HomeMy WebLinkAboutSecond_35_PA-2015-01496
CITY F
ASHLAND
October 14, 2015
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-2015-01496
Subject Property: 35 South Second Street
Owner: MPM Investments
Applicant: Kistler, Small & White, Architects
Description: A request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to allow
3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry room, two new second floor
offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas for
the Winchester Inn located at 35 S. Second St. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits to j
remove two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and j
an eight-inch diameter Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and
Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the
property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 09131); TAX LOTS: 5600-5700.
i
The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final
Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months 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 section 18.5.1.060.1 of
the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: MPM Investments
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.orms ( ;
f 1
SECTION 18.5.1.060.1
1. Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section
18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be
defined as the following.
a. The applicant.
b. 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.
c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to
error.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.I.1, above, may appeal a Type 11 decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying
I
the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection.
b. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten
days of the date the notice of decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. 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.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time,
and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b,
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 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
Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed
decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for
purposes of 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. Reopening the Record. The City 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 Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the
following.
i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.orms
i
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.
ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting
party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision.
iii. 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.
iv. 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
Council.
5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an
appeal of a Type H decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission.
a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral
argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different,
and three 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 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.
b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the
record is allowed, the 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
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
c. Council Decision. 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 Council elects to
remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission
decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant
to subsection 18.5.1.060.J.
6. Record of the Public Hearing. 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.
The public hearing record shall include the following information.
a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Y
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the
application that the City mailed or received.
c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials
submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times
when the record before the Planning Commission was open.
e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type
II applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council
decisions on Type H applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals,
pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 `
www.ashland.or.us
j.;
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 13, 2015
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-01496, A REQUEST FOR )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS TO )
ALLOW 3,051 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONS INCLUDING A NEW )
KITCHEN, NEW BAR, LAUNDRY ROOM, TWO NEW SECOND FLOOR )
OFFICES AND AN ACCESSIBLE LIFT, AND THE CONVERSION OF THE )
EXISTING KITCHEN INTO BUSSING AND STORAGE AREAS FOR THE )
WINCHESTER INN LOCATED AT 35 SOUTH SECOND STREET. ALSO )
INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMITS TO REMOVE ) FINDINGS,
TWO TREES: A SIX-INCH DIAMETER PLUM TREE LOCATED WITHIN THE ) CONCLUSIONS,
FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED NEW BAR, AND AN EIGHT-INCH DIAMETER) AND ORDERS
BIRCH TREE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ADDITION AT THE REAR OF )
THE MAIN HOUSE; AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS TO )
RETAIN THE EXISTING CURBSIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE PERIMETER )
THE PROPERTY. )
APPLICANT: Kistler, Small & White, Architects )
(As agents for owner MPMInvestments) )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots 5600 and 5700 of Map 39 IE 09 BD are located at 35 South Second Street and are zoned
C-I-D, Commercial Downtown.
2) The applicants are requesting Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to allow
3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry room, two new second floor
offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas
for the Winchester Inn located at 35 S. Second St. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits
to remove two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar,
and an eight-inch diameter Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house;
and Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the
property. The proposal is outlined on plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows:
1. 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.
2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page i
l
drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
3. 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, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. 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.
a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
C. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive t:
Plan.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the
proposed use.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not
permitted pursuant to this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the
approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with a// ordinance requirements,
developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential
Zones.
b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the
density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
C. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements,
developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential
Zones.
d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying
with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at
an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements.
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 2
e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses,
developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50
floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements,
h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill
District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying
with all ordinance requirements.
i. CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill
District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all
ordinance requirements.
k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District,
developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all
ordinance requirements.
L HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care
Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon
University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements.
4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot
area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6
Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity,
urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 3
circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an
existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will
not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the
exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and
Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the
difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but
granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
i
5) The criteria for Exception to Street Standards are described AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
6) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority
finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions.
G. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or
property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 4
facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment,
relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard
tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following
criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design
Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks. j
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to
the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to
allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced
below the permitted density allowed by the zone. in making this determination,
the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of
alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as
the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
7) The Planning Commmission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 8,
2015 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the
hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the
appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 5
E
E
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. j
i
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Conditional Use Permit, Site Design Review,
Exception to Street Standards and Tree Removal Permit approvals meets all applicable criteria for
Conditional Use Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.4.050; Site Review approval described in
Chapter 18.5.2.050; Exception to Street Standards approval described in Chapter 18.4.6.020.B.1; and
Tree Removal Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.7.040.B.2.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application proposes 3,051 square feet of new additions
including a new kitchen, bar, laundry room, two second floor offices and an accessible lift, as well as the
conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas. The proposal includes two additions:
the "south addition" contains the new 360 square foot bar and is designed as a Victorian conservatory.
It is to be located to the south side of the existing main building adjacent to the existing dining area, and
will be physically attached to the main building with stairs and a new accessible lift connecting the main
levels. The bar will include an outdoor patio area to its east, with interior seating for roughly 20 and bar
seating for five in addition to a new serving area for preparing drinks.
The "west addition" on the west side of the main facility, will include a new full-service 869 square foot
kitchen with walk-in cooler, range hood, grill, range, dishwashing equipment and storage on the first
floor while the existing kitchen area will be remodeled into a new bussing station and storage area.
Below the new kitchen will be a new 193 square foot laundry room, and the existing laundry area will be
remodeled to create an accessible route to the new accessible lift. Above the kitchen there will be two
new offices; the applicants currently rent office space off-site, and this will enable their offices to move
back onto the property although the application notes that it is hoped that at some point in the future
these offices could be converted into additional guest suites. The application recognizes that such a
conversion would need to comply with applicable codes in place at the time of application.
PA 42015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 6
The Commission finds that the first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal
complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not
limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage,
building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The subject
property's underlying zone is C-1-D (Commercial Downtown) which has no minimum lot area, width,
or depth; no minimum front, side or rear yard area except where abutting a residential zone to the side or
rear in which case a ten-foot per story setback is required; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum
residential density. The subject properties here abut the R-2 residential zone to the south, across
Hargadine Street, and the proposed additions are more than 40 feet from the Hargadine Street property
line. The site is not located on an arterial street, and as such no arterial setback requirements come into
play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and with the proposed additions here, the
building height still averages 341/2 feet and so complies with this limit.
The Commission finds that the second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal
complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The subject property is located within
three overlay zones: the Detail Site Review Overlay, the Downtown Design Standards Overlay and the
Historic District Overlay. The applicable standards for these overlay zones are incorporated into the Site
Development and Design Standards in part 18.4, and are addressed below.
i
The Commission finds that the third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below." Generally, these Site Development & Design Standards seek to improve each project's
appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the
streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of
parking; and to screen adjacent uses fi•om adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are
to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and
attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from
the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages,
and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. The
application explains that the existing building is oriented to the streets and that the established facade,
setback, relationship to the streetscape and general orientation will not be altered with the requested
additions. Similarly, existing parking, vehicular circulation and street trees are not proposed to be
altered. Building materials proposed are to be similar to the existing Inn, with wood siding, trim and
wood shingle roofing proposed. The west addition will be painted to match the existing inn. The
proposed bar addition will be the exception in terms of matching materials, as it will have a metal roof,
exposed concrete base and wood windows with aluminum cladding. The bar building uses glass to
create a conservatory feel in the bar addition.
The Commission finds that within the Detail Site Review Overlay, properties are to have a minimum
0.50 floor area ratio (FAR). In this instance, the proposed building area is 9,715 square feet on the two
parcels involved which have a total area of approximately 13,939 square feet. This equates to a 0.69
FAR without consideration of the site's pedestrian areas and thus complies with the standard.
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 7
The Commission further finds that the existing building does not have frontages over 100 feet in length,
nor is it within 30 feet of the street, however it nonetheless uses windows, doorways and the proposed
conservatory addition to contribute to an engaging streetscape, with changes in massing, material and
surface finishes to emphasizes entries from the street.
The Commission finds that the existing building is setback more than five feet from the street; the
current setback is approximately 35 feet and this is maintained with the proposed addition in keeping
with the Historic District Design Standards which seek additions which are visually unobtrusive from
the right-of-way and which do not obscure or detract from the character defining features of the historic
building. The Commission further finds that placement of an addition between the existing building and
the street would obscure the character of the existing building and the site, and would run counter to the
Historic District Development Standards for additions.
The materials provided explain that the location of the existing building may be considered a transitional
zone between the downtown commercial area and the adjacent residential zone just south of the site.
The application notes that the building height is to remain unchanged with the additions.
The application points out that the bar addition, which is located on the east face of the existing building,
is set well back from the front of the building facing Second Street and will be set back from the original
house bay window, allowing the existing entry to retain its prominence. In addition, it will provide a
single-story step up to the existing two-story building. The most impacted view will be from Hargadine
Street, which is at a higher elevation, and the application suggests that the differing elevations and the
presence of the Larkspur Cottage between the bar addition and Hargadine Street will reduce the
perceived scale and visual impact of the addition.
The applicants suggest that the massing of the buildings will continue to be appropriate to the existing
Victorian architecture, and they will be smaller than other commercial buildings in the immediate
neighborhood. They emphasize that the existing setbacks are not to be altered, that the roof form and
roofing of the additions will be consistent with those of the existing building, and that the building form,
primary entry and fagade rhythms will remain unchanged. The application explains that the applicants
believe it is important that the addition be as cohesive with the existing as possible, and they note that
architectural interest will be added with the bar designed as a conservatory which will complement the
existing Victorian architecture but also be contemporary rather than trite mimicry of the historic period.
Windows proposed are to be compatible in shape, size and proportion of the existing, with the exception
of the bar where the windows will be specific to the proposed conservatory feature.
The Commission finds that wood shingles are specifically called out as to be avoided in the Historic
District Development Standards, and a condition has been included below to require that the roofing of
the west addition not utilize wood shingles, and that the final roofing material treatment be approved by
the Historic Commission's Review Board with review of the building permits.
The Commission further finds that while located within the Downtown, the existing building is a stand-
alone structure with a residential style dating to its original use, and is located in a transitional zone near
the edge of the overlay. As such, the current building is not in keeping with many of the Downtown
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 8
Design Standards seeking a continuous, commercial storefront streetscape. The additions proposed do
not seek to alter this character to pursue compliance with the Downtown Design Standards, but instead
seek to be compatible with the existing contributing historic resource. The Commmission finds that this
approach is in keeping with the transitional character of the site and the underlying purpose of the
Downtown Design Standards which note that the standards seek to guide development in context with
their historic surroundings.
The Commission finds that the proposed additions are in keeping with the applicable site development
and design standards and overlay zone requirements, and that the additions have been thoughtfully
designed and placed to respect the historic character of the existing building and to not detract from its
relationship to the streetscape.
The Commission finds that the fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The
proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate
capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricioJ urban storm drainage, pa>>ed access to and
throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be pf oWded to the subject property."
The subject property is presently served by water, sewer, eelectricity, urban storm drainage, and paved
access via the adjacent rights-of-way.
