage when
compared to the target use of the zone. The proposed site development will cover 45 percent of
the lot area, which is the allowed maximum coverage.
The Commission finds that the proposed addition to the existing residence is architectural
compatibility with the impact area. The Commission finds that the proposed addition complies
with the Historic District Development Standards. The Commission finds that the scale (i.e.
height, width and massing) is consistent with the residences found in the immediate vicinity and
throughout the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The Commission finds that the proposed
roof pitch and form varies the massing. The Commission finds that the proposed building design
is demonstrates historic continuity by preserving a historic contributing resource while providing
additional living area.
2.5 The Commission finds proposed shared driveway accessing a single vehicle garage at the
rear of the property is supported by the code language from AMC 18.92.050 that states that the
required off-street parking can be reduced through the application of an on-street parking credit.
The Commission finds that the property has more than 22-feet of uninterrupted curb frontage and
qualifies for an on-street parking credit. The Commission finds that the site layout does provide
for an off-street parking space stacked behind the proposed garage.
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 is supported by
evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2014-00710. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2014-00710 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
PA #2014-00710
September 9, 2014
Page 3
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 conformance with those approved as
part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in 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 August 6th, 2014 meeting,
where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
C) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback
Standard A in the formula [(Height - 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and
elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s)
and their height(s) from the identified natural grade shall be provided with the building permit.
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 45 percent allowed in the R-1-7.5 zoning district.
C) 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 a revised tree protection and preservation plan consistent with the requirements from AMC
18.61.200 and including the arborist recommendations shall be submitted for review and approval by the
staff advisor.
4) Prior to the issuance of the building permit and 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.
5) That the five foot curbside sidewalk shall be extended to the west property line. The sidewalk shall be
installed under permit from the Public Works Department.
6) That the new driveway curb cut shall be installed, under permit from the Public Works Department. The
applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals for work within the right-of-way
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The existing driveway curbcut shall be closed.
Planning Commission appr al by Date
Richard Kaplan, Chair
PA #2014-00710
September 9, 2014
Page 4
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 September 10, 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 #2014-00710, 143 Nutley.
Signature of Employee
I,
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
Documentl 9110/2014
I
j'
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2300 PA-2014-00710/00711391 E08AD 6101 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2100
HILL HOUSE LLC JACQUOT RICHARD A TRUSTEE ET AL NYSTROM PETER F
5188 W GRIFFIN CREEK 124 NUTLEY 133 NUTLEY ST
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 PA-2014-00710100711 391 E08AD 6000 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 6102
GARY CAPERNA, ARCHITECT COOPER PHILIP G TRUSTEE ET AL CROCKER KEN M -TRUSTEE
2908 HILLCREST RD 144 NUTLEY ST 134 NUTLEY ST
MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 143 Nutley
TOM MEYERS 9/10/2014 NOD
2040 ASHLAND MINE RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
Robert Baldwin
5243 Pioneer Rd.
Medford, OR 97501
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
August 12, 2014
PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00710
APPLICANT: Robert Baldwin
LOCATION: 143 Nutley Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: July 24, 2014
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: November 21, 2014
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 Single Family Residential
18.104 Conditional Use Permit
18.108 Procedures
REQUEST: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum
permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition to the
existing 896 square foot residence on the property at 143 Nutley Street. The request is to exceed
the allowed MPFA by 17.9 percent or 392 square feet.
1. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject property is located on the north side of Nutley Street, mid-block between
Scenic and Pine streets. The parcel is zoned single family residential (R-1-7.5) and is
located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The surrounding properties are
also zoned single family residential (R-1-7.5). The subject property is occupied by a
single-family residence and a single vehicle garage. The property to the east is a vacant
lot subject to a separate land use application that is not covered in this staff report. There
are single family residences to the west and north. Across Nutley Street to the south are
single-family residences and to the southwest is a three unit apartment complex.
The property is rectangular with an area of 6,360 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 7,500 square feet. As a result, the property is
considered a legal, non-conforming lot.
Planning Action 2014-00710 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant; Robert Baldwin Page 1 of 7
There is an approximately one and one-half percent slope from east to west. At the rear
of the property there is an approximately 35 percent slope to the north into a swale that is
located on the properties north of the subject site. There are two small diameter trees
directly behind the residence that will be removed to accommodate the addition. There
are trees on the adjacent properties to the west, east and north. A tree protection and
preservation plan was not submitted with the application. A condition of approval
requiring that the trees on the adjacent properties be protected in accordance with the
Tree Protection and Preservation ordinance has been suggested.
The existing residence on the site is identified as the Leslie and Anna Johnson House in
the Historic Resources Inventory for the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The
inventory notes that the structure was constructed in 1913 and is considered a fine one
and one half story gable bungalow with a project gable porch. The house retains shingle
siding, wide door and window trim, projecting eave brackets and other details typical of
the form. The residence is considered a historic contributing resource.
The application involves adding 1,695 square feet to the existing 896 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 17.9 percent or 392
square feet. The proposed addition complies with the required setbacks for the zone.
The applicant's calculations on the lot area and subsequent CUP request to exceed the
MPFA were inaccurate. The applicant calculated the lot area as 6,534 square feet and the '
resulting MPFA request was for 306 square feet or 13.29 percent. Based on the Jackson
County Assessor's Data the lot is 60 by 106 resulting in a lot area of 6,360 square feet.
II. Project Impact
The request is for a CUP to exceed the MPFA in the Historic District. The requested
addition is greater than ten percent of the existing floor area and is more than 300 square
feet, and therefore is a Type II which requires a public hearing before the Planning
Commission (Ashland Municipal Code 18.108.040.A.3.£v).
A. Conditional Use Permit to exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area
Residentially zoned properties located within Ashland's Historic Districts are subject to
a 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.
Planning Action 2014-00710 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Robert Baldwin Page 2 of 7
The MPFA calculation for the subject 6,360 square foot parcel allows for a 2,199 square
feet residence. The proposal is to add 1,695 square feet to the existing 896 single-family
residence for a total of 2,591 square feet. The proposed addition is 392 square feet or 17.9
percent over the allowed MPFA.
The applicant has proposed a two-story addition at the rear of the existing one and one
half story residence. The applicant has proposed to add 881 square feet on the ground
floor and create a full second story which is proposed to be 789 square feet. The ground
floor includes a single vehicle garage. A rooftop deck accessed from the second story is
proposed over the garage portion of the lower level. A rear yard pergola structure is
proposed over the rear patio area that is between the proposed structure and the
embankment.
The existing covered front porch and existing residence front fagade is proposed to
remain. The proposed addition is setback from the front fagade of the building by more
than 20-feet. The roof line is proposed to step up and away from the front of the building.
The proposed addition has offsets on both the walls and various roof forms.
The applicant has proposed a shingle style concrete siding for the new addition. The
existing wood shingle style siding on the front portion of the residence is proposed to be
repaired and repainted. The applicant has proposed to replace the windows in the
existing portion of the residence with vinyl; all new windows are proposed to be vinyl as
well. A composition, shingle roof is proposed.
The property has adequate capacity for city facilities to serve the existing single-family
home and the city facilities will remain adequate. There is overhead electric serving the
site. The property is served by a four-inch water main; a six-inch sewer line and an 18-
inch storm drain line. The existing services will continue to serve the site and the
enlarged single-family home.
Nutley Street is classified as a neighborhood street and is paved with curb, gutter and
partial sidewalks. The four-foot, six-inch curbside sidewalk stops at the east property
line. The applicant will be required to extend the existing sidewalk along the frontage of
the parcel. This sidewalk connects to the sidewalks that are in place to the east. It is
possible that the sidewalk be continued to the intersection of Scenic and Nutley if the
property to the west redevelops in the future.
The applicant has proposed to remove the existing driveway curbeut on the subject
parcel. The adjacent property which is also going through a land use review will share a
single, nine-foot wide driveway. This will reduce vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, allows
for garages to be constructed at the rear of the properties which improves the streetscape
by not having front loading garages on the front fagade.
The street provides 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. In
addition, the proximity to the downtown, shopping and public parks may result in a
reduction in vehicle trips over what might be expected for a similar residence not as
centrally located.
Planning Action 2014-00710 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Robert Baldwin Page 3 of 7
t
Historic District Development Standards
For projects requiring a CUP, the authority exists in law for the Staff Advisor or
Planning Commission to require modifications in design to address these
standards. In these cases, the Historic Commission advises both the applicants
and city decision makers. In this instance, the staff report is being prepared for
distribution prior to Historic Commission review. The Historic Commission's
recommendations from their August 6th meeting will be distributed for Plamling
Commissioner review at the August 12th Planning Commission hearing. A
condition has been suggested requiring that the recommendations of the Historic
Commission are incorporated into the building permit submittals where consistent
with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor and
Planning Commission.
CUP 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 malting 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.
The findings provided by the applicant note that the proposed structure is below
the maximum height allowed in the historic district. The proposed second story
addition is 27-feet, 10-inches to the peak, less than the maximum average height
of 30-feet. The proposed addition is approximately seven feet higher than the
existing peals. In staff's review of residences in the vicinity of the proposed
project range in height with structures more than 30-feet tall near the intersection
of Pine and Nutley to 20-feet tall across Nutley Street from the subject site.
The proposed addition is similar in scale as adjacent properties. According to the
applicant's findings the properties in the immediate vicinity are similar in size to
the proposed square footage. In staff's review of the properties in the immediate
vicinity (both sides of Nutley Street and the adjacent parcel on Pine St), the
average square footage is 2,260 square feet in area.
The existing residence massing will be consistent with the adjacent residences.
The additional building massing is recessed from the front fagade of the existing
historic contributing residence with the new addition setback 20-feet, 4-inches
from the front of the residence.
The front elevation also has a various roof forms with the street facing front porch
and existing residence gables. The proposed addition is a large gable with a
smaller gable on the east side of the addition. Two dormers perpendicular to the
Planning Action 2014-00710 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Robert Baldwin Page 4 of 7
primary gables which will face west are also proposed. The applicant has
proposed to match the pitch of the proposed addition with the existing roof pitch
Additionally composition shingles are proposed, this material is consistent with
other roof materials in the impact area. The applicant has proposed to replace the
existing windows and install new vinyl double hung windows. The windows are
consistent in size with those on the existing residence but the material choice,
particularly for the replacement windows is inconsistent with the standards. The
standards state that replacement windows shall match existing; in this instance the
existing windows are wood. The existing reduced front yard setback of the
historic contributing residence is being retained and no modifications other than
cosmetic changes are proposed.
The application notes that the increased square footage allows for the project to
provide a garage at the rear of the project that is not located in close proximity to
the street. The findings note that this adds an aesthetic advantage that the
neighborhood will enjoy and eliminates potential conflicts caused by vehicles
backing into traffic and improves the human scale pedestrian experience.
The applicants' home design reflects many of the characteristics and patterns of
development in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The proposed addition
is complimentary to the home and the neighboring residences The proposed
addition can be found to be a positive situation due to the preservation of the
historic contributing resource. Additionally, the proposed addition is compatible
with the historic contributing resource but is clearly from this time period. This is
consistent with the City of Ashland Historic District Development Standards as
well as the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation.
Staff does have concerns regarding the proximity of the relocated driveway to the
two trees on the adjacent parcel to the east. The maple appears to be within the
area of the driveway and the cedar tree is within approximately three feet of the
proposed driveway. An arborist report was provided for the trees with the
adjacent property submittal and it states that a 6.75 foot tree protection zone is
required for the maple and a 16.5 foot protection zone is required for the cedar.
The proposed driveway is within these zones. A condition regarding a tree
protection and preservation plan as discussed earlier in the report has be
suggested.
III. 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.
Planning Action 2014-00710 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Robert Baldwin Page 5 of 7
t
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.
i
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.
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.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff believes the application meets the criteria for a CUP to exceed the MPFA by 17
percent in order to increase the allowed square footage by 392 square feet.
The existing residence is a relatively small 896 square foot residence that has fallen into
disrepair. The proposal is to retain the historic contributing residence and increase its size
to modernize the home, provide more living area and provide a garage that is not seen
from the street.
The proposed addition is consistent with the criteria for the Historic District. The historic
form of the residence is being retained and the proposed additions are 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 size and architectural styles of the residential structures in
the immediate area.
Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions attached:
Planning Action 2014-00710 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Robert Baldwin Page 6 of 7
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 August 6t", 2014
meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by
the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
C) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with
Solar Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height - 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required
Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the
highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural
grade shall be provided with the building permit.
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 50 percent allowed in the R-1-5 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.
i
3) That a revised tree protection and preservation plan consistent with the requirements from
AMC 18.61.200 and including the arborist recommendations shall be submitted for
review and approval by the staff advisor.
4) Prior to the issuance of the building permit and 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.
5) That the five foot curbside sidewalk shall be extended to the west property line. The
sidewalk shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department.
6) That the new driveway curb cut shall be installed, under permit from the Public Works
Department. The applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals
for work within the right-of-way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The
existing driveway curbcut shall be closed.
Planning Action 2014-00710 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report adg
Applicant: Robert Baldwin Page 7 of 7
CITY F
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 12, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Richard Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris, absent
Lynn Thompson
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council public hearing for the Unified Land Use
Ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday, August 19. He also noted the upcoming Planning Commissioner training and
directed interested members to contact staff.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Downtown Beautification Committee: Commissioner Dawkins announced all of the improvements discussed at
their last meeting have been approved.
SDC Review Committee: Commissioner Brown stated the committee completed their review of the water and
wastewater SDCs and are moving on to streets and traffic, He added their next meeting will be in October.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. June 24, 2014 Study Session.
2. July 8, 2014 Regular Meeting.
3. July 22, 2014 Special Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda with a correction to the July 8 minutes:
Page 3, the date listed in the first paragraph should read July 22. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 1 of 4
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2014.00710
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 143 Nutley Street
APPLICANT: Robert Baldwin
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted
floor area (MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition to the existing 896 square
foot residence on the property at 143 Nutley Street. The request is to exceed the allowed MPFA by 17.9
percent or 392 square feet.
Commissioner Kaplan read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter provided a description of the property location and stated similar to other residential
lots on this block, this property was created prior to current zoning regulations and is smaller than the minimum lot
size of 7,500 sq. ft. As a result, the property is considered a legal, non-conforming lot. Ms. Gunter explained the
applicant requests to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area which is 2,292 sq. ft. and add 1,695 sq. ft. to the
existing 896 sq. ft, home for a total of 2,591 sq. ft. She stated the applicant has proposed a two-story addition at the
rear of the existing residence and the existing front fapade will remain. Ms. Gunter noted the Historic Commission
reviewed this proposal at their August meeting and found the proposed addition is compatible with the other
residences in the vicinity, both in massing and scale, and recommended approval of the proposal.
Ms. Gunter called attention to the concerns raised by neighbors regarding lack of on-site parking and the impacts of
the proposed relocated driveway to the two trees. Regarding parking, she stated this parcel has historically had a
single parking space, although there is room to stack vehicles in the long driveway. She stated the proposal is not
inconsistent with what has historically been happening in the neighborhood and noted the applicant is prepared to
address this concern during their presentation. Ms. Gunter recited the current parking requirements for the
Commission but noted because this is a conditional use permit the Commission does have discretion on this issue.
Ms. Gunter commented on the concerns raised regarding tree impacts and stated the relocated driveway appears to
require the removal of the maple tree and have impacts to the root zone of the cedar tree, both of which are on the
adjacent property which is also going through a land use approval. She noted because the trees are not on this
parcel, potential impacts will need to be addressed in the adjacent property's arborist report.
Applicant's Presentation
Gary Caperna/2908 Hillcrest, Medford/Mr. Caperna acknowledged the neighbors concerns and stated they have
done their best to address their issues. He stated they have worked within the constraints of these two adjacent lots
and stated this application goes hand in hand with the application for 135 Nutley. Mr. Caperna stated they wanted to
reduce the impacts of garages on the street and have realigned the driveway to straddle the property line which will
allow the garages for both homes to be placed at the rear of the properties. He stated the back out space will be
utilized by both properties and will reduce impervious surfaces. Mr. Caperna stated they have worked closely with the
Historic Commission to mitigate the mass of the home and noted the addition is at the back of the current structure.
He pointed out that both lots are smaller than normal and stated 1/3 of the lots are undevelopable because of the
slope, Mr. Caperna explained there are currently two curb cuts on Nutley and stated they are proposing a single
driveway access for both properties which will provide more space to park on the street. Mr. Caperna suggested
possible modifications that would increase the on-site parking, including retaining the location of the existing driveway
(although this would exceed the maximum site coverage requirements), and shifting the location of the garage for
135 Nutley to create another parking space. Regarding the trees at 135 Nutley, Mr. Caperna clarified they are doing
everything they can to preserve the cedar tree, however the maple tree is problematic and will likely not remain.
Questions of Staff
Ms. Gunter clarified the removal of the maple tree at 135 Nutley would not require a tree removal permit and is
outright permitted in the code.
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 2 of 4
Public Testimony
No one came forward to speak. Staff noted the letter in the record submitted by Mr. Phil Cooper, which raised
concerns with parking and trees, and the Commission confirmed that they had read this letter.
Commissioner Kaplan closed the record and the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the application as presented with the conditions of approval
recommended by staff. DISUCSSION: Commissioner Brown commented that while it would be convenient to have
two parking spots on each site, this is not what the code requires. Ms. Gunter stated Condition 2(d) needs to be
corrected to read "no more than the 45% allowed in the R-1-7.5". She also pointed out Condition 3 will address the
tree protection and preservation at 135 Nutley, and Condition 5 will extend the curbside sidewalk to the west property
line. Commissioner Brown asked if the term "substantial" could be removed from Condition 2(a) and Ms. Gunter
agreed to make this change. Commissioner Dawkins indicated he will vote in favor of this motion but expressed his
disappointment that entry level housing continues to be gentrified to make it bigger, and feels the City needs to do a
better job of retaining smaller houses. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Peddicord and
Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously.