The Electric Department has indicated that a service upgrade would be desirable with the addition. The
application materials provided note than an electrical service plan will be developed in consultation with
the city's Electric Department to ensure both that adequate facilities are provided and that any aesthetic
impacts are minimized. All electrical services are proposed to be provided from Second Street where
the current service exists.
The application also notes that two fire hydrants are within 150 feet of the property, one on the property
at the corner of Second and Hargadine and the other on the adjacent tax lot at the corner of Second
Street and Enders Alley, The applicants indicate that these hydrants have adequate pressure available to
serve the building, and note that at the time of the building permit submittal all fire code requirements
shall be addressed including provisions for a Fire Department connection along the front of the building.
The Commission has included conditions below to require that the applicants provide final electrical
service, utility, stormwater drainage and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the
Planning, Building, Electric and Public Works/Engineering Departments in conjunction with their
building permit application.
The Commission further finds that paved access to the property is from Second Street, which is
classified as a Neighborhood Street in Ashland's Transportation System Plan (TSP). Second Street is
currently paved along the property's frontage, with curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place. The
property also fronts on Hargadine Street to the south, a Neighborhood Street as well. Hargadine is
paved with curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place along the property frontage. There are paved
alleys along the properties' north and west frontages, with Enders Alley running between First and
Second Streets to the north of the Heritage House, and an un-named alley running along the west side of
the properties between Enders Alley and Hargadine Street.
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 9
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property already operates under a Conditional
Use Permit within the C-1-D zone as a Hotel/Motel, and been in operation since 1983.
As detailed above, the Electric Department has indicated that a service upgrade may be desirable to
service the addition and the application materials provided note than an electrical service plan will be
developed in consultation with the city's Electric Department to ensure both that adequate facilities are
provided and that any aesthetic impacts are minimized. All electrical services are proposed to be
provided from Second Street where the current service exists.
The application also notes that two fire hydrants are within 150 feet of the property, one on the property
at the corner of Second and Hargadine and the other on the adjacent tax lot at the corner of Second
Street and Enders Alley. The applicants indicate that these hydrants have adequate pressure available to
serve the building, and note that at the time of the building permit submittal all fire code requirements
shall be addressed including provisions for a Fire Department connection along the front of the building.
The Commission finds that the proposal has been designed to limit the impact of the increase in bulk,
and is well within an appropriate scale to the building and site. The existing building is an historic
contributing resource within the local historic district and the additions have been designed to be
architecturally compatible. The application emphasizes that the additions proposed are intended to
enhance the facility, the guest experience and the working environment with minimal impact on the
neighborhood, and don't involve any increase in the number of guest units. The application further
explains that most of the visual impact of the changes will be oriented to the rear of the site along the
alley, and that bordering this alley are the backs of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's new rehearsal
center and the Oregon Cabaret Theater building. The application suggests that there will be little or no
impediment to neighboring views.
The application further suggests that the proposal will result in no discernible increases in environmental
impacts including those related to air quality, dust, odors or other pollutants. The addition, with the
exception of the bar, will not result in any increase in noise, light or glare. The applicants emphasize
that while the bar has a primarily glass fagade, its placement on the site relative to the existing buildings
and streetscape, the existing landscaping, and the natural topography of the site will prevent any
resultant light or glare from being distracting. The applicants further assert that the addition will result
in an overall reduction in noise by reducing the available outside seating and shifting seats indoors.
The application further emphasizes that at this time, no additional guest suites are being added so there
should be no additional impact in terms of parking or traffic. The improvements will allow additional
seating capacity in the restaurant and bar, but they are noted as serving primarily guests of the inn or
others who arrive on foot from elsewhere in the downtown.
The application concludes that the conservatory style bar will be a unique and exciting addition to the
Inn and to Ashland's downtown.
2.5 With regard to the requested Exception to Street Standards to retain the established curbside
sidewalks along the properties' street frontages, the Planning Commission finds that that it would not be
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 10
desirable to remove existing, established significant trees in order to create a parkrow to plant trees as
this would be counter-productive; and maintaining the current sidewalk condition would be more in
keeping with the purpose and intent of the street standards and would not diminish the safety or
effectiveness of the existing facilities. The Commission further finds that in addition to the existing
significant trees, the site's topography poses a demonstrable difficulty in widening the sidewalks to meet
current standards.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the application proposes the removal of two trees: a six-
inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter
Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house. Within the C-I-D zoning
district, any removal of trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or more requires a Tree
Removal Permit. The Commission further finds that the application notes there are many mature trees
on the site, and that the removal of the two trees proposed will not change the overall tree canopy
coverage of the site nor will it have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, adjacent trees or existing windbreaks.
The Commission firrther finds that tree protection details have been noted on the Tree Removal and
Protection Plan provided as sheet "L2", however the proposed new bar addition extends into the Tree
Protection Zone fencing shown and there is no arborist report speaking to the ability of the trees to be
retained to tolerate the proposed disturbances in or near their root zones. Based on the recommendations
of the Tree Commission, the Planning Commission has accordingly included conditions requiring: an
arborist report assessing the conditions of the trees and their abilities to accommodate the proposed
construction; a revised Tree Protection Plan detailing revised tree protection necessary during
construction; and that a Tree Verification inspection to verify identification of the trees to be removed
and installation of fencing for trees to be protected occur prior to any tree removal or site disturbance.
2.7 The applicants' are requesting Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to
allow 3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, a new laundry room, two new
second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and
storage areas. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six-inch
diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter
Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and an Exception to the
Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the property.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is in keeping with all applicable criteria and standards
for approval. The existing building is of a residential style in keeping with its original historic use, and
has been restored and maintained by the applicants and in continuous use as a hotel/motel since the mid-
1980's. It is well-suited to its location at the transition between the downtown core and the residential
neighborhood just across Hargadine Street, and the additions proposed have been thoughtfully designed
and placed to respect the historic character of the existing building and to not detract fi•om its
relationship to the streetscape or surrounding neighborhood.
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 11
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, Site Design Review, Exception to Street Standards and Tree
Removal Permit approvals for the Winchester Inn located at 35 South Second Street 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 #2015-01496. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-01496 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein.
2) 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 j
with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review
and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4
3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Historic Commission fiom their September 2, 2015
meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval
of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their September 3, 2015
meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval
of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
5) That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall
meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7).
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the bar addition, the applicants shall provide
evidence of lot consolidation or otherwise address the building code prohibition on construction
over a property line.
7) That the roofing of the west addition shall not utilize wood shingles, which are to be avoided in
the Historic District Development Standards. The final roofing material treatment shall be
detailed in the building permit submittals for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and
Historic Commission's Review Board.
8) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility
easements.
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 12
ti
b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor and Historic Commission Review Board. Very bright or
neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with the requirements of the Detailed
Site Review Standards, and the colors and materials selected shall be consistent with
those approved with the application.
c) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the
property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties.
d) Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review
and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised
plans shall address: 1) The recommendations of the Tree Commission from their
September 3, 2015 meeting where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and
with final approval by the Staff Advisor; 2) An arborist's report assessing the conditions
of the trees within the area of disturbance and their abilities to accommodate the proposed
construction, and a Tree Protection Plan detailing revised tree protection zones and any
additional measures or recommendations necessary during construction; and 3) required
size and species specific replacement planting details and associated irrigation plan
modifications, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers
and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications.
e) A stormwater drainage plan, including any necessary on-site detention measures for the
review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments with the
building permit submittal.
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering,
Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any
necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including
the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and
clean-outs, stoim drainage pipes and catch basins. Cabinets, vaults and Fire Department
Connections shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian
areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service upgrades shall be
completed by the applicant at applicant's expense.
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other
necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric,
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition,
excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in
areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the
access needs of the Electric Department.
9) That prior to the issuance of the building, the commencement of site work or storage of
materials:
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 13
i
a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed
according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The
Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of trees to be removed and the
installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and
adjacent to the site. Tree protection measures shall be in the form of chain link fencing
six feet tall, installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of AMC
18.4.5.030.C.
10) That prior to the final approval of the project and issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That all hardscaping, landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed according to
the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric,
Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor.
C) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved addressing, fire
hydrant clearance and provisions for a "Knox Box" key box shall be satisfactorily
addressed. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the building permit
documents. Mote: If this project takes place during fire season restrictions and is on
lands within 118 of a mile of Oregon Department of Forestry-protected lands, the
applicants are subject to ODF fire restrictions and will need to check construction
restrictions at 1imm,. slvo n e. coin or call (541) 664-3328).
e) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent residential proprieties.
L
October 13, 2015
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2015-01496
October 13, 2015
Page 14
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,
I
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On October 14, 2015 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 #2015-01496, 35 S Second.
Signature of Employee
I
DocumenQ 10114/2015
PA-2015-01496 391 E09BD 5500 PA-2015-01496
MPM INVESTMENTS, LLC ' KISTLER SMALLER AND WHITE
35 S SECOND ST 66 WATER
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
35 S Second
NOD 10/14/15
2
Ili
i
jl
j
ii
i
it
i
Mr. Bernard clarified for the commission that should additional parking be necessary for phase two, there is plenty of
opportunity to provide additional underground parking on the site.
Public Testimony
No one came forward to speak.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Wilkerson stated there are a number of ways they could have approached the parking issue, but how it has been
presented is the right solution for this project. Mr. Bernard stated Darex wants to continue to be a good community member
and also have the opportunity to grow their business. He stated they have been here for a long time and want to continue to
be here for a long time, but they need the commission's support to do this.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Molnar addressed the width of Clear Creek Drive and clarified the city has allowed parking on both sides of the street; I
however as development increases this will likely change to parking on one side only.
Mr. Severson commented on the parking rationale. He stated the normal approach would be to start with the industrial(
parking ratio in the code (1 space per 1,000 sq.ft.); however this is significantly less parking than the applicant has
demonstrated they need. The other options available are to either look at a comparable use or a parking demand analysis,
and the applicant has provided the basis for both in their application. Mr. Severson stated staff believes however the
commission approaches this there is sufficient data in the record to support the applicant's request. He added the
application asserts office use is the most comparable use and under the city's ratio, this gets them to 141 parking spaces. If
the commission wishes to grant the 163 spaces requested, this is where the "other data" option comes into play and they
can apply the ITE parking numbers or utilize the data demonstrating actual need provided by the applicant.
Deliberations & Decision
The commission discussed whether the ITE numbers or the actual data parking data provided by the applicant was the more
defensible approach in granting the requested parking numbers. Comment was made that if you use the ITE chart and the
applicant's data, you are already at the requested number and there is no need to make this any more complicated.
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015.01370 with the modification to Condition 7 to allow 163
parking spaces. DISCUSSION: The applicant's were thanked for their offer to do a temporary park. Comment was made
expressing support for the additional parking on the site, since it is not realistic to expect much on street parking in this area.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Pearce, Thompson, Brown, Dawkins, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015.01496
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 South Second Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: MPM Investments
AGENT: Kistler, Small & White, Architects
DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to allow 3,051 square
feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry room, two new second floor offices and an
accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas for the Winchester Inn
located at 35 S. Second St. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six-
inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter Birch
tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and Exception to the Street Standards to
retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 5600-
5700.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins performed a site visit. No ex parte contact was reported.
Ashland Planning Commission
September 8, 2015
Page 4 of 5
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the request is to add two additions to the existing Winchester Inn on Second
Street. He stated this is a very straight forward application and the only reason it is before the commission is because the
addition slightly exceeds the threshold that requires a public hearing. Mr. Severson explained the additions will add a new
kitchen, bar area, laundry room, and second floor office space. He added no additional guest rooms will be added and
therefore there is no increase in the parking demand. He displayed several images of the applicant's proposal and stated
staff believes the applicants have done a good job of balancing the historic district design standards with the downtown
design standards. Mr. Severson noted the application includes the removal of two trees and involves an exception to the
street standard to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the property. He went on to say both the
Historic Commission and Tree Commission have reviewed the request and are supportive of the application as presented.
Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions as outlined.
Applicant's Presentation
Matt Small and Leslie Gore/Kislter, Small & White Architects/Mr. Small agreed with the staff presentation and stated this
is a very straight forward project. He presented several images of the new bar/conservatory area and the kitchen and
second story addition at the rear. He noted one of the goals of this project was to create a kitchen that was more efficient
and offered better working conditions for the employees, and also noted the need to improve the egress out of the second
story. Regarding the exception to the street standards, Mr. Small clarified this would have required the removal of the
beautiful, mature landscaping the currently exists.
Questions of the Applicant
The applicant was asked why vertical boards were used for the addition when the rest of the house is horizontal. Mr. Small
responded that he felt there was too much horizontal siding and this was done to add some interest and texture to the
project.
The applicant was asked to identify the more modern design elements in the proposal. Mr. Small responded that these are
mostly seen in the glass conservatory with its metal roof and stem walls, but also the posts, columns, and concrete base.
Commissioners Thompson/Pearce m/s to extend the meeting to 10 p.m.
Public Testimony
No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-2015-01496. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Thompson, Pearce,
Dawkins, Brown, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6.0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
i
Ashland Planning Commission
September B, 2015
Page 5 of 5
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
September 8, 2015
PLANNING ACTION: #2015-01496
OWNERS: MPM Investments
APPLICANTS: Kistler, Small & White, Architects
LOCATION: 31-35 South Second Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1-D
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: August 31, 2015
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: December 29, 2015
ORDINANCE REFERENCE (see htAp://www.ashiand.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use
code on-line):
18.2.6 Standards for Non-Residential Zones
18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation
18.4.5 Tree Preservation & Protection
18.4.6 Public Facilities
18.4.7 Signs
18.5.2 Site Design Review
18.5.4 Conditional Use Permit
18.4.6.020 Exception to Street Standards
18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits
REQUEST: A request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to allow
3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry room, two new second
floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and
storage areas for the Winchester Inn located at 35 S. Second St. Also included are requests for
Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree located within the
footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter Birch tree within the footprint of
the addition at the rear of the main house; and Exception to the Street Standards to retain the
existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the property.
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 1 of 15
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background o History of Application
Planning Action #2013-00003, a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit
approval to allow the conversion of the existing 960 square foot Enders Annex building
located at 207 Enders Alley, to a single motel unit associated with the Winchester Inn.
Planning Action #2003-00005, a request for Conditional Use and Site Review Permits for a
625 square foot glass conservatory on the south side of the building and a 425 square foot
guest unit on the second floor of the Winchester Inn at 35 South Second Street was
approved administratively in February of 2003.
Planning Action #1994-00044, a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit
approval to expand the existing hotel, the Enders House at 31 South Second Street from four
to nine units with the construction of a third story.
Planning Action #1993-00024, a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to
allow a two-unit motel expansion in a separate cottage at 35 South Second Street was
approved by the Planning Commission in February of 1993.
Planning Action #1991-00003, a request for a two-unit motel expansion in a separate
cottage at 35 South Second Street was approved by the Planning Commission in January of
1991.
Planning Action #1988-00008, a request to construct a two-unit carriage house addition at
31 South Second Street, was approved by the Planning Commission in January of 1988.
Planning Action #1986-00095, a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit
approval to allow a five-unit hotel at 31 South Second Street. Three units were to be
accommodated in the existing, two-story Enders House building and a two-story carriage
house building was to be built off the alley to accommodate two-units. The Site Review of
the carriage house building was deferred to a later date.
Planning Action #1982-00089, a request for Conditional Use and Site Review Permit
approval to convert the Winchester House at 35 South Second Street, into a seven-unit
Traveler's Accommodation and Restaurant, was approved by the Planning Commission in
January of 1983.
There are no other planning actions of record for these properties.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The Site
The subject property is comprised of three tax lots, two of which are involved in the
current request. The properties are located north of the intersection of South Second
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 2 of 15
Street and Hargadine Street, and are rectangular. The existing slope of the combined
properties runs from southwest to northeast and is around 15 percent. The application
notes that 19 parking spaces are located off the alleys at the side and rear of the parcels.
i
Tax Lot #5500 is the northernmost of the three properties. It contains the Heritage
House, formerly called the Enders House, and a detached Carriage House to the rear, and
is not proposed for any disturbance or alteration here. This property is addressed as 31
South Second Street.
Tax Lot #5600, the middle parcel is addressed as 35 South Second Street and identified
as the Winchester Inn Main House in the applicants' submittal materials. The main
house was originally constructed on East Main Street in 1886, but was moved to its current
location in 1910 after a major fire. The building was originally constructed as a residence,
but was later converted to a sanitarium and since 1923 has been used as a boarding house.
The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and its historic designation
is the Roper and Julia Fordyce House.
Tax Lot #5700, the southernmost of the three parcels, contains the Larkspur Cottage, and
does not currently have a separate address assigned in city records.
Paved access to the property is from Second Street, which is considered a Neighborhood
Street in Ashland's Transportation System Plan (TSP). Second Street is currently paved
along the property's frontage, with curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place. The
property also fronts on Hargadine Street to the south, a Neighborhood Street as well.
Hargadine is paved with curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place along the property
frontage. There are paved alley's along the properties' north and west frontages, with
Enders Alley running between First and Second Streets to the north of the Heritage
House, and an un-named alley running along the west side of the properties between
Enders Alley and Hargadine Street.
The Proposal
Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Proposal
The application includes requests for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review
approvals to allow 3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar,
laundry room, two new second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of
the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas. The proposal includes two additions:
The south addition contains the new 360 square foot bar and is designed as a Victorian
conservatory. It is to be located to the south side of the existing main building adjacent to
the existing dining area, and will be physically attached to the main building with stairs
and a new accessible lift connecting the main levels. The bar will include an outdoor
patio area to its east, with interior seating for roughly 20 and bar seating for five in
addition to a new serving area for preparing drinks.
The west addition, on the west side of the main facility, will include a new full-service
869 square foot kitchen with walk-in cooler, range hood, grille, range, dishwashing
equipment and storage on the first floor. The existing kitchen area will be remodeled into
a new bussing station and storage area. Below the new kitchen will be a new 193 square
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Reporl[Ads
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 3 of 15
k
foot laundry room, and the existing laundry area will be remodeled to create an accessible
route to the new accessible lift. Above the kitchen there will be two new offices. The
applicants currently rent office space off-site, and this will enable their offices to move to
the property. (The application notes that it is hoped that at some point in the future these
offices could be converted into additional guest suites, and also recognizes that such a
conversion would need to comply with applicable codes in place at the time of
application.)
Exception to Street Standards Proposal
An Exception to the Street Standards is requested to retain the existing approximately
six-foot wide curbside sidewalk configuration along the Second Street and Hargadine
Street frontages of the property, where current standards would require a five-foot
hardscape parkrow, with grated tree planting wells between the curb and sidewalk.
Tree Removal Permit Proposal
The application also involves the removal of two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree
located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter Birch
tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house. Within the C-1-D
zoning district, any removal of trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or
more requires a Tree Removal Permit.
II. Project Impact
As explained more fully above, the application consists of Site Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit, Exception to Street Standards and Tree Removal Permit
approval requests. Within the Downtown Design Standards Overlay zone, new buildings
or additions greater than 2,500 square feet are subject to a "Type II" Site Design Review
application procedure which requires a decision by the Planning Commission through a
public hearing.
A. Site Design Review Proposal
Underlying Zone Requirements
The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with
all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not
limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area,
lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards." The subject property's underlying zone is C-1-D (Commercial Downtown)
and within that zone, there is no minimum lot area, width, or depth; no minimum front,
side or rear yard area except where abutting a residential zone to the side or rear in which
case a ten-foot per story setback is required; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum
residential density.
The subject properties here abut the R-2 residential zone to the south, across Hargadine
Street, and the proposed additions are more than 40 feet from the Hargadine Street
property line. The site is not located on an arterial street, and as such no setback
requirements come into play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and
with the proposed additions here, the building height still averages 34'/2 feet and so
complies with this limit.
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Winchester Inn Page 4 of 15
Overlay Zone Requirements
The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with
applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The subject property is located within
three overlay zones: the Detail Site Review Overlay, the Downtown Design Standards
Overlay and the Historic District Overlay. The applicable standards for these overlay
zones are incorporated into the Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4, and
are addressed below.
Site Development and Design Standards
The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below." Generally, these Site Development & Design Standards seek to improve each
project's appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed
buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen
the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse
impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to
the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances
oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the
public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties'
frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between
buildings and the street.
Basic Site Review
The application explains that the existing building is oriented to the streets and that the
established facade, setback, relationship to the streetscape and general orientation will not
be altered with the requested additions. Similarly, existing parking, vehicular circulation
and street trees are not proposed to be altered. Building materials proposed are to be
similar to the existing Inn, with wood siding, trim and wood shingle roofing proposed.
The west addition will be painted to match the existing Inn. The proposed bar addition
will be the exception in terms of matching materials, as it will have a metal roof, exposed
concrete base and wood windows with aluminum cladding. The bar building use glass to
create a conservatory feel in the bar addition.
Detail Site Review Overlay
Within the Detail Site Review Overlay, properties are to have a minimum 0.50 floor area
ratio (FAR). In this instance, the proposed building area is 9,715 square feet on the two
parcels involved which have a total area of approximately 13,939 square feet. This
equates to a 0.69 FAR without consideration of the site's pedestrian areas and thus
complies with the standard.
The existing building does not have frontages over 100 feet in length, nor is it within 30
feet of the street, however it nonetheless uses windows, doorways and the proposed
conservatory addition to contribute to an engaging streetscape, with changes in massing,
material and surface finishes to emphasizes entries from the street.
The existing building is setback more than five feet from the street; the current setback is
approximately 35 feet and this is maintained with the proposed addition in keeping with
the Historic District Design Standards which seek additions which are visually
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 5 of 15
unobtrusive from the right-of-way and which do not obscure or detract from the character
defining features of the historic building. Placement of an addition between the existing
building and the street would obscure the character of the existing building and the site,
and would run counter to the Historic District Development Standards for additions.
Historic District Overlay
The materials provided explain that the location of the existing building may be
considered a transitional zone between the downtown commercial area and the adjacent
residential zone just south of the site. The application notes that the building height is to
remain unchanged with the additions.