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2014.00967
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 572-582 Fair Oaks Avenue I
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed-use 10,748 square
foot building at the corner of Fair Oaks Avenue and Plum Ridge Drive. The building will consist of six
residential units on the upper two floors and one commercial space, with the option for interim
residential use on the ground floor along with five parking spaces. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39
1 E 04 AD TAX LOTS: 5900.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained this application is for a three-story mixed use building at the corner of
Fair Oaks and Plum Ridge Drive, and noted the Planning Commission issued site review approval for this area back
in August 2013. Mr. Severson briefly reviewed the proposal and stated the building will consist of six residential units
on the upper two floors, one commercial space on the first floor with the option for interim residential use, and five on-
site parking spaces. Mr. Severson stated staff has no issues with the design as proposed, but feels there are some
small fine tuning elements that could be considered, including: 1) continuous awning coverage of the sidewalk, 2) for
the store front windows to not be tinted, 3) a stronger sense of entry for the upstair§ residential units, 4) a reduction in
the landscape buffer in order to maintain a 5 foot sidewalk between the landscaping and the tree wells, 5) enhanced
landscaping to soften the expanse of the garage wall, and 6) screening for the parking garage. Mr. Severson stated
staff is recommending approval with the conditions as presented.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the increased traffic onto North Mountain and stated this will impact an
already dangerous intersection. Mr. Severson clarified the previous approval included a condition for the applicant to
meet with the Transportation Commission to discuss this issue. He stated these meetings did occur, although he
does not have the outcomes.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada, Rob Saladoff/508 Clinton, Tom Madara12994 Wells Fargo Rd, Central Point. j
Mr. Knox stated they are very excited about this project and noted this is part of the North Mountain Master Plan. He
stated this parcel is planned for six units with the ground floor space to be flexible, and stated the ground floor will
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 3 of 4
convert to commercial once the neighborhood density can support commercial uses. Regarding the enhancements
recommended by staff, Mr. Knox stated staff has been very supportive of this project and they welcome working with
staff on further improvements. Mr. Knox stated the sidewalk modification is not an issue and clarified they never
intended to tint the windows.
Mr. Saladoff voiced support for staffs suggestions to screen the garage and to enhance the residential entry and
provided a few suggestions on how this could be accomplished, including: changing the ground lever door and
windows, using different surface texture on the sidewalk, and potentially creating a lobby space.
Mr. Knox commented on the continuous awning recommendation from staff and stated they understood this to mean
creating places of refuge for pedestrians and they continue to walk, not a full awning wrapping around the entire
building. He added you do not see this in downtown and there is not a continuous awning at Julian Square.
Public Testimony
No one came forward to speak.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Molnar read the awning standard aloud and agreed that the intention is not for a singular awning, but questioned
if the plan put forward by the applicants provides adequate pedestrian refuge. Mr. Severson added there are
opportunities to combine different treatments to provide increased refuge and believes this can be done without
impacting the character of the buildings.
Mr. Knox acknowledged the awnings could extend more over the sidewalk, but noted they did not know staff was
going to interpret this standard this way until the staff report was released last week.
Comment was made that there is a difference between continuous and contiguous and would like the condition to
give this some flexibility. Mr. Severson recommended the language in Condition 70) be revised to read "revised
treatments to provide continuous sidewalk coverage." He also clarified he would remove the term "substantial" from
Condition 3 and would add trash enclosures to Condition 7(I).
Commissioner Kaplan closed the record and the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawki ns/Pedd i cord m/s to approve PA-2014.00967 with the conditions as stated by staff.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller indicated she is still concerned with traffic. Mr. Molnar noted when this
subdivision was approved there was a traffic analysis completed and it met the standards. He added the Public
Works Department is aware of this location in terms of potential future safety improvements and staff will follow up on
the results of the meeting with the Transportation Commission. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins,
Miller, Peddicord and Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by, April Lucas
Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
August 12, 2014
Page 4 of 4
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
August 6, 2014
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
I. Regular meeting, call to order: 6:05p.m. - SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community
Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way
Historic Commissioners Present: Mr. Skibby, Ms. Renwick, Mr. Whitford, Mr. Swink, Mr. I'
Shostrom, Mr. Giordano
Commission Members Absent: Ms. KenCairn(E), Ms. Law (U)
Council Liaison: Mike Morris, absent
Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Amy Gunter, Clerk: Regan Trapp
is
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Historic Commission regular meeting of July 2, 2014. Ms. Renwick
approved the minutes from July 2, 2014, and Mr. Swink seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one wishing to speak.
IV. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: No council liaison was present to give the report.
V. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: Mr. Skibby read aloud the requirements for public hearings.
PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00710
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 143 Nutley Street
APPLICANT/OWNER: Robert Baldwin
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum
permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition of 1,695
square feet on to the existing 896 square foot residence on the property at 143 Nutley Street. The
request is to exceed the allowed MPFA of 2,591 square feet by 13.29 percent or 306 square feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 08AD TAX LOTS: 2300.
Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing for staff comments. Ms. Gunter gave the staff report. The
conditions of approval for this addition include the Historic Commission's recommendations. Staff
is recommending a tree protection and preservation plan as well as arborist recommendations for
the relocation of the driveway and its potential impacts on the two trees on the adjacent lot. They
are to continue the sidewalk at 5 feet, curbside to the property line.
Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing.
Gary Caperna, Architect, 2908 Hillcrest Road, Medford, OR 97504.
Mr Caperna showed the commission the plot lines from the county surveyors and said there is a
discrepancy but that the lot is 60 X 110. He discussed the plans in depth and stated that they
have maintained most of the historic standards in the new addition. They are replacing all the
windows in the house with double hung windows with no divided lighting. Mr. Whitford asked if the
2nd floor was finished space and Mr. Caperna said that there are 2 attic style bedrooms but they
are not a very usable space. He stated that they would be used as storage rooms. He said that
they are not redoing the upstairs space but instead, making it attic space. There was some
discussion on how much of the attic ceiling is actually 7 feet and it was determined that a
separate condition of approval could be to leave the attic space as is. Mr. Caperna said that
significant disruption would occur if they messed with the footings and the structure of the
building. That is why they decided to make the addition in the back.
Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing. Mr. Skibby stated that this project has evolved quite a bit
from where it started and likes that they saved the original house and the fagade. Mr. Swink
liked the detached garage hidden away from the front of the house and said it keeps the focus on
the house. Mr. Swink also stated that it is a nice continuation of a historic home. Mr. Giordano
said that he likes the sharing of the driveway. Ms. Renwick motioned to approve PA-2014-00710
and Mr. Swink seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00711
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 135 Nutley Street
APPLICANT/OWNER: Robert Baldwin
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum
permitted floor area (MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition of 1,220
square feet on to the existing 856 square foot residence on the property at 135 Nutley Street. The
request is to exceed the allowed MPFA of 1,821 square feet by 14.5 percent or 264 square feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 08AD TAX LOTS: 2300.
Ms. Gunter gave a report on the planning action. Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing.
Gary Caperna, Architect, 2908 Hillcrest Road, Medford, OR 97504.
Mr. Caperna stated that once again they are dealing with a small compact lot. They are utilizing
the single driveway. He said they have changed the plans quite a bit from the original, to more of
a bungalow style. He stated that part of the mass issue is the sloped property and that it does
exaggerate the building mass on the downhill side. The plates have been dropped down, on one
side of the house, to 7ft to try to carve out the building mass and use the hill. Mr. Caperna said
they are keeping a dormer style gable to tie it all in but that they did get rid of some of the gables.
Mr. Skibby stated that this is a big improvement from the original plans. Mr. Giordano said that
the porch height should be lowered because it's physically small and small in regards to the front
elevation. There was much discussion on the bulk and scale of the windows. Mr. Skibby closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing. The Commission recommended reducing the porch height
by approximately one foot to be even with the freeze board. Lowering the bedroom window bay
on the right to be even with the gutter line and use the straight cut concrete shingles. Mr.
Giordano motioned to approve PA-2014-00711. Mr. Shostrom seconded, no one opposed.
Motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION: 2014-01283
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 172 Skidmore
APPLICANT/OWNER: Val Bachmayer
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a five-unit (four guest units
and one owner's unit) Travelers Accommodation, and a Site Review Permit request for 343
square feet of additional space added to the main structure for the property located at 172
Skidmore. A 301 square foot first floor addition to the owner's residence is proposed as a
common dining room, while a 42 square foot second floor addition would expand an existing
dormer on the south elevation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-
family; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 05DD; TAX LOT: 1000;
Ms.Gunter gave her staff report. Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing
Val Bachmeyer, Owner of 172 Skidmore, Ashland, OR 97520. Ms. Bachmeyer stated that she
wants to expand the living and dining area and have a gathering room for up to 18 people. One
side of the expansion will be set up for a common area. Ms. Bachmeyer presented the
commission with pictures of the property and explained what her expansion entails. Mr. Skibby
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Skibby said that it will blend in nicely with the neighborhood and really liked the historical
marker in the yard. Mr. Swink says the windows on the corners look contemporary and Ms.
Bachmeyer stated that she wants to use the existing windows due to finances. It was suggested
by the Commission that Ms. Bachmeyer, use the existing windows and move them 2 feet from the
corner. Mr. Whitford motioned to approve with the above condition and Mr. Swink seconded. No
one opposed. Motion passed unanimously.
VI. OLD BUSINESS: j
None
VII. NEW ITEMS:
K Ms. Gunter explained the election rules for public office to the commission.
B. Ms. Gunter stated that Sept 9, 2014 is the CLG training but no time has been finalized as of I'
yet. The training will be held at the Carnegie Library in Medford. Ms. Gunter said that she
suggested that in the training they address demolitions and bring proof of ones that have
been legally challenged. Ms. Gunter said that she would like to address how we can tighten
up our code on demolition permits that are not required and should we add a level of review
to these. j
VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Mr. Shostrom reported that the city dug up bricks, at Pioneer hall and it's trenched with asphalt.
Ms. Gunter said that she will ask about this work being done and report back to the Commission.
IX. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
Ms. Gunter said that The Historic Commission did not receive funding from Travel Oregon for the
grant she applied for.
Ms. Gunter told the commission about the progress of the Downtown Design Committee and said
that now is an appropriate transition time if another commissioner was interested. It was
suggested that Mr. Whitford take over as the representative for these meetings
The Commission discussed the Restore Oregon email that was received. It is the 2014 Heritage
Barn Workshop and will be Saturday September 27, 2014 from 9:30am - 4pm at Hanley Farm in
Central Point, OR.
A. Review Board Schedule
Aug 7th Keith, Allison, Victoria
Aug 14th Tom, Sam, Kerr
Aug 21st Terry, Victoria, Dale
Aug 28th Terry, Sam, Allison
Sept 4 Keith, Allison
B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions:
PA-2014-00725 121 Manzanita-Under construction Whitford
PA-2014-00725 469 Allison-Under construction Swink
PA-2014-
00710/711 143/135 Nutle Swink and Whitford
PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom
BD-2013-00256 175 Lithia Way- Under construction Giordano
PA-2014-00251 30 S. First St. - No new permits issued Whitford
PA-2014-00491 566 Fairview St. - Under construction/almost done Shostrom
BD-2013-00813 374 Har adine - Under construction/almost done Swink
PA-2013-01388 14 Calle Guanajuato Sandlers Restaurant-Under construction/almost done Renwick
PA-2013-01421 270 N. First St. Nisha Jackson)- Building permit issued Renwick
PA-2013-01829 60 Alida St. Lieberman - Complete Shostrorn
PA-2013-01828 310 Oak St. (Thompson) - No new permits issued Shostrom
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Next meeting is scheduled for September 3, 2014, 6:00 pm.
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:09pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
is
j
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y F
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-00710
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 143 Nutley Street
OWNERIAPPLICANT: Robert Baldwin
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted floor area
(MPFA) in the Skidmore Academy Historic District for the addition of 1, 695 square feet on to the existing 896
square foot residence on the property at 143 Nutley Street. The request is to exceed the allowed MPFA of 2,591
square feet by 13.29 percent or 306 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential,
ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 08AD TAX LOTS: 2300.
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
PA #2014-00710 _
143 NUTLEY ST
SUBJECT PROPERTY
r
~I
44,
NUTLEY ST N
Properly (vies me for rG~rence only, not scalenbte
0 15 30 60 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.
CiAcomm-dev\planningTIanning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2014TA-2014-00710.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: j
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.
r
I'
t:
r
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2014\PA-2014-007 10.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 July 24, 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 #2014-00710, 143 Nutley.
Signature of Employee
Documend 712412014
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 5700 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2200 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 4700
ARCHIBALD SANDRA WRAY TRUSTEE BALDWIN ROBERT BLACKMAN DARIN R/REBECCA L
1023 LINDA AVE 5243 PIONEER RD 67-SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2600 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 6000 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 6102
CHAPMAN EDWIN R/CAROL L COOPER PHILIP G TRUSTEE ET AL CROCKER KEN M - TRUSTEE
113 PINE ST 144 NUTLEY ST 134 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 4803 PA-2014-00710100711 391 E08AD 2700 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2400
FAWCETT KENNETH/LANA FIGUEIREDO ANTONETTE FORSYTH ROBYN HELEN
55 SCENIC DR 109 PINE ST 66 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2401 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AO 2300 PA-2014-00710/00711391 E08AD 610.1
FOSTER THOMAS G III TRUSTEE ET AL HILL HOUSE LLC JACQUOT RICHARD A TRUSTEE ET AL'
147 NUTLEY ST 5188 W GRIFFIN CREEK '124 NUTLEY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2900 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 1800 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 1900
JOHNSON ROBERT E/DANA D KORTH AMY CRUMME LAOHABURANAKIT PETEY ET AL
70 SCENIC DR 670 GLENWOOD DR 105 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 6200 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2501 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2100
LEDBETTER ROGER B TRUSTEE ET AL MCLAUCHLAN GREGORY ET AL NYSTROM PETER F
112 NUTLEY 2401 W 22ND AVE 133 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97405 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 5600 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 4802 PA-201.4-00710/00711 391 E08AD 7100
PLUSPOWER BUILDINGS LLC RHOADES DON B/MARY ELLEN SCHAFFER ANDREA
180 NUTLEY ST 51 SCENIC DRIVE 1121/2 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 6300 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 5701 PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2000
SMITH LINDA FOX TROMBLY T J/JODI WILLIS JOSEPHINE E TRUSTEE ET AL
80 NUTLEY 44 SCENIC DR 124 NOB HILL ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2014-00710/00711 391 E08AD 2800 PA-2014-00710/00711 RA-2014-00710/00711
WITT LANITA C TRUSTEE ET AL GARY CAPERNA, ARCHITECT TOM MEYERS
658 SHALE CITY RD 2908 HILLCREST RD 2040 ASHLAND MINE RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520
135 & 143 Nutley
7/24/14 NOC
27
-a
~ i
3341
4.10
a= f
4102
fA
3100
r~ 4100
Di e
e 4_ 2"
e
re i 1 ee t :n,:~.°
777 901
-
4,303 4W4
~.W
_ s- M
i
i
2400
Ij 4
4-
44300
lmo
ABU 240:1
1400
0
~a
81 a A
r"
+1 3
i '
i
-9102
(
Q YIN
6700
f c
33 i a~ e
d
I'
! r`e r
ii
-MD
er
s
t
4 3~3
5401 7260 F'e loo
a n~ •
n
Amy Gunter
From: Phil Cooper [pcoop97520@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:34 AM
To: Amy Gunter
Cc: Liz Cooper
Subject: Re: 135 & 143 Nutley St. Comments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Re: PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00710
Hi Amy,
As regards the referenced staff report, my wife and I feel that our principal concern on the CUP
application for 143 Nutley was not addressed in that report. We feel that the single, shared driveway
between the two properties, 143 and 135, will cause more vehicles to be parked permanently or for
long terms on Nutley St. rather than on the respective properties. Our reasoning is as follows:
Houses of the size of the ones proposed for 143 and 135 will most likely be occupied by owners or
tenants possessing at least two, if not more, vehicles. Because both properties feature single car
garages, only one vehicle from each house can be parked in each garage. No vehicles can be
parked in the shared driveway as such an action would block the other homeowner or tenant from
accessing his/her car. Therefore the additional vehicles would be parked in the street. The builder
claims in his application that such an arrangement would "reduce vehicle and pedestrian conflicts"
and "improve the streetscape". We claim that the arrangement, in fact, does just the opposite.
Frankly, we would much rather look at a front-loading garage than at numerous cars parked in front of
the houses on the street. In the winter, when Nutley becomes slick with ice and snow, cars parked on
the street become hazards and block city vehicles working to clear the street.
The claim that "the proximity to downtown may reduce vehicle trips" does not reduce the visual
blight caused by vehicles continuously parked on the street. More likely it will increase the blight as
the cars will be stored on the street for longer periods of time without being moved.
Planning staff mentions in its report that the proposed shared driveway invades the arborist's
recommended protection zones for two large trees, a maple and a cedar, and notes that the maple is
actually within the outline of the driveway, and yet makes no recommendation as to how to resolve
that conflict. We are greatly concerned that the proposed shared driveway will result in the removal
of these two important trees.
As previously mentioned, we are currently on holiday in England and will not return to Ashland until
early September. We are worried that our concerns will not be aired before the Planning
Commission. We therefore request that.planning staff either include our concerns in its final report to
the Commission or forward our email as a separate document.
We would appreciate being included in all correspondence and reports relative to these two
projects. Our mail is being forwarded to us in England but, to date, we have received nothing from
the city on these projects. If any relevant correspondence could be emailed to us at this address, we
would appreciate it.
Thank you for hearing our concerns,
Phil and Liz Cooper
From: Amy Gunter
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 6:11 PM
To: 'Phil Cooper'
Subject: RE: 135 & 143 Nutley St. Comments
i
Dear Phil and Liz,
Thank you for your comments. I will be forwarding them to the applicant and they are considered in the decision as the
city determines what course of action to take.