The application points out that the bar addition, which is located on the east face of the
existing building, is set well back from the front of the building facing Second Street and
will be set back from the original house bay window, allowing the existing entry to retain
its prominence. In addition, it will provide a single-story step up to the existing two-story
building. The most impacted view will be from Hargadine Street, which is at a higher
elevation, and the application suggests that the differing elevations and the presence of
the Larkspur Cottage between the bar addition and Hargadine Street will reduce the
perceived scale and visual impact of the addition.
i
The applicants suggest that the massing of the buildings will continue to be appropriate to
the existing Victorian architecture, and they will be smaller than other commercial
buildings in the immediate neighborhood. They emphasize that the existing setbacks are
not to be altered, that the roof form and roofing of the additions will be consistent with
those of the existing building, and that the building form, primary entry and fayade
rhythms will remain unchanged. The application explains that the applicants believe it is
important that the addition be as cohesive with the existing as possible, and they note that
architectural interest will be added with the bar designed as a conservatory which will
complement the existing Victorian architecture but also be contemporary rather than a
trite mimic of the historic period. Windows proposed are to be compatible in shape, size
and proportion of the existing, with the exception of the bar where the windows will be
specific to the proposed conservatory feature.
A condition has been recommended below to require that the roofing of the west addition
not utilize wood shingles, which are specifically called out as to be avoided in the
Historic District Development Standards, and that the finafroofing material treatment be
approved by the Historic Commission's Review Board with review of the building
permits.
Downtown Design Standards Overlay
The application notes that while in the Downtown, the existing building is a stand-alone
structure with a residential style dating to its original use, and is located in a transitional
zone near the edge of the overlay. As such, the current building is not in keeping with
many of the Downtown Design Standards seeking a continuous, commercial storefront
streetscape. The additions proposed do not seek to alter this character, and instead seek
to be compatible with the existing contributing historic resource. In staff's view, this can
be found to be in keeping with the transitional character of the site and the underlying
purpose of the Downtown Design Standards which note that the standards seek to guide
development in the context with their historic surroundings.
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 6 of 15
In staff's assessment, the proposed additions can be found to be in keeping with the
applicable site development and design standards and overlay zone requirements. The
additions proposed have been thoughtfully designed and placed to respect the historic
character of the existing building and to not detract from its relationship to the
streetscape.
Public Facilities
The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal
complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that
adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage,
paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to the subject property." The subject property is presently served by water,
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and paved access via the adjacent rights-of-way.
The Electric Department has indicated that a service upgrade would be desirable with the
addition. The application materials provided note than an electrical service plan will be
developed in consultation with the city's Electric Department to ensure both that
adequate facilities are provided and that any aesthetic impacts are minimized. All
electrical services are proposed to be provided from Second Street where the current
service exists.
The application also notes that two fire hydrants are within 150 feet of the property, one
on the property at the corner of Second and Hargadine and the other on the adjacent tax
lot at the corner of Second Street and Enders Alley. The applicants indicate that these
hydrants have adequate pressure available to serve the building, and note that at the time
of the building permit submittal all fire code requirements shall be addressed including
provisions for a Fire Department connection along the front of the building.
Conditions of approval have been recommended below to require that the applicants
provide final electrical service, utility, stormwater drainage and erosion control plans for
the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric and Public
Works/Engineering Departments in conjunction with their building permit application.
Paved access to the property is from Second Street, which is considered a Neighborhood
Street in Ashland's Transportation System Plan (TSP). Second Street is currently paved
along the property's frontage, with curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place. The
property also fronts on Hargadine Street to the south, a Neighborhood Street as well.
Hargadine is paved with curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place along the property
frontage. There are paved alley's along the properties' north and west frontages, with
Enders Alley running between First and Second Streets to the north of the Heritage
House, and an un-named alley running along the west side of the properties between
Enders Alley and Hargadine Street.
B. Conditional Use Permit
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 7 of 15
t
The applicants explain that the subject property already operates under a Conditional Use
Permit within the C-1-1) zone as a Hotel/Motel, and been in operation since 1983.
The Electric Department has indicated that a service upgrade may be desirable to service
the addition. The application materials provided note than an electrical service plan will
be developed in consultation with the city's Electric Department to ensure both that
adequate facilities are provided and that any aesthetic impacts are minimized. All
electrical services are proposed to be provided from Second Street where the current
service exists.
The application also notes that two fire hydrants are within 150 feet of the property, one
on the property at the corner of Second and Hargadine and the other on the adjacent tax
lot at the corner of Second Street and Enders Alley. The applicants indicate that these
hydrants have adequate pressure available to serve the building, and note that at the time
of the building permit submittal all fire code requirements shall be addressed including
provisions for a Fire Department connection along the front of the building.
The applicants emphasize that the proposal has been designed to limit the impact of the
increase in bulk and is well within an appropriate scale to the building and site. They
note that the existing building is an historic contributing resource within the local historic
district and that the additions have been designed to be architecturally compatible.
The additions proposed are intended to enhance the facility, the guest experience and the
working environment with minimal impact on the neighborhood, and don't involve any
increase in the number of guest units. The application explains that most of the visual
impact of the changes will be oriented to the rear of the site along the alley, and that
bordering this alley are the backs of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's new rehearsal
center and the Oregon Cabaret Theater building. The application suggests that there will
be little or no impediment to neighboring views.
The application suggests that the proposal will result in no discernible increases in
environmental impacts including those related to air quality, dust, odors or other
pollutants. The addition, with the exception of the bar, will not result in any increase in
noise, light or glare. The applicants emphasize that while the bar has a primarily glass
facade, its placement on the site relative to the existing buildings and streetscape, the
existing landscaping, and the natural topography of the site will prevent any resultant
light or glare from being distracting. The applicants further assert that the addition will
result in an overall reduction in noise by reducing the available outside seating and
shifting seats indoors.
The application further emphasizes that at this time, no additional guest suites are being
added so there should be no additional impact in terms of parking or traffic. The
improvements will allow additional seating capacity in the restaurant and bar, but they
are noted as serving primarily guests of the Inn or others who arrive on foot from
elsewhere in the downtown.
The application concludes that the conservatory style bar will be a unique and exciting
addition to the Inn and to Ashland's downtown.
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Winchester Inn Page 8 of 15
C. Exception to Street Standards
The applicants suggest that it would not be desirable to remove the existing, established
significant trees in order to create a parkrow to plant trees as this would be counter-
productive and they suggest that maintaining the current sidewalk condition would be
more in keeping with the purpose and intent of the street standards and would not
diminish the safety or effectiveness of the existing facilities. In staff's view, the site's
topography could also be found to pose a demonstrable difficulty in widening the
sidewalks to meet current standards.
D. Tree Removal Permit
The application proposes the removal of two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree located
within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter Birch tree within
the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house. Within the C-1-1) zoning
district, any removal of trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or more
requires a Tree Removal Permit. The application notes that there are many mature trees
on the site, and that the removal of the two trees proposed will not change the overall tree
canopy coverage of the site nor will it have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, adjacent trees or existing windbreaks.
Tree protection details have been noted on the Tree Removal and Protection Plan (L2)
provided, however the proposed new bar addition extends into the tree protection zone
fencing shown and there is no arborist report speaking to the ability of the trees to be
retained to tolerate the proposed disturbances in or near their root zones. Conditions have
accordingly been recommended below to require an arborist report assessing the
conditions of the trees and their abilities to accommodate the proposed construction; a
revised Tree Protection Plan detailing revised tree protection necessary during
construction; and that a Tree Verification inspection to verify identification of the trees to
be removed and installation of fencing for trees to be protected occur prior to any tree
removal or site disturbance.
The Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the application as this report is being
prepared. A condition of approval has been recommended below to require that the
recommendations of the Tree Commission be made conditions of approval, where
consistent with applicable standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 15.5.2.050 as follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying
zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,
density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public
Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Winchester Inn Page 9 of 15
t
drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve
exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in
either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially
negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the
minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the
Site Development and Design Standards.
The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in 18.5.4.050.A as follows:
1. 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.
2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to
and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject
property.
3. 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, pursuant with subsection
18.5.4.050,A.5, below. 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.
a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass
transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
C. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this
ordinance.
5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of
this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density
permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted
by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
C. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density
permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses,
developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and
within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all
ordinance requirements.
e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses,
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 10 of 15
developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements.
f. E-1, The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at
an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the
Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements.
g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18,3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at
an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements,
i. CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District,
developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements.
k. CM-NC, The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an
intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
1. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5
North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
i
The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.5.1 as
follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering
the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling
along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18.4.6.040.A.
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a "Tree That is Not a Hazard" are
described in AMC 18.5.7.040.5.2 as follows:
A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions.
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not
limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall
G
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 11 of 15
grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone.
4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs
that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
the other provisions of this ordinance.
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit,
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
i
The application requests Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to
allow 3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, a new laundry
room, two new second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the
existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas. Also included are requests for Tree
Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree located within the
footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter Birch tree within the
footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and an Exception to the Street
Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the property.
In staff's assessment, the proposal can be found to be in keeping with the applicable
criteria and standards for approval. The existing building is of a residential style in
keeping with its original, historic use, and has been restored and maintained by the
applicants and in continuous hotel/motel use since the mid 1980's. It is well-suited to its
location at the transition between the downtown core and the residential neighborhood
just across Hargadine Street, and the additions proposed have been thoughtfully designed
and placed to respect the historic character of the existing building and to not detract
from its relationship to the streetscape or surrounding neighborhood. Staff is supportive
of the request, and recommends approval with the conditions detailed below:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise specifically modified herein.
2) 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 this Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Historic Commission from their
September 2, 2015 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and
standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of
approval unless otherwise modified herein.
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 12 of 15
4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their September
3, 2015 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards
and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval
unless otherwise modified herein.
5) That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All
signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7).
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the bar addition, the applicants
shall provide evidence of lot consolidation or otherwise address the building code
prohibition on construction over a property line.
i
7) That the roofing of the west addition shall not utilize wood shingles, which are to
be avoided in the Historic District Development Standards. The final roofing
material treatment shall be detailed in the building permit submittals for the
review and approval of the Staff Advisor and Historic Commission's Review
Board.
8) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or
private utility easements.
b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the
review and approval of the Staff Advisor and Historic Commission
Review Board. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in
accordance with the requirements of the Detailed Site Review Standards,
and the colors and materials selected shall be consistent with those
approved with the application.
C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be
directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent
proprieties.
d) Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided
for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit
submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) The recommendations of
the Tree Commission from their September 3, 2015 meeting where
consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval
by the Staff Advisor; 2) An arborist's report assessing the conditions of
the trees within the area of disturbance and their abilities to accommodate
the proposed construction, and a Tree Protection Plan detailing revised
tree protection zones and any additional measures or recommendations
necessary during construction; and 3) required size and species specific
replacement planting details and associated irrigation plan modifications,
including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers
and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications.
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Repoa.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 13 of 15
e) A stormwater drainage plan, including any necessary on-site detention
measures for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and
Planning Departments with the building permit submittal.
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall
include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in
and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and
meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins. Cabinets, vaults and Fire Department
Connections shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks
and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary
service upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at applicant's
expense,
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including any
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must
be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and
Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or
building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in
areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
6) That prior to the issuance of the building, the commencement of site work or
storage of materials:
a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures
installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff
Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of trees to
be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to
be retained and protected on and adjacent to the site. Tree protection
measures shall be in the form of chain link fencing six feet tall, installed
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of AMC
18.4.5.030.C.