Thank you.
Amy
Amy D. Gunter, Assistant Planner
City of Ashland, Dept. of Community Development
20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520
i
phone: (541) 552-2044
fax: (541) 552-2050
TTY: (800) 735-2900
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for
disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2044. Thank you.
From: Phil Cooper [mailto:pcoop97520@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 7:12 AM
To. Amy Gunter
Cc: Liz Cooper; Sudee Jacquot
Subject: 135 & 143 Nutley St. Comments
Hi Amy,
My wife and I live at 144 Nutley St., across the street from the subject proposed houses, and would
like to offer our comments on the CUP application submitted for the subject addresses. We have
received a copy of the comments from our neighbor, Sudee Jacquot, and are in agreement with her
concerns. Our specific concerns with the proposed projects as described in the CUP application are
as follows:
® We do not like the single, shared driveway proposed by the builder. We believe it would force
the occupants of the two dwellings to park any vehicles above one per dwelling on the street
for long periods of time, if not permanently, as there is no off-street parking in the plan other
than inside the single car garages.
® We believe the houses will appear too massive compared to the other houses on the street
(excepting the apartment house on the corner of Nutley and Scenic, which we understand
doesn't conform to current zoning regulations anyway).
® The architect makes a point of having to overcome the burden of a downslope at the rear of
the lots, but all of the houses on that side face the same terrain.
To justify his proposal, the architect makes use of misleading data; e.g., the house just up hill
(west) of 143 is cited as having 3209 sq. ft. of living space, when almost half of that is in a
basement not visible from the street. He also cites a "residence" at the corner of Nutley and
Scenic having 2496 sq. ft., when the structure is in fact a 3 unit apartment with garages
underneath not now allowed in current zoning regulations. If the architect believes that the
builders plans should be compared to the house uphill or west of 143 (belonging to Tom
Foster) then perhaps he should consider placing one of the levels of his two proposed designs
underground as well.
® Placing a two-story house at 135 appears to endanger the huge, legacy oak tree just downhill
of it, likely forcing significant pruning and. disfigurement of the tree. As a minimum, we believe
that the environmental impact to that tree should be formally evaluated by an independent
2
expert. It appears that the architect's arborist did not consider this tree in his report, probably
because the trunk was not situated on the 135 lot, even though the tree itself overhangs that
lot significantly.
We would appreciate any further information that can be made available on the subject project, as we
are currently on holiday in England and can't get down to the planning department. We can be
reached with any questions or information at this email address and, after August 20, at 541-227-
4866 (mobile). We will return to Ashland just after Labor Day.
Regards,
Phil and Liz Cooper
3
f _ . f 1 C r ~1 w - sr
J 5,
41
~ y x
r
r
i41 p
00
3 gf
.n;d F
j W f rv ~C{~ ~ v
b ~
Tom Myers
21
r~t U 6 t."..
Certiffied
'nst
2040 Ashland Mine Rd
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-601-2069
6/12/14
Robert Baldwin
135 Nutly Tree Protection Plan
The four trees listed in the enclosed tree inventory need to be protected as stipulated in the
enclosed specifications. The numbers on their respective tags, placed on each trunk in the field,
identify the individual trees and correspond to the tree numbers on the enclosed tree inventory. The
radius of the tree protection fencing is specified for each tree in the tree inventory spreadsheet under
the heading "Tree Protection Zone radius in feet"..The tree protection zone for each tree should be
drawn on the site plan. A certified arborist must supervise any work done within the tree protection
zone. A certified Arborist must be on site during the excavation to insure that no significant roots are
damaged.
If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan, please call me at 541-601-2069.
Sincerely, Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
d
Upper Lamb-it
Tree Service
"i 2040 Ashland Mine Rd
Ashland, OR 97520 Tree Inventory
Phone 541-sot-toss for 135 Nutly 6/12/2014
l fee
protection
Crown zone relative
DBH in Height Radius in radius in tolerance to
Tree # S ecies inches in feet feet feet construction Condition
1 Acer platanoides 9 37 10 6.75 moderate good
2 Calocedrus decurrens 22 48 13 16.5 moderate good
3 Calocedrus decurrens 19 40 10 14.25 moderate good
i
4 Acer platanoides 7 32 7 5.25 moderate good
i
Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing
1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work
to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures.
2. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field.
3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be
removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified
arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and under story to
remain.
4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated
equipment.
5. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling
and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first
severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting
through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.]
6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist.
The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out.
7. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with
equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out,
not by skidding it across the ground.
8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches
9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the
smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall
be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity
10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications
11. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree
protection zone
12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six
hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health.
13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6
inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
v e
Specifications for Tree reservation rig Construction
1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all
work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for
each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may
not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the consultant.
3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone.
If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree.
5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within
the tree protection zone (fenced area).
6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified
arborist and not by construction personnel.
7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that
use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water.
8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as
possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is
expected to encounter tree roots.
10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the
soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches.
11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be
installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone.
12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any
trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone
by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench
and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.
13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly
with a saw.
14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6
inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection
zone, either temporarily or pennanently.
16. No burn piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or
garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone.
17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or
smoking is allowed near mulch or trees.
Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction
1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all
work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for
each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may
not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the consultant.
3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone.
If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree.
5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within
the tree protection zone (fenced area).
6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified
arborist and not by construction personnel.
7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that
use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water.
8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as
possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is
expected to encounter tree roots.
10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the
soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches.
11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be
installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone.
12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any
trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone
by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench
and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.
13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly
with a saw.
14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6
inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
ti t
15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection
zone, either temporarily or pelinanently.
16. No burn piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or
garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone.
17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or
smoking is allowed near mulch or trees.
i
i
i
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504.
Site Plan Application Written Findings and request for Conditional Use Permit
PROJECT OVERVIEW
This application is a request to modify and construct two adjacent residences located mid block on the
North side of Nutley Street between Scenic Drive and Pine Street.
The proposed residence at 135 Nutley is a new two story 2,076 square foot single family residence with
a detached garage placed at the rear of the lot. Until recently an 856 square foot cottage stood in
extreme disrepair and structurally unsound condition. The cottage has since been demolished leaving a
bare lot served by the various utilities existing in the neighborhood.
On the parcel at 143 Nutley Street there is an existing 896 square foot single family residence which is in
the craftsman bungalow style and appears to have been constructed between 1910 and 1925. This
application proposes to make an extensive addition to the bungalow which will result in a two story
2,591 square foot home with a garage at the rear of the lot and attached to the residence. Both of the
proposed homes are based on designs that conceal the garage at the back of the lot. The limited lot
areas and the existence of unbuildable sloping terrain at the rear of the lots, mandate single car garages
and a shared drive way to achieve the coverage goals set forth in the Ashland Municipal Code.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This application is also requesting that the MPFA (maximum permitted floor area) for both parcels be
increased under a Conditional Use Permit as allowed by the City of Ashland Municipal Code. This request
seeks a 13.29% increase for 143 Nutley and a 14.5% increase for 135 Nutley. The granting of the
Conditional Use Permit is important to qualify the proposed residences as viable projects. More
importantly, the increased square footage allowed by the Conditional Use Permit allows the projects to
consider locating the garages at the rear of the project. Locating a detached garage at the rear of the
project adds considerable cost to the project, but the additional square footage gained by the CUP helps
mitigate the cost of this layout type. Without the CUP the economics of the project will force the design
to incorporate a more contemporary layout with the garage located in close proximity to the street. The
developer believes that the aesthetic advantages that the neighborhood will enjoy from the concealed
garages far outweigh any negative impacts that might be imparted by the increased floor area of the
structures.
i
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
The lots are located in the historic district and this proposal intends to conform to the requirements of
this district. The zoning designation for the subject parcels is R-1-7.5. The properties of the lots are as
follows:
135 Nutley (39-1E-08ED-LOT 2200)
Width: 50.00'
Depth: 98.34'
Area: 4,791 square feet (.11 acres)
. jg
a .
143 Nutley (39-1E-08ED-LOT- 2300)
Width: 60.00'
Depth: 106.00'
Area: 6,534 square feet (.15 acres)
I
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
-
These dimensions and areas exceed the minimum requirements described in paragraphs A, B, and C, of
Section 18.20.040 of the City of Ashland Oregon Municipal Code. As stated above, the development is
located within the Historic District which limits the maximum building to 30'-0'. the proposed structures
and additions do not exceed this maximum height.
The MPFA (maximum permitted floor area) allowed per paragraph G of Section 18.20.040 of the City of
Ashland Oregon Municipal Code are calculated and adjusted, as required by Table 1, for the lots as
follows:
135 Nutley (39-1E-08ED-LOT 2200)
1ST Floor area (proposed): 1231 sf
2ND Floor area (proposed): 854 sf
TOTAL SF: 2085 sf
Basic max. allowed area: 1821 sf = (4,791 X 1)(.38) = 1,821 square feet.
Proposed area increase: 264 sf (14.5%)
Lot area: 4791 sf
Max allowed coverage: 2156 sf = (4,791)(.45) = 2,156 square feet.
Proposed coverage: 2124 sf
Max. building height: 30 feet
Proposed height: Less than 30'
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
143 Nutley (39-1E-08ED-LOT- 2300)
1ST Floor area (proposed): 1777 sf
2ND Floor area (proposed): 814 sf
TOTAL SF: 2591 sf
Basic max. allowed area: 2285 sf = (6,609 X .91)(.38) = 2,285 square feet.
Proposed area increase: 306 sf (13.29%)
Lot area: 6609 sf = (6,609)(.45) = 2,974 square feet.
Max allowed coverage: 2974 sf
Proposed coverage: 2973 sf
Max. building height: 30 feet
Proposed height: Less than 30'
Paragraph H of Section 18.20.040 of the City of Ashland Oregon Municipal Code allows a 25% maximum
increase of the MPFA (maximum permitted floor area) for single family residences located within the
Historic District through a Conditional Use Permit granted in accordance with the standards noted in
Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards.
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.
The proposed single family residential, as well as the architectural style and massing is in keeping with
standards and goals of the "R" zoning designation and the relevant standards that pertain in the Historic
District.
8. 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.
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
The proposed single family residential uses and the requested increase in the MPFA will have no
negative impacts on the designed capacity of City infrastructure that serves the properties or the
adjacent development.
The Approval Criteria continues:
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.
The existing single family residences adjacent to the West and immediately across the street to the
South have significantly larger living areas than those being requested in this application. The existing
residence located on the parcel immediately to the West at 147 Nutley Street is listed in the Jackson
County Assessor's office records as having 3209 square feet of living area.
~ a
k;
~o -
The residence across the street at the corner of Scenic Dr. and Nutley St (158 Nutley St.) is listed in the
county records at 2496 square feet.
r
The existing residence directly across the street at 134 Nutley St. is listed at 2704 square feet.
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
.,r z
i
M i
x,43
All of these referenced properties share similar lot sizes, coverage ratios, and architectural presence as
the proposed residences in this request.
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.
The requested increase in MPFA will have little or no effect negative effect on the character of Nutley
Street, or the various forms of traffic that occur on the thoroughfare. In fact, the planning of the garages
at the rear of the lot will eliminate any potential conflict cause by vehicles backing into traffic. As well,
the concealed garages allow for a pedestrian experience that relates more closely to the human scale.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
As stated in items 1 and 2 above, the proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding
development in term of scale, mass, and lot coverage. The architectural treatment of the proposed
residences respect and compliment the underlying historic character of the neighborhood. Additionally,
the de-emphasis of the garage serves to strengthen the continuity of residential streetscape.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
The proposed residences combined with the requested increase in the MPFA will not be a significant
source of dust or pollution. In fact, the remodeling of the 145 Nutley St. property and the reconstruction
on the 135 Nutley Street property will result in residences that more efficiently consume energy
I
resources which will ultimately result in a reduced overall carbon footprint.
5. Generation of noise, fight, and glare. i
The proposed residences combined with the requested increase in the MPFA will not be a significant
source of noise, light, or glare. j
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions this neighborhood as a mid density residential zone with a clear
historic undertone maintained by the existing historic residences complimented by an historically
appropriate architectural density and massing of the new construction and the modifications of the
existing. The work proposed in this application respects and maintains that vision.
Z Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
The figure below (obtain from the records of the Jackson County Assessors records) shows a consistent
pattern amongst the existing residences that establishes a consistent 10'-0" setback from the back of
sidewalk. Note: the structure on lot 2200 (135 Nutley) has been demolished.
2900
I( z6N
Z
F90t 4 zoo
uwa~ ~ ,aaa
_J
I ~e 'p 4
F 1 $700 J
662 I k
It appears that the back of sidewalk was assumed to be the property line. Direct measurements indicate
that the property line is in fact 7'-1" from the back of the existing curb line which places the existing
residence at 143 Nutley at 9'-4" from the property line. The properties on tax lots 1900, 2000, and 2100
are all set back 10'-0" (or less) from the actual property line (see image below).
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
if
i
Consequently, the applicant would like place the proposed residence at a distance that is consistent with
the existing homes on the lot as shown on the site plan. The applicant believes that this helps reinforce
the historic context.
Finally, the Hearing Authority may note and make comment on the sloping topography that exists along
Nutley Street. The design of the proposed development depicted in this application has endeavored to
respond to the slope in a manner that mitigates transition from parcel to parcel and maintains the
character of the remaining historic development.
Determination of the required solar setback 18.70.
STEP 1- Determine the Northern Lot Line
In that the north property line of both the subject parcels runs almost exactly east west, the existing
north property lines are used without modification in the calculations below.
STEP 2 - Determine the North/South Lot Dimension
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
For the purposes of these calculation, the average midpoint of the east and west property lines will be
used. In that the east and west property lines run almost exactly north and south, no averaging will be
necessary for these calculations.
STEP 3 - Calculating Average Slope
I
143 Nutley
I
The point 150.00' to the north on the midpoint of the west property line (42d11'43.04"N,
122d43'13.75"W) is 2047' above sea level.
The point at the midpoint of the west property line (42d11'41.55"N, 122d43'13.73W) is 2042' above sea
level.
The slope value for the west property line is calculated as follows:
West 2047 - 2042 = 5/150 =.033
The point 150.00' to the north on the midpoint of the east property line (42d11'43.04"N,
122d43'13.05"W) is 2037' above sea level.
The point at the midpoint of the west property line (42d11'41.57"N, 122d43'13.OOW) is 2032' above sea
level.
The slope value for the east property line is calculated as follows:
East 2039 - 2034 = 5/150 =.033
The average slope (S) for 135 Nutley is .033
135 Nutley
The point 150.00' to the north on the midpoint of the west property line (42d11'42.98"N,
122d43'13.00"W) is 2037' above sea level.
The point at the midpoint of the west property line (42d11'41.50"N, 122d43'12.97W) is 2032' above sea
level.
The slope value for the west property line is calculated as follows:
West 2037 - 2032 = 5/150 =.033
The point 150.00' to the north on the midpoint of the east property line (42d11'42.98"N,
122d43'12.38"W) is 2029' above sea level.
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
The point at the midpoint of the west property line (42d11'41.50"N, 122d43'12.38W) is 2024' above sea
level.
The slope value for the east property line is calculated as follows:
East 2029 - 2024 = 5/150 =.033 j
i
The average slope (S) for 135 Nutley is .033=
STEP 4 - Determine Lot Classification
Lots are classified according to the following formulas:
Formula I: 30'/.445 + S
Formula Ik 10'/.445 + S
Lots whose N/S lot dimension exceeds that calculated by Formula I shall be required to meet Solar
Setback Standard A.
Lots whose N/S lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula I, but greater than that calculated
by Formula II, shall be required to meet Solar Setback Standard B.
F
143 Nutley Lot Classification:
STEP 5 - Determination of Shade Producing Point
o The angle or the pitch of the roof determines where the Height of the highest shade producing point (H) is located
and has a direct effect on the length of the shadow.
o A roof with a pitch of 5'/ in 12 has an angle of approximately 25 degrees. If the roof pitch is less than 25 degrees
the longest shade producing point will be the north wall or eave. If the roof pitch is greater than 25 degrees the shade
producing point will be the roof peak.
The roof pitch is more than 5.5:12 for both homes. For the purposes of these calculations the northerly most highest
point of the roof is used.
143 Nutley:
The highest shade producing point is the north end of the ridge where it meets the hip above the upstairs master
bedroom. The point is 27.10' (27.83') high (measured from the average grade). r
i
H = 27.83'
S = .445 +.033 = .478
27.83'-6'=21.83'
.445 +.033 =.478
21.837.478 = 45.67' setback from north property line.
OK. Highest point is 51'-1" from north property line.
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
I
I
135 Nutley:
The highest shade producing point is the north end of the ridge where it meets the hip above the upstairs master
bedroom. The point is 26.5' high (measured from the average grade).
H = 26.5'
S=.445+.033=.478
26.5'-6'=20.5'
.445 +.033 = .478
20.57.478 = 42.89' setback from north property line.
OK. Highest point is 56-1" from north property line.