7) That prior to the final approval of the project and issuance of a certificate of
occupancy:
a) That all hardscaping, landscaping and the irrigation system shall be
installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the
Staff Advisor.
b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed
according to Electric, Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments'
specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
C) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved
addressing, fire hydrant clearance and provisions for a "Knox Box" key
box shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire Department requirements shall
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Winchester Inn Page 14 of 15
be included in the building permit documents. Mote: If this project takes
place during fire season restrictions and is on lands within 118 of a mile of
Oregon Department of Forestrypotected lands, the applicants are
subject to ODF fire restrictions and will need to check construction
restrictions at - orn or call (541) 664-3328).
e) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
Planning Action PA #2015-01496 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Winchester Inn Page 15 of 15
Y
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
September 3, 2015
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01496
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 South Second Street
O ER/APPLICANT: MPM Investments
AGENT: Kistler, Small & White, Architects
DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design
Review approvals to allow 3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new
bar, laundry room, two new second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of
the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas for the Winchester Inn located at 35
S. Second St. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six-
inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an e i g h t -
i n c h d i a in eter Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house;
and Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalks
along the perimeter of the property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 09BD; TAX LOTS: 5600-5700
The Tree Commission recommends approval of the request to remove two trees, the. six-inch
diameter at breast height Plum tree and the eight-inch diameter at breast height Birch tree, that
are within the proposed addition's footprint. The Tree Commission supports the conditions
proposed by Staff.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5350 CITY F
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 i-
www.ashland.or.us
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Planning Application Review
September 2, 2015
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01496
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 South Second Street
APPLICANT: Kistler, Small, & White, Architects
OWNER: MPM Investments
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review
approval to allow 3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry
room, two (2) new second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing
kitchen into bussing and storage areas for the Winchester Inn located at 35 South Second
Street. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits to remove two (2) trees: a six (6)
inch diameter Plum Tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight (8)
inch diameter Birch Tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and
Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter
of the property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 5600-5700
Recommendation:
i;
The Historic Commission recommends approving the application as submitted.
f
Department of Community Development Tel: 541A88-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050 l
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 c
w.ashland.or.us J
NPS Form 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register ® Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section Number: 7 Page: 75 Ashland Downtown Historic District, Ashland, OR
directories.49 The Recreation Center provided bowling, billiards and a fountain according
to period advertisements. By 1964 the building housed the Ashland Honda Motorcycle
company and the recreation use continued as "Ashland Skateway," managed by John
Grubb. In the 1970s and early 1980s the building was used as a arts school, prior to its
purchase by the Oregon Shakespearean Festival Association,. which remodeled the building
to its current use as that organization's scene shop.
Although compromised by the construction of a large, exposed, standing seam metal roof
during conversion to the present use, the basic industrial character of the Lithia Springs
Garage remains in its stucco exterior, multi-paned windows and massive volume. The
Lithia Springs Garage retains sufficient integrity to relate its historic character during the
period of significance.
ID;r# 84.0 survey #321
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 1911
241 HARGADINE ST 391E09BD 5300
Architect: Clark, Frank Chamberlain [Attributed] Builder: Sheldon, Miles M.
Historic Period: California Mission Primary Contributing [NR-Listed]
Possibly designed by noted southern Oregon architect Frank Chamberlain Clark and built
by Miles Sheldon, the two-story stucco-clad First Baptist Church was dedicated in
September 1911 and remained in use by the Baptist congregation until 1970, following
construction of a new building.
Sold to a private owner, the building was repainted in what according to local legend was
intended to be a reddish-brown consistent with adobe and the building's Spanish-
influenced style but instead was a fairly bright pink. Long known as "the old pink church,"
the structure fell in serious decay after the bankruptcy of a an owner who intended to use
it as a conference facility in conjunction with the Lithia Springs [Mark Antony] Hotel.
Vandalized, missing its original stained glass windows, and in very poor condition, the
building was individually listed on the National Register in 1978. The present owner
acquired the property in 1980 via a bankruptcy sale and after a Certified Rehabilitation
program reopened the church as a dinner theater under the name "Oregon Cabaret
Theater," which remains the present use of the building with a related restaurant facility
occupying the daylight basement.
ID# 85.0 survey #322
ENDERS H.G. HOUSE 1596
31 SECOND ST N 391E09BD 5500
Eclectic Styles: Queen Anne Primary Contributing
- - Originally constructed at the SE corner of East Main and Second Street in 1896 for area
pioneer Jesse McCall, in 1907 the 'Henry G. Enders House was purchased by that
49 See Tidings, 12-April-1947, 1:3 for the report on Safeway's changed plans.
IMPS Form 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section Number: 7 Page: 76 Ashland Downtown Historic District, Ashland, OR
prominent Ashland businessman developer of the Enders Block that lines the south side of
Main Street between First and Second streets. (See ID's 81.0-82.100) It remained the
family home until 1920 when the corner parcel was leased to Signal Oil Company and the
house was moved by log and team to its present location.
As originally built, the Enders House boasted a multi-form upper story, matching the
Queen Anne style of the lower volume. During the 1920s, following a fire, the building
was re-roofed with a simple low-pitched gable roof that substantially detracted from its
ability to relate the original design. In 1994, in connection to the conversion to the present
bed and breakfast usage, the upper story was rebuilt by North Pacific Construction, re-
establishing the exterior character of the 1896 structure. At the same time a new, semi-
detached, two-story volume was built to the rear, accessed via Enders Alley that lines the
building's northern elevation. (Ashland Planning Action 94-044)
r
While partially rebuilt, the accurate restoration of the building's original exterior
appearance successfully relates its character following the 1920 move to this site. The
Henry G. Enders House, associated with a prominent Ashland businessman, retains high
integrity and effectively relates its historic period of development.
1D# 86.0 Survey #323
ROPER FORDYCE AND .IULIA HOUSE 1886
35 SECOND ST S 391E09BD 5600
Builder: Ayers, C. W.
Eclectic Styles: Stick/Eastlake Primary Contributing [NR-Listed)
The Fordyce and Julia Roper house was built in 1886 and originally stood on East Main
street. Sold by the Roper family in 1899, in 1907 the house was renovated for use as a
sanitarium, one of Ashland's early medical facilities. Two years later, in 1909, the building
burned and was seriously damaged. In 1910 it was moved to its present location and after
rebuilding remained in use as the Ashland Sanitarium until 1923. Long a boarding house,
the Roper House was individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places in
1985, in conjunction with its restoration and conversion to the present Bed and Breakfast
use. Ashland contractor Rod Reid was responsible for the original renovation. An
accessory building, designed in compatible fashion, was built on the site by Daryl Boldt,
North Pacific Construction, in the early 1990s.
1D# 87.0 Survey #324
FRIDEGER I.R. HOUSE 1910c
36 SECOND ST N 391E09BD 5900
Arts & Crafts: Craftsman Primary Contributing
- - - This large two-story wood-frame dwelling was built prior to 1911, possibly for Edith G.
Porter. Perhaps moved to this location, in 1919 the dwelling was purchased by Ike R.
Fridegar, proprietor of a longtime Ashland grocery store. Fridegar lived here and retained
Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 - 1 T Y -
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
PLANNING ACTION: 2015-01496
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 South Second Street
OWNER: MPM Investments
APPLICANT: Kistler, Small & White, Architects
DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to allow 3,051 square feet of additions
including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry room, two new second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing
kitchen into bussing and storage areas for the Winchester Inn located at 35 S. Second St. Also included are requests for Tree
Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an
eight-inch diameter Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and Exception to the Street Standards
to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 5600-5700.
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: `75
.v
PA #2015-01,1916 i 35 S. SECOND ST \
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
i
Q; A
~P
e
,f
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 j
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.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building
and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as
provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18,4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to
the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or
unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact
adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the
exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or
better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.5.4.050.A. Approval Criteria
A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions.
1. 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.
2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
3. 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, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below, 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.
a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage,
b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare,
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each
zone are as follows.
a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for
Residential Zones.
b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential
Zones.
c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 1825 Standards for
Residential Zones.
d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area
ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor
to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with
all ordinance requirements.
Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2015TA-2015-01496.docx
g. M-1. The general light industrial usF ted in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Usr omplying with all ordinance requirements.
h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uzes listed in chapter 183.2 Croman Mill District, deve,uped at an intensity of 0,50 gross floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
i. CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area,
complying with all ordinance requirements,
k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
1. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 183.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3,6
Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE UNIFIED LAND USE ORDINANCE
18.5.7.040.B Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit
D. Tx
1. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or
can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a, The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure
persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot
reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tt-- e W n 14na A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.10.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property, The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.B.1. Exception to the Street Design Standards, The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street
Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience,
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with
vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty,
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040,A.
Wcomm-dev\ptanning\Planning Actions\Noticing Polder\Mailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-01496.doca
T3 •Il a ~3 5'3 U' Vii] 1 J
_ f1:t1i] U~
'lick ~ • r : ~i~tail it ' ~ `&1~
' 'ELI r' e • - _ 3 4~
- r
r
,
e E~
` E
t p,~
' "~9I~1P 11
_ ~ e 3
E'
. u d ¢ ^cF d - a
4340,-
4 2M
, s a
r:
t •
4'Dr,-
mo too 420
t.
a
t ,
E
k
{1ik~ E
x, 53'i} i} - 3 D 1~ k X11} : .L a ~1~ t'
6,101
6
741 +`a
fim
h . r 63 'a {k
1:~, ~~iri31J 4hr~ 5:i ~ Jr .•y
T ii N a,.,
mill "rtl } i i~~l ll
t 62M 9, j i
e r U 510 L
Ala-a AV
~H~} 1? IC Ica 1(
! 1~ N 13~3~i1~
t g
I.PI
CF~
15'Saflil, 1-371 t R `3
ism
11
14 '1 SIlD
t ~i l r it ll'~ii' 6 `
g• n
' d ii 1 I ,1 I NO
~I:1} t 1AE sg 4.1 ill a a. "
1la Av,
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On August 26, 2015 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 #2015-001496, 35 S Second St.
Signature of Employee
Documents 8/26/2015
E
I
i
PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 5300 ! PA-2015-01496 391E09BC 5900 PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 90007
ASHLAND HISTORIC PROPERTY LLC BUFFINGTON JANE N BURNS E SHEILA TRUSTEE ET AL
437 WILEY ST 1800 SE 10TH AVE SUITE 400 275 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 i FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316iASHLAND, OR 97520
,I
PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 16100 PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 16300 IPA-2015-01496 391E09BD 90001
DEBOER SHARON R TRUSTEE ET AL ( DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE DRESCHER ALLEN G TRUSTEE ET AL
2640 E BARNETT RD E-130 725 ROYAL AVE !PO BOX 760
MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 6000 PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 6100 PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 16500
FITCH JAMES ET AL GOLDEN-FIELDS PROPERTY HARMS ELISA R
181 VIA TRINITA 845 OAK ST 244 HARGADINE ST
APTOS, CA 95003 ASHLAND, OR 97520 'ASHLAND, OR 97520
lid
PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 6101 PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 9700 I iPA-2015-01496 391E09BD 6300
HOBI ROBERT H HOLT REBECCA L MATTHEWS ROBERT/SANDRA
1810 NE STEPHENS 4 BEACH AVE j 3088 LAZY CREEK DR
ROSEBURG, OR 97470 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ' MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 5500 PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 4600 IPA-2015-01496 391E09BD 15900
MPM INVESTMENTS, LLC NEUMAN PROPERTIES & DEV LLC I NIEBEL ELENA C
35 S SECOND ST 953 EMIGRANT CREED RD 1332 HARGADINE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 16000 PA-2015-01496 391E09BC 6201 'PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 5800
OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL PILOT ROCK PEAK LLC
15 S PIONEER ST PO BOX 158 14618 TYLER FOOT RD BOX 114
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ;NEVADA CITY, CA 95959
ji
I
PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 4700 PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 6500 !PA-2015-01496 391E09BD 9600
SAVAGE K LYNN/ORELL GAIL E j SOUTH RUTH E TRUSTEE FBO f STOBER MARJORIE C
2773 BUSH ST 7831 SE STARK 103 348 HARGADINE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 ( PORTLAND, OR 97215 j ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01496391E09BD 4900 PA-2015-01496
TEITELBAUM JULI F TRUSTEE ET AL KISTLER, SMALL & WHITE ARCHITECTS
237 ALMOND ST 66 WATER STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND, OR 97520
I
I i
zp -
- _ waoom,xo~Exooxx~,o„A.ax~xxo
a
0
e
e
9
e~ __x n ED
O
E
ox
boNORTH ELEVATION s.,
s
z
O
/ zo
z N
W Z
Lu O
- W J N
W
B_
- UO j
} z 1E O
LIJ
5 M
aev slorvs
_ 11
E
xEwuutiluno,rocovnnoows EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
EAST ELEVATION - SECOND ST. u.,'e 3
E - - - -
_ - J
_ naxcnxcwora„ro wrcn~ms xo - _ I ~
„ono.x nsitaooxNCromnroxrusnxc- / fl
c i
r\
s x~,n,nM~Nnwn~~,xoow= ~ _ I -
o „xxwoxmM.nMn,~x~zrx~
P w~,aP=oxarx~r~xExs,x~ -
I I II II
xrwwonown,ta,na~r~Mnr~x I - _
m E~srx~ -
o x oaxrxMronnr xWSrx~~❑- n
T7rrm
E -
--r- 11 1 11 1111 Al Hl 11 1111 11
- e.EOF ~a.arvra. _ _ _ - 0 1 ]0 z
nnx~, o
_ x E~sE w
~orvoa~rerxE~us>o:rons< o
- 5
SOUTH ELEVATION - HARGADINE ST. a
~ z
0
~sxrva a orNa,o, r x~snrvr, In
w
u,
~ .Ew~x,EENO,x,,,.nMnr~,E~axxa z °a
z
Xo z
w¢ o
- ww,.n6lnra,MrrxFaa,xa ~ w
ww n
VO 0
Ioo ax6,o,~.nrG, sn 0
o
~ - - I I- Ews,nNaxas~,,.,Ern~a~w ZL w N
a
_ Fr
g xexsrnumuxn,cauMrv- rwsrirvoa - vnrxwooom~urounru~tne,ixe EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
g - _ _ _ x~wcorvcxt,Eaa.r
WEST ELEVATION - ALLEY
F wa, ~ a
!~k~ ~r woas~a~Ea~aFlrva o a~~~s.rv~ Er
o
m ,
- ~ w~aa~aaxa.a,U,~a~~rv
o
s i
I rvFww,a~,a~avrownxam.a
L - J w. „a ,a,,.o,.,aaaE mrva
q
m
a ~
z
I
0
- 5
i oomNORTH ELEVATION
a
s
z
P ~ O
❑ w
Z ❑ ❑
rvswsrarvoixa, wr,ua.uaoot - - z z
W Q 0
s N : ~J y
00
_ zL o
w
_ _ W ❑
III I _ ~LU
A M
- , ~ REVsIoNs
- t- - _ EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
_ rvavoox,,aeiEan~ ann " o x a e ,e UT-
MUED- 0.074b
EAST ELEVATION SECOND ST.
T,46D 2(0
g i
_ I
m Ws,rv~ - I - _
~,AM,aM, „E s,rv H ~ZInnnnn 7 r.-
rv~.~~rvro~orvrv~o„
o 11 ~ I I, _
I IA
p _
„orv
rvEw ~RE9A
- rvEw~,~» ~ao~~~rvoow= ~
- o
0
a ata~~,~rv
ea~~~Em~u~sroneut zz
F 5 '
SOUTH ELEVATION - HARGADINE ST.
- - -
_ z
i o
z
~z z
W Q U
LLI
a ~ - rvEw, s
e i
a
m
f ~F' - - rvwrvo rv~sUM ~a~ ~sTrv~ Z W O
n
w a
E ( _ rvr,w 1
a
E „
e
XTERIO
„Mrvnrv P - mPoOOO,aMTO„,o„,rv
- ELEVATIONS
- xeucarvrnFrEanaE
WEST ELEVATION - ALLEY
rwa~<o~.
n„woon a,..o, n~~..,n~ ~I
- _ ~ wR~w~.~Mro.w.<~E.s.n~
naW.n~nPO~.
NORTH ELEVATION
z
0
° w
z° ~
o
M
KZ z
s n.ws .n~,.~sr.,, M,u, xoo.- ~ ~ W N
e 2 ° F
00
L o
i aEmsioNs
,.moo - ~ ~
nwen ooowsoows - I EXTERIOR
~ - ~ t e ELEVATIONS
EAST ELEVATION - SECOND ST. o~~
g
x,wa~~,EExo.x, o~,.axasMe~__ - A«,
b rvxx~ooo.a„oM~~„,s,w~ '
wooouo=ox<,a~,~x~s.xo~. ' - xE,v=,<xo~~~,,,E.waa~
s anxx x,~a,>x.aM„,~x -
nxosm eu_ossrvsarsrv,av _ _ - _
O
W
0
SOUTH ELEVATION - HARGADINE ST.
a
zz
- ~ooos~x~FaxoF.a.o,a.,xE=nxo ~ w
0
a' z
wroo.a a,o u. x ,x w o Q 0
U
x~ooUP=,o ~.o.c„E.nxo UO 0 o
~Exawrvo F,ooaaw.cox. _ xw~,~xo xa~~„~a~aoo.
° v 4", •YI. j uJ U~
If F~! x~x,x ~os~xxF~a
Z - nswconcas,aeass EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
x vvLb I ELEVATION - ALLEY 11
w Es
♦ z
z
BAR ADDITION CLOSE PERSPECTIVE NORTH-WEST PERSPECTIVE
o u,
z❑ ~
t 1 ~z z
w¢ o
y ww w
O
z~ o
[if
`C .k
EXTERIOR
.5L~~`_ ! Y V' - ~ ! ELEVATIONS
-ET
PERSPECTIVE FROM INTERSECTION SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE 12
aA
g
z
4 - - 3
Rea ~i
_ }[roe rif z
LL] w
s ~ ~ . ~e~x• ; ~'.w - : M1"~ ~ ~ s~' ~ 'st ~ `~r~pi' y * RE~ISIONs
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
g E*.
BAR PATIO PERSPECTIVE 13
ki tl r + small whit
architects
August 5, 2015
llhfh~_slt~/ ~~_,llll
1 Ii OUI~QUC (IOfLI,.~~,'3r~~e*
Site Review
AUG 0 2015
1'ai ,aI-~r
kil r + small + white
architects
TAI'LE OF CONTENTS
1aable of cOnlenis
PROJECT INFORMATION 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5
FINDING OF FACT 7
DOWNTOWN HISTORIC: DISTRICT 7
DOWNTOWN ASHLAND 1 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 16
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION 13
OTHER ISSUES PER PRE---APPLICATION 20
UG 0 5 2015
IHF WINCHESTFR INN - REMODEL & ADDITION
AUGUST 5, 2015 {
Page 1 ;t
kistl r + small + white
architects
PR0Jf_CT INFORMATION
PLANNING ACTION:
The proposed project includes a new bar on the first floor, two (2) new second floor offices,
a new kitchen, a new laundry room and the remodel of the existing kitchen into the bussing
station and storage areas. The site will require a Type II Site Design Review because the
combined new square footage exceeds 2,500 square feet. The applicant will be requesting
a Conditional Use Permit for Hotel use within the C-1-D district, and an Exception to
Frontage Improvements
ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
OWNER: ARCHITECTS:
MPM Investments Kistler Small & White
35 Second Street 66 Water Street
Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
541.488.8200
LAND USE PLANNING: PROJECT LANDSCAPE:
Kistler, Small & White Kistler Small & White
66 Water Street 66 Water Street
Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
541.4883.8200 541.488.8200
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial-Downtown
ZONING DESIGNATION: C-1-D
ADDRESS: Winchester Inn, 35 South Second Street AUG 0 2015
MAP AND TAX LOT: 39 1e 0913D, Tax Lots 5600, 5700
ACREAGE: .32 Acres
CURRENT OCCUPANCY TYPE: R-1, B
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION
AU GUST 5, 2015
P a g e` 7PiYr
kitl r + small whit
architects
PROPOSED OCCUPANCY TYPE: R-1, A-2, B, S-2
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Type VB
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: Yes
EXISTING PARKING: Nineteen (19) on site. The additions do not require more parking to be
added, existing parking count to remain unchanged.
MAIN FACILITY SQUARE FOOTAGE:
Floor: Existing: Proposed: Total:
Basement 2,450 s.f. 360 s.f. 2,810 s.f.
First Floor 2,252 s.f. 1,601 s.f. 3,853 s.f.
Second Floor 1,962 s.f. 1,090 s.f. 3,052 s.f.
TOTAL 6,664 s.f. 3,051 s.f. 9,715 s.f.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
C-1-D, Commercial Downtown
Site Design & Use Standards, Chapter 18.4.2
Basic Site Review, Section 18.4.2.040
Historic District Design Standards, 18.4.2.050
Downtown Design Standards, 18.4.2.060
Conditional-Use for Hotel/Restaurant/Bar use in the C-1-1) district
Street Standard Exception, Chapter 18.4.6.040
Tree Preservation and Protection, Chapter 18.5.7
ADJACENT ZONING/USE
NORTH: C-1-D
EAST: C-1-D
AUG 0 5 2015
SOUTH: R2
WEST: C-1-D
SUBJECT SITE: C-1-1)
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION j
AUGUST 5, 2015
Page }J i~
{
kitl r + small + whit
architects
INTRODUCTION: The Winchester Inn was open in July of 1983 by Laurie and Michael Gibbs,
and ranks among Ashland's top Bed and Breakfasts, with nationally acclaimed restaurant and
award winning gardens. The applicant, MPM Investments, is requesting approval for a Site
Review to build a new bar, a new kitchen, two (2) offices, a laundry room, provided a new
accessible lift, new accessible entries and remodel the existing kitchen into a bussing station
and storage areas. These improvements will greatly improve the guest experience and improve
overall conditions and safety for the Inn's staff.