Thank you,
Gary Caperna AIA
x
I
C
to 1 2 13 3 13 4 13 5
1 ❑
GARY R. CAPERNA
ARCMITECT
AftCNITtCTUftt
0,
IN rvem na,e on
F.x e fleabm ~ slew
C 1 L` ~t v .M.75ce
• 53 Fax: ~ 5411 T13 75 541 TI36523
yryq~~ r
ppUU__ Emaa ~ryrapa na~tlenernel
I P ti- b'..f Oreg- h e¢ - Lk~ ~d7
Alemb,ran~an oumamga,mr-
I
I
1. _ ft• ~ "`we. t _l~I~ SrAMB
~
r » i / Csry R Coporno
1
1 Nedlmd, Oregon
5247
RES[9tU.'f'lli. R(hUS b[Orf
ruc n nlrtm,ew eroiElasr+rar
0 2 4 6 8 135 SOUTH ELEVATION B a 46 fl
fw lhf W'iIR klNkDht
143 E!OOT ELEVATION f1 d. fi fl 135 NOOB I LEVATION B 7 76L8 143 SOUTH O.EVRTION ~ fn L ~~n fl,
- 0 EP AW J'IL,tE£UWI If
> -
- u•a - 5G Ei uOn'a Icaae o
„e.u u Arran
SClLE UB''M1O' SClLEI '•I'•0' [cnC-nlNtntirfuar[Am;aFrtnrztl
B - B
IE~
riN
t I.. i l~ s N Q
❑ f [ i{ ',i 9p,~...yn:5p- .xi. t _ %i-' ¢O w tt m
O w
_ ~ .'C.` W ZoQWt'
mJNll
I5?~: i
I I~ I VII CI r~,f~ - _ _ Z m
Q LL
W a II
W NNo
135 EAST ELEVATION 72L 6 B 135 WEST ELEVATION 0 2 4 6 -8J aw: < N m m
a
I ° 3 ~o~~2M<
" «w
C YALE, U6'.P• _ %A I/B:r•o'- z rcw
a
j ¢ mm>
_ ]wK U' 'q
PAPOEDYa.. c e ¢ m U o x n a
AYR DRS:iMpU1 AG -'~WPAkRfD hO t - I
SNnKL£S MPIDAU /
azmovw ovearrvlr lnavveurum
m-
REPAIRMD PEPAMI EtlS'G- - I 'U~ \
r `
ND4fffG[fSrOINSMP.GAU / ~ i ~ ~ U6E. tEGA ~ \ _
IkYl VLRt )•✓ro AT E#5l50R"M1M5 Y~
U ''6rA
lO NArGff 6]M651ZE AiID 5N 6ARA6E i0
❑ GCi~YEt4Aiiq'f 1••FlGW~ REG V.'IEIFfD.
ry
_ n
:
I ^
EAl5l5LAM11KLAFE TO
R@WlIhmKAU r,.. ~._,yr _
6H'"" .ate
jj
I IUM OAR IXHftBrl9f1
4 sm
URAWA6Y:
pyrxlnsY.
mr mu
nor snR ln3/2014 4,21 AM
143 WEST ELEVATION 2 1 6 8
R 143 EAST ELEVATION On2 -47 6 A1.2
. '.GALE W.- -0' XA1E: E/B''I'•0' 6.26-14
til~y
';~0 ❑ 13 ❑
❑ 1 I ❑ 2 i ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5 I
22.65'
60 O' _
/ I I Ai III
- - / / I GARY R. CAPERNA
ARCHITECT
ARCHITECTURI
ARFAS rEXGfEO b%YOPE
PtAt1lilf14
SvcYV! rLNEO / A
21 -0 190 N.rh Hass Lan., laEl ,Ofcyon
6-1 / - / ~EGK
d Po 553 "'ZO Y/501
AODIiILN SGY:v'J-I~AGtO r ~ / ~ 541.T/3.1553 F-ax:511.t13.6523
/ Email:gayapema(ael
/ o«g~arnn-txer-5245za7
F - - - - - - -
d Ahwna Arttdlectlkmse
I na I J~ ra9meera~nran mmveaamr-
/I sruv
a I Gary R Caperna y
d crEx ~7
o
uvrt+s Uedlord, Oregon
_ - ~ ~ < ID d V 6ARAbE PcLLYY _ 5247
E3
I
a O~~v
T pno d dI a~~, ro ° e° ASR OF
Derr
q1. LJ I -rll
1=^~ a S MisatAH PUAY
I - I C d d I ILIrY f 1 t9I1M [DYIPfrHT kL14ll~A'AfrE
_ ~ p ° - P 19.YlLL YP Ff9f lA}LLL[APiI}FI,
ma i o-arH ¢r mnnorc~~ernn_•i
d
unncn
mnvm ms 9e uua
~ 'd ° ° n anno° I
n°
d
arnr~ d d I mar
d attar
I IS) O -d - I n earx O Rrr
B~ Lcf I ~ ° ° I B
HRL I ~ ~ l.~ I ~ cunru
- d d I M,~ j 135 2ND FLOPR PLAN 0
2 4 6 8
( d ( M KIrL14N itxm m
Arr SrOR 6E I I I { w
I I I I L~M{5 I d f / O H
Z
/ W w
a wrrn / 9£b~ / _ N m a
m
❑ I I -
¢
- I
° w~rcW
_ -Id
f _ 0
I d _~))r earn / / o
I I I D'-5 9-O I / / / 0 W
rc,o
PLRLN I, W ZW¢WN
¢ ~m IN.
z
04 I " d - w _ o
IV-4' If-0' ane:r 93]N
X BN Z M
i 1.
N m
~9e Q anVlcrvm
a d 60.00' d d o 50.00 0°
A ~~19, „rtE" Z tt~ iQw"
- ~ d ~p5P1K varuLKho RErwrN.. - - ~ tt m n
¢ ~0 m9rt
I.m mW
a¢
F¢w m.00
15r»- my nr•Qe rvB / m i°adi
~Em¢
1°D FiR S`, >B9 NUTLEY 5TREET 1,~qR W4 a ~ o0w f
IO(AL 5`: 1556 rOtAL Ste, -76 /
fi46£ALpY 1185 biS'ALat IB11
BF IIK,PfASE 1Bl BF IICRFASE 255
.8 L'K.FFAS~: p?tt %LKREASE 14L17b / / . _ - -
LOTAkfA~ EBW LOTAR£A, 1191
Iro?A.41 3655 HhS La,~~ ifss SUtDfi iS ~VMIIRfRMA94AL5iAYF~
~ LOV£kAGf 1913 ; ' IF,&PA@~~A9A 101.l 1 F~toO f9~ FLOOR PLAN 0 2 4 6.87
143 2ND I~~1OOR PLAN ON ~ 9z 4 7E 8 "V1 ~
❑ ~.4 iALE, V.°~0' PSI COVERAGE DIAGRAM
/ MM DER Dua M
- tv( I • - MALT rt?.
,y o-1 111
DRAW 5Y,
13.. ~ g ~ ~ x NIQID B8 '
e ' ~I D
mtc
~r
D 1 - - _
_ r -
T ~nsronn 1/23/2014 10:3q AM
135 LOOKING NORTH FROM NUTLEY 143 B 135 LOOKING NORTH FROM NUTLEY BIRDS EYE VIEW AT GARAGES 135 NUTLEY FROM SIDEWALK A1.1
tma4 fill
9IM0 13 13 13 3 11 4 ❑ 5 _
E
CITY F
ASHLAND
May 20, 2014
Robert Baldwin
5243 Pioneer Road
Medford, OR 97501
RE: PA-2014-00711 & PA-2014-00710, Property located at 135 & 143 Nutley Street
Incompleteness Determination
Dear Mr. Baldwin:
I have reviewed your application received on April 30, 2014 for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
approval to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Historic District for the properties located
at 135 & 143 Nutley Street. After examining the materials presented, I have determined that the
application is incomplete because the information listed below was not provided. Incomplete
applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The application cannot be further
processed and deemed complete until the missing information is submitted or the applicant indicates that .
the missing information will not be provided.
The following items should be addressed by June 6th, 2014, if the application is to be included on the
July 8th, 2014 Planning Commission agenda.
A number of items required for submittal were not included in the application package. Please see the
enclosed pre-application conference document for additional details regarding the items listed below.
1. Written Findings - Written findings addressing the Historic District Design Standards are
required to be submitted with the applications. Both Section IV.B Rehabilitation Standards for
Existing Buildings and Additions and Section IV. C. Historic District Design Standards for the
addition at 143 Nutley must to be addressed in the application. Section IV. C. Historic District
Design Standards for the new construction at 135 Nutley must be also be addressed. The Historic
District Development Standards can be found on the City of Ashland website at
http://www.ash]and.or.us/Files/SDUS-Revised-6.1.2012.pdf see pages 40-47.
2. Elevations - To scale schematic elevations of the proposed construction are required (AMC
18.104.040). The documents provided are perspective drawings; while beneficial to see the
"finished product" they lack the necessary detail for review. The elevations should provide
dimensions of the proposed construction and details regarding material choices including, type
and dimensions of materials.
1
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-6006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us I
143 Nutley
1. Compatibility - Staff is concerned that the proposed addition does not meet the Historic District
Design Standards for additions. The addition appears bulky and overshadows the existing
Historic Contributing home. Findings addressing how the proposed design complies with the
standards must be provided with the application.
To continue review of your application, you must select and complete one of the following three
options:
I . Submit all of the missing information;
2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division
written notice that no other information will be provided; or
3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no other
information will be provided.
Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the application submittal
date (April 30, 2014) will result in your application being deemed void. The application will be
deemed void if the additional information is not submitted by October 27, 2014.
I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Applicant's Statement of Completeness." Please review the
enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting. Your application
will not be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and
received by the City of Ashland Planning Division.
If you have questions, please contact me at 541-552-2044 or amy.gunter@ashland.or.us.
Si4er y,
nte~
Assistant Planner
Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness
Cc: Gary Capema, Architect
File
3
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us -
t
Ga,e Received
(to be completed by staff)
Applicant's Statement of Completeness
(To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division)
Re: PA-2014-00711, 135 & 143 Nutley Street
Date Application Expires: October 27, 2014
Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, I, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant,
elects one of the three options below by initiating:
O 1. Submit All of the Missing Information
(Initial if elected)
I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter.
Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional
information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand
that this 30-day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to
submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the
second review. (Note: the 120-day period for the City of Ashland's final determination of compliance
with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional review for completeness period is
completed.)
Check if desired
❑ I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of
the information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code
criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff to
be incomplete.
I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon
the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material
information is missing from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of
showing that all criteria are met, and the application will be denied.
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541A88-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 \
www.ashland.or.us
E _
Gary Caperna, Architect A I A llv
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
Site Plan Application Narrative and request for Conditional Use Permit
I
PROJECT OVERVIEW
This application is a request to modify and construct two adiacent residences located mid block on the
North side of Nutley Street between Scenic Drive and Pine Street.
The proposed residence at 135 Nutley is a new two story 2,076 square foot single family residence with
a detached garage placed at the rear of the lot. Until recently an 856 square foot cottage stood in
extreme disrepair and structurally unsound condition. The cottage has since been demolished leaving a
bare lot served by the various utilities existing in the neighborhood.
On the parcel at 143 Nutley Street there is an existing 896 square foot single family residence which is in
the craftsman bungalow style and appears to have been constructed between 1910 and 1925. This
application proposes to make an extensive addition to the bungalow which will result in a two story
2,566 square foot home with a garage at the rear of the lot and attached to the residence. Both of the
proposed homes are based on designs that conceal the garage at the back of the lot. The limited lot
areas and the existence of unbuildable sloping terrain at the rear of the lots, mandate single car garages
and a shared drive way to achieve the coverage goals set forth in the Ashland Municipal Code.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This application is also requesting that the MPFA (maximum permitted floor area) for both parcels be
increased under a Conditional Use Permit as allowed by the City of Ashland Municipal Code. This request
seeks a 12.3% increase for 143 Nutley and a 14% increase for 135 Nutley. The granting of the
Conditional Use Permit is important to qualify the proposed residences as viable projects. More
importantly, the increased square footage allowed by the Conditional Use Permit allows the projects to
consider locating the garages at the rear of the project. Locating a detached garage at the rear of the
project adds considerable cost to the project, but the additional square footage gained by the CUP helps
mitigate the cost of this layout type. Without the CUP the economics of the project will force the design
to incorporate a more contemporary layout with the garage located in close proximity to the street. The
developer believes that the aesthetic advantages that the neighborhood will enjoy from the concealed
garages far outweigh any negative impacts that might be imparted by the increased floor area of the
structures.
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
The lots are located in the historic district and this proposal intends to conform to the requirements of
this district. The zoning designation for the subject parcels is R-1-7.5. The properties of the lots are as
follows:
135 Nutley (39-1E-08ED-LOT 2200)
Width: 50,00'
Depth: 98.34'
Area: 4,791 square feet (.11 acres)
(J 1
i f ~ I t 1 ~ 1 7 r '
.
1 _
t h r it ~i _ r~ 1 N` i
i
143 Nutley (39-1E-08ED-LOT- 2300)
Width: 60.00'
Depth: 106.00'
Area: 6,534 square feet (.15 acres)
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA = m
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
i
. 7
F ' I
;
These dimensions and areas exceed the minimum requirements described in paragraphs A, B, and C, of
Section 18.20.040 of the City of Ashland Oregon Municipal Code. As stated above, the development is
located within the Historic District which limits the maximum building to 30'-0'. the proposed structures
and additions do not exceed this maximum height.
The MPFA (maximum permitted floor area) allowed per paragraph G of Section 18.20.040 of the City of
Ashland Oregon Municipal Code are calculated and adjusted, as required by Table 1, for the lots as
follows:
135 NutleV (39-1E-08ED-LOT 2200)
1ST Floor area (proposed): 1276 sf
2ND Floor area (proposed): 804 sf
TOTAL SF: 2076 sf
Basic max. allowed area: 1821 sf = (4,791 X 1)(.38) =1,821 square feet.
Proposed area increase: 255 sf (14.0%)
Lot area: 4791 sf
Max allowed coverage: 2156 sf = (4,791)(.45) = 2,156 square feet.
Proposed coverage: 2124 sf
Max. building height: 30 feet
Proposed height: Less than 30'
t
Gary Caperna, Architect A I A 2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
143 Nutley (39-1E-08ED-LOT- 2300)
1ST Floor area (proposed): 1777 sf
2ND Floor area (proposed): 789 sf
TOTAL SF: 2566 sf
Basic max. allowed area: 2285 sf = (6.609 X .91)(.38) = 2,285 square feet.
Proposed area increase: 281 sf (12.29%)
Lot area: 6609 sf = (6,609)(.45) = 2,974 square feet.
Max allowed coverage: 2974 sf
Proposed coverage: 3172 sf
Max. building height: 30 feet
Proposed height: Less than 30'
Paragraph H of Section 18.20.040 of the City of Ashland Oregon Municipal Code allows a 25% maximum
increase of the MPFA (maximum permitted floor area) for single family residences located within the
Historic District through a Conditional Use Permit granted in accordance with the standards noted in
Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards.
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.
c'
The proposed single family residential, as well as the architectural style and massing is in keeping with
standards and goals of the "R" zoning designation and the relevant standards that pertain in the Historic
District.
8. 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.
k
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
The proposed single family residential uses and the requested increase in the MPFA will have no
negative impacts on the designed capacity of City infrastructure that serves the properties or the
adjacent development.
The Approval Criteria continues:
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 subiect 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.
The existing single family residences adjacent to the West and immediately across the street to the
South have significantly larger living areas than those being requested in this application. The existing
residence located on the parcel immediately to the West at 147 Nutley Street is listed in the Jackson
County Assessor's office records as having 3209 square feet of living area.
n.
1 ~
F I
The residence across the street at the corner of Scenic Dr. and Nutley St (158 Nutley St.) is listed in the
county records at 2496 square feet.
t, -
-14
.4 _f 1
C{
The existing residence directly across the street at 134 Nutley St. is listed at 2704 square feet.
d
of 14 f~"~'
Gary Caperna, Architect A I A
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
r
r_ L 1
frl _
All of these referenced properties share similar lot sizes, coverage ratios, and architectural presence as
the proposed residences in this request.
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.
The requested increase in MPFA will have little or no effect negative effect on the character of Nutley
Street, or the various forms of traffic that occur-on the thoroughfare. In fact, the planning of the garages
at the rear of the lot will eliminate any potential conflict cause by vehicles backing into traffic. As well,
the concealed garages allow for a pedestrian experience that relates more closely to the human scale.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
As stated in items 1 and 2 above, the proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding
development in term of scale, mass, and coverage. The architectural treatment of the proposed
residences respects and compliments the underlying historic character of the neighborhood.
Additionally, the de-emphasis of the garage serves to strengthen the continuity of residential
streetscape.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
The proposed residences combined with the requested increase in the MPFA will not be a significant
source of dust or pollution. In fact, the remodeling of the 145 Nutley St. property and the reconstruction
on the 135 Nutley Street property will result in residences that more efficiently consume energy
resources which will ultimately result in a reduced overall carbon footprint.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The proposed residences combined with the requested increase in the MPFA will not be a significant
source of noise, light, or glare.
Gary Caperna, Architect AIA
2908 Hillcrest Road 541.840.4123
Medford, Oregon, 97504
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions this neighborhood as a mid density residential zone with a clear
historic undertone maintained by the existing historic residences complimented by an historically
appropriate architectural density and massing of the new construction and the modifications of the
existing. The work proposed in this application respects and maintains that vision.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
The Hearing Authority may note and make comment on the sloping topography that exists along Nutley
Street. The design- of the proposed development depicted in this application has endeavored to respond
to the slope in a manner that mitigates transition from parcel to parcel and maintains the character of
the remaining historic development.
Thank you,
Gary Caperna AIA
i
f
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
CITY 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE #
-ASH AND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO
Street Address
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E Tax Lot(s)
I
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name ` Phone r~ E-Mail -
Address City Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
i. r . - .
Name ' Phone t 5 € E -Mail
Address City Zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, 1 gm advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Property Owner's Signature (required) Date
rro be completed by City Staff
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER N
G:\comet-dev\planningTomis&Handouts\Zoning Pemdt Application.doc I
J,
Job Address: 143 NUTLEY ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
A Owner's Name: ROBERT BALDWIN O Phone:
R Customer 07744 N State Lie No:
L T City Lie No:
R ROBERT BALDWIN
Applicant: 5243 PIONEER RD R
Address: MEDFORD OR 97501 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: T Address:
N Applied: 04/30/2014 O
T Issued:
Expires: 10/27/2014 R Phone:
State Lie No:
Maplot: 391 E08AD2300 City Lie No:
DESCRIPTION: CUP/MPFA
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 (Type2) 2,002.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
wwmashland.or.us
CITY OF
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
1