The site consists of two adjoining tax lots that will be consolidated into one to accommodate
the new addition.
A written narrative and finding of fact as well as a Site Plan and Building Elevations are
enclosed. This information is provided in the application materials and addresses the submittal
requirements of Chapter 18.3.9
ADDITIONS: There are two proposed additions, the bar addition to the south and the kitchen
addition to the west. The "west" addition would include a new kitchen, laundry room and
offices and provide cover for the existing parking at ground level. This addition will extend to
the westerly property line with a two (2) foot setback. The second addition, to the south, is a
bar adjoining Alchemy. The proposed total additional square footage is 3,051 s.f.. The
additions are the style of the existing Victorian and designed to look as cohesive as possible.
SOUTH ADDITION:
NEW BAR: The proposed +/-360 s.f. bar is designed as a Victorian Conservatory. It is to
be located to the south side of the existing main building adjacent to the existing dining
area. The new addition will be physically attached to the main building with stairs and
an accessible lift connecting the two levels. The bar will include an outdoor patio area
located to the east of the new bar, interior seating for roughly twenty (20), a bar seating
roughly five (5) and a serving area for preparing drinks.
WEST ADDITION:
KITCHEN: The new kitchen will occupy the first floor of the new addition proposed for
the west side of the main facility. The new kitchen will replace the outdated, inefficient
and undersized existing kitchen. It will be a full service kitchen including, but not
limited, to a new walk-in cooler, range hood, grille, range, dishwashing equipment and
storage. The kitchen will vastly improve the service provided to customers and safety of
THE VVINGHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION AUG 0 2015
AUGUST 5, 2015
P a g e
kistl r mall + whit
architects
those working in the kitchen. The proposed new square footage for the kitchen is
869 s.f.
NEW LAUNDRY ROOM: The proposed new laundry room will replace the existing one
located in the basement. The new laundry room will be located at the current grade
elevation and below the new kitchen. The proposed new square footage is 193 s.f.
NEW OFFICES: The two (2) new offices will be part of the new addition above the new
kitchen. It is hoped, at some future time, these offices may be converted into suites.
The applicant understands that all the additional conditions of the conversion would
have to comply with code at that time. In the mean time, the applicant have off-site
offices that can be moved on-site.
REMODEL: The remodeled area consists of converting the existing kitchen into a new bus
station and storage. Remodel of existing laundry room will create a new accessible route to the
basement utilizing the accessible lift.
AU 0 =5 2015
THE WINCHES R' INN REMODEL & ADDITION
AUGUST 5, 201.5] wt
Page 1 6 ~,i~~?
kitl r + small + white
architects
FINDING OF FACT
The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff,
Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the
required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the Site
Design & Use Standards as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), 18.4.2, Site Design
& Use Standards
For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline" form with
the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font.
Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of
fact are complete. Where appropriate numbering follows the sited AMC.
CI-iAPTPR 18.4.2.040 -.060, DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
18.4.2.040.13 NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS:
1. Orientation and Scale:
a. The existing orientation faces the street and will not be altered. The existing
parking and vehicular circulation will not be altered.
b. The existing facade arrangement will not be altered
c. The existing building will not be altered and remains oriented towards 2nd
Street.
d. The existing setback at the front is already established and will not be altered.
e. The building entrance faces 2nd Street, the primary street
f. It is the intent of the Applicant to use the existing sidewalk.
g. N/A
2. Streetscape: The site has significant mature trees which are in compliance with the
streetscape standard of one tree per 30 ft. A Parkrow frontage improvement would be
undesirable because of the significant trees that exist on the site. The applicant is
requesting an exception, see page 16.
3. Buffering and Screening:
a. Existing mature landscaping buffers the site on 2nd Street and Hargadine Street.
The other two sides of the site are boarded by alleys.
G 0 & 2015
THE WINCHESTER INI,TI REMODEL & ADDITION
AUGUST 5, 2015
Page 7 r1i?t
r
kitl r + small + white
architects
b. Parking areas will remain unchanged and are buffered by existing landscaping
where boarding the residential zoned area to the South.
4. Building Material:
a. Building materials will be similar to the existing Inn including, wood siding, wood
trim and wood shingle roofing. The exception to the matching materials will be
in the bar addition which will have a metal roof, exposed concrete base and
wood windows with aluminum cladding. The overall building will not have glass
as a majority of the skin, but glass will be used to create a conservatory feel in
the bar addition.
b. The west addition will be painted to match the existing historic Inn.
18.4.2.050.13 HISTORIC DISTRICT/HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Transitional Areas: The location of the existing building may be considered occupying a
transitional zone between the downtown commercial area and the adjacent residential
area to the south of the site.
2. Height: The existing height of the building is unchanged.
3. Scale: The bar addition is located on the East face of the existing building. This addition
is set well back from the front of the building facing 2nd street, the existing main
entrance will remain prominent, also the new addition will be set back from the original
house bay window. In addition, it will provide a single story "step up" to the existing
two story building. The most impacted view is from Hargadine Street, which is at a
higher elevation, reducing the perceived scale. Larkspur cottage is between the new
construction and Hargadine, also reducing the impact of the new addition.
4. Massing: The massing of the building will continue to be appropriate to the existing
Victorian architecture, and smaller than the other commercial buildings in the
immediate neighborhood.
5. Setback: The setback of the existing building will not be altered.
6. Roof: The roof of the additions will be consistent with the existing building.
7. Rhythms of Openings: The rhythms of the primary facade will remain unchanged.
AUG 0 2015
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION <lal~f
AUGUST 5, 2015
Page f w1i~l;
kistlr + small + white
architects
8. Base of Platforms: The bar addition will have a base as desired by the historic design
standards.
9. Form: The form of the building will remain unchanged.
10. Entrances: The primary entrance will remain unchanged. Note; new handicapped
entrances will be added to the building at the bar and the kitchen additions.
11. Imitation of Historic Features: The applicants believe that it is important that the
addition be as cohesive as possible with the existing building. Architectural interest will
be added with the bar designed as a conservatory. The bar will complement the
existing Victorian but also be contemporary.
12. Additions: The additions have been placed as not to obscure the original facade.
13. Garage Placement: N/A
18.4.2.050.0 HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT/REHABILITATION STANDARDS OR EXISTING
BUILDINGS AND ADDITIONS:
1. Restore vs Remodel: N/A
2. Rehabilitation Standards:
a. Historic architectural styles: The addition has been designed by Kistler, Small &
White. It has been designed to closely match the existing building for a cohesive
overall style without creating a trite mimic of the historic period.
b. Original architectural features: When the applicants purchased the building in
1983 they took great pains to restore the house to historical integrity. It is
equally important to them with this addition and the addition will include
important upgrades to the kitchen and laundry facility.
c. Replacement finishes: The kitchen addition exterior finishes will be consistent
with the historic building.
d. Diagonal and vertical siding: Vertical siding will be used at the bar providing a
more contemporary appearance.
e. Exterior wall colors: Exterior wall colors on the new "west" addition will match
those of the historic building, The bar addition will have new colors that will give
AUG 2019
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADD1110N
AUGUST5, 2015 1-3d'f~r
F> a g e 9
kit) r small + white
architects
this addition a more modern feel and designation its use as different.
f. Imitative materials: N/A
g. Replacement windows: Windows in the new additions shall be compatible in
proportion, shape and size, with the exception of the bar addition, where the
windows will be specific to the "conservatory" feature.
h. Reconstructed Roofs: The roofs on the west addition will match the pitch and
form of the historic building. The roof on the bar addition will be at a different
height and pitch.
L Asphalt or composition shingle roofs: For cohesiveness, the roof will be wood
shingle as with the historic building. The bar addition will have a metal roof
appropriate to a conservatory or natatorium.
j. New porches: N/A
k. New detached buildings: N/A
1. Standards for Rehabilitation: N/A
1
AU 2015
THE WINCHESTER INN R1100DEL & ADDITION1 ~F3 1_
AUGUST 5, 2015
?[1i'
Paae
kisl r + small whit
architects
18.4.2.060.C DOWNTOWN ASHLAND/DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Height: The height of the additions will be slightly dissimilar to the original building to
maintain the traditional staggered streetscape.
2. Setback:
a. The original setback will not be changed.
b. Primary entry will not be changed.
c. N/A
3. Width:
a. N/A, the historic building is not in compliance with this design standard.
b. N/A
4. Openings: N/A; While in the Downtown area the Winchester Inn is a stand-alone
structure and has a residential style as opposed to a commercial building.
S. Horizontal Rhythms: N/A; The historic building is a stand-alone structure and has a
residential style as opposed to a commercial building.
6. Vertical Rhythms: N/A; The historic building is a commercial building structure and has
a residential style as opposed to a store front.
7. Roof Forms: N/A; The historic building is a stand-alone structure and has a residential
style as opposed to a commercial building.
8. Materials:
a. The exterior of the building additions will be painted wood with a concrete base.
b. The building will have Victorian features for visual interest.
9. Awnings:
a. N/A A 05 2015
b. N/A
c. N/A
i
10. Non-street or alley elevations:
a. The exterior of the building will be painted wood with a concrete base.
b. Visual integrity of the original building will be maintained.
c. N/A
THE WINCHESTER ITIN - REMODEL & ADDITION
,'ar_T~T Tc
AUGUST 5, 2015 3~~k
Page I 11
4 ,
t-
t t
kitl r + small + white
architects
d. The parking will remain unchanged.
e. The site has existing brick and stamped concrete pathways incorporated into the
mature landscaping.
f. N/A
11. Exceptions to Standards: Many of the Downtown Design Standards do not apply
because the Winchester Inn is not a "Store Front" commercial building.
05 2015
THE WINCHESTER INN - RIMODEL & ADDITION
AUGUST 5, 2015,E
P a g e 12 „~7~
kitl r small + white
architects
18.5.4.050.A Conditional Use Permit for Hotel uses within the C-1-D district.
The Winchester in has been operating as a hotel since 1983. The additions requested would
enhance the facility, guest experience and working environment with minimal impact on the
neighborhood. Most of the visual impact of changes are oriented toward the rear of the site on
an alley. The buildings bordering the alley are the back of the OSF and Oregon Cabaret
buildings, and therefore will have little or no impediment to the neighboring views. See photos
below.
'FM
' y
;TiZ
, i-0 Ali
Adjacent Buildings Across the Alley to the West
At this point no additional guest suites are being added so there should be no additional impact
on parking or traffic. The improvements will allow additional seating capacity in the
restaurant and bar but they will still serve primarily guest of the Inn or others that arrive by
walking. Also there will be handicapped access to the restaurant and bar that is not currently
available.
The applicant and architect believe the conservatory style bar will be a unique and exciting
addition to the Inn and to Ashland's downtown.
2015
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION
,AUGUST 5, 2015
f ~~pf 7t~ ;
P o g e 1 1 3
kistl r + small + white
architects
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.
1. 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 Conditional-Use is a permissible use in with C-1-D.
Hotel/Motel, as already permitted.
2. 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. An Electric Utility Plan will
be developed in consultation with the City's Electric Department, Dave Tygerson, to
ensure not only capacities can be accommodated, but to also minimize aesthetic impact
to the proposed building. All electrical services will be provided from Second Street
where the service currently exist. All electrical work will be completed under the
direction of the Ashland Electric and Building Departments. Further, all improvements
within the adjacent rights-of-way, including construction detouring, will be completed
under the direction of the Ashland Engineering Department
Applicants have addressed or will address at the time of the building permit all code
issues relating to the Ashland Fire Department, including an FDC valve along the front of
the building. Two fire hydrants are within 150' of the property boundary (on the
property, at the corner of 2nd and Hargadine, and on adjacent tax lot at the corner of
2nd Street and Endor's Alley) with adequate pressure to service the building. All work
will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Building and/or Fire Departments.
3. 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, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. 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: The site is already being used in this capacity.
a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. The proposal has been designed to limit
the impact of the increase of bulk and are well within the site and location scale.
THE WINCHESTER INN - RFMODEL & ADDITION UG 05 201 et tf-7 r'
AUGUST 5, 2015 fin~t iu
Page ~;ll~~
t
kistl r + small + whit
architects
b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of
capacity of facilities. In the applicant's opinion the proposed increase in the will
not have adverse material effect on traffic on the surrounding streets.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. The property is a Contributing
historical property and thus architecturally compatible.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants. The proposed conditional use permit will not have any discernible
increases of environmental impacts including those related to air quality,
including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The addition, with exception of the bar,
will not have any material increase of noise, light and glare. The bar, while
primarily a glass facade is set back on site, location, landscaping and natural
topography of the site will prevent any glare from being distracting. The bar
addition will result in an overall noise reduction by reducing the available outside
seating and increasing the inside seating.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed conditional use permit will not have any material effects on
the adjoining properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use. The applicants are not aware of any other factors that may be
found to be relevant by the hearing authority, but if there are factors found to
be relevant, the applicants would like the opportunity to clarify and answer
questions of the hearing authority prior to a final decision.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not
pursuant to this ordinance. Hotel/motel is an allowable use that is existing.
5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with
the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
a. - I. The proposal will be compliant with all applicable ordinances.
A ®5 M
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION
AUGUST 5, 2015
Pale ~ 1 > 7
kil r + small + whit
architects
18.4.6.040 Exception to Street Standards
Frontage Improvements: The applicants request an exception to the required frontage
improvement of a parkrow. In this case it would not be desirable to remove existing significant
trees in order to create the parkrow.
i
m
L ,
~t
gill it _ t_] J 7 . A ~ f ~ tF
1 f
r
t '4 a
2nd Street Hargadine
1. Exception to the Street Design Standards.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site of proposed use of the site.
The requirement to upgrade to a parkrow would be undesirable because of the
significant trees that would be removed making this requirement counter-
productive. See photos above.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and
connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
L For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort
level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with
vehicle cross traffic.
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION
AUGUST 5, 2015
Page 16
i
kistl r + small + white
architects
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e.,
comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
i, ii, ii There will be no diminishing effect to transit, safety for bicycles or
pedestrians.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The exception
would leave in place the current situation.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040 A. At this site, maintaining the current landscaping is more
aligned with the purpose and intent of the street standards, than requiring a
parkrow.
a
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDI LION
I.
AUGUST 5, 2015
Page 1 1 7
i
kit) r + small + whit
architects
THE PRFSERVAip10N AND I'ROT CTION
18.4.5 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
The applicants will request a tree removal permit for two (2) trees that are within the proposed
footprint of the new addition. There are many mature trees on the site and the removal of
these effected trees will not change the overall feel of tree coverage on the site.
h ~J3'3fI r,~
r~3 y
r
00
- - ewe
Overview of Site
Tree Protection Plan: A plan to identify and protect plan will be submitted. The plan will
included a survey of the Trees on site and measures that will be taken for their protection
during construction.
18.5.7.040.6 Tree Removal Permit
2. Tree That in Not a Hazard:
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards,
including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in
part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION =
AUGUST 5, 2015
Page I 1 8
{
kil r small whit
architects
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, floor of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks. The removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on
erosion, soil stability, surface waters, adjacent trees or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to
the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to
allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. The site has many mature
trees and removal of the subject trees will not significant negatively impact the
overall tree canopy. See photo above.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced
below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination,
the City may consider City of Ashland 5-59 Land Use Ordinance18.5.7 - Tree
Removal Permits alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the
alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. N/A
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL & ADDITION
AUGUST 5, 2015
Page 1 19 1 A?m
ti
kisl r + small + whit
architects
ADDITIONAL ISSU S FROM F'IsA[tlNING STAFF'S COIVIMINTS:
Property Line Issue: The tax lots will be consolidated in order to resolve the problem of the
addition crossing over a property line.
Landscaping: The site has mature park-like landscaping. The proposed plan will have minimal
impact on the existing gardens. The landscaping plan post-construction will be to replant any
areas that have been disturbed.
14
_ IIII I t.: r~
00
1 t'
AUG ~`i ltrJl F'~ ~I
k~ t ~ ) 1, ?I tr
~a 2015
Award Winning Gardens
Prepared and Respectfully Submitted by:
Leslie Gore, Planning Consultant Date
Kistler Small + White, Architect
THE WINCHESTER INN - REMODEL. & ADDITION -
AUGUSL 5, 2015
Page 1 20
- R2
HARGADINE STREET - -
€ I x~~x~ F.~o~.~, c
m e -
0 0
a e,oo
d
LEGEND'
p ex sr n'~e - ~ - vaawrvoro
ax
e aoEw L RI<,PIII.
,me C-I-D
~ rr. G E ~~r 2e ..oaN~h~
I I~ o
I
o
w I I
o Da 5
o u, rES-ea
II r,~IC~ , 1-._ / a
s
o c D I
U f a i
e W I r- ~ w
o w
/ of z Lu Q o
• v
a n "
U
- arc//u~ - ~J W
e - Eusxcsru
° III - x.ovEawx U7 lJJ EE
W~
xe'
s ~ J U F
Q =
O
/
alj Zw u~
rP.~ HER UE
HIJUSE F,JU.:E Q
~ntia ,mss sloNs
R~
m ' LOCATION ~
o ~ o
.~sao a ws.xaauwuo.o =
Nno,Em SITE ANALYSIS
m
,n MAP
x .,n n ssss
/ wE ENDER'S ALLEY N 1 ao
r _ SITE ANALYSIS MAP VICINITY MAP
- - R2 - - -
HARGADINE STREET
LEGEND:
s° - _ ~ I rawrva,a
en. E L P1: RJR B~ nu. m_ ❑ u
e
a.^Aa.w. ~ oar~u««
a =
L -T
o - Exsnx~vux r~,
a n
• e Ewsnxa~EE
~ I
e • ,rv.
~a«,orrvo
o
,l
77 m
o - «r,.~«~.,r« 0
y d a
W R
rv,s*o «
❑ I- Ifl ICS~ r l Q
° ' ~ ~ ~ III fIf-Il
v Z - L( )I SE
O C-1 _L) z
(4 ❑
- - i
uES«m, Z m
c
zQ
e
of 2!
I - as,rvs«a~~sa~ m LU ¢ o
rrv«rvrv~ o~ssNar ~
II
N 1 U) L w
s LL,
o
w
> Z2 o
a ,tea ws<~rv, _ w
- ~FRIT~,.F
110 hF II( ISE Q aev
P o E~ C
D
a
's
s„ I
- _ - - - - - - - ~ N~ ~ SITE PUN
N
~E ENDER'S ALLEY
SITE PLAN 2
C 1 D - - -
Ewsn~o
a
2i
T
B
ill - „a~~.~RaPO o
E
z
NORTH ELEVATION a
O
x _
\ W Z o
W
LU C)
Z2 0
Lli
g
n UL - RE~sIaNs
V
-moo = -
$ EXTERIOR
- - ELEVATIONS
EAST ELEVATION - SECOND ST. 3
~
,
cx
~,ocoaxxa,Exoar~~,o,M.ax.wsrxo ~ eex,xx
LL
a I -I 'I
s wcoo,>P,~„~ -
n~ox~rE.,N~.w
1I= L I
xE.,,.ooo, , _
o Ewmxa - - - ~ II~
~xx,.x.,ou„xxa~xo - F -PF
U
E LIJ
~I
I
a Axo E.., a,E xr, vrArrrvmv _ 0 _ z
O
a
~ xE. concxrrEOUE w
xEw~x,. a,,,o wooo~xxopx, O
_ coxau,r.AE„~sPOS, e~x o
g
SOUTH ELEVATION - HARGADINE ST. N
a
_O
- - .oox ax~x~,E acor~~o.oracx~mx~ ~ w
E D w
z rvaw~oe,e euo,aurtomnrwwwrva
- Z ~
W Q z
O
worn ~ U
EM - ~ J
s _
~ - Coco s,~~ U ~ o
m
a eEOOn o pox wy~~. - 1 ~E,~s Mr,N.x~,: LU
NEV,woc~.a,Ex T.a,E,o,a.~x
- ill IIII
Exs,x~
~
c,RA w x ,s,xaP 1= µr s o
EXTERIOR
NEII CO.uCPEiE056E ELEVATIONS
4ha,
WEST ELEVATION ALLEY
°A
a
3
TI
Sl uR ,,.T
- II
I I
hI]E
LF I'DRY
o
o
_ I L O
- 1 -i _ - L.~._ tsn
s
m
,
m
n
II Z
e
EXISTING O w
PARKING z Q
O
z ~Z z
lily F`I"~IG:G F UT!1G J.ISTiNG W Q O
CIJITE ITE ~l 'ATE ~J W
co
W w
e G I 2 O ~ ~I
U
I
a o
c '
m ,
I
i I
n
- - - _ - I REV I,
9 FIRST FLOOR
P_
N
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
e
, L I I I i ~ i
m
T, I
a
- ~LF- u
~ „aa
I 'I
s
I I
a l
~I~I _I rrrr n'(
l'.
-N(-,o ---.I--nr~ 1,-I-
¢ I
E ,T~
DID
a - _ z
0
J
- O
e J I
£ i 1
H,ti, I.
m 1
c I I ,
1
- - Do I' z
a
s NN
I z
E z°a
TNT 11111 ER
r. l rNC IRECEP ~O~I _ I- ❑
w r wz z
m I L~ w¢ o
i J W
ER
e - C TC_ LLI
I
-K E a C' LU V)
_ m
- l - - 1' REVISION
~,p~` p N 2 - is Cl
PIEN F
N
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
6
8 - _ - _ - - - - A[[i
oa
S... L.: -'.1
Ali v
m u
E, IS I I,
- ~ I
Z
g
O
O
~ I r
OFFiGE Wa
s
l ~ EIST N , O
e - SUITE o
ff 3
I _ 2
e
n
HYL o
z
~W
ow
E _ Zo
z
~ua~ FES*~~,~~r LU Q o
S )~TE w
EXISTIl,l~
W
~)F-I( .E
Ii
1, S
E W
0
Q o
a I -
L ~
N
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
7
= Z
I
o
i x
e
m a
m
I - I
m
~ - - z
z Q
- z cn
a - W Z Q
C0 J
W w
x
- v0 5
z g o
WU
- - ~ aooFainN
N
ROOF PLAN 1 ° T
6
onpEE•
Y
H
§ STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF
WOOD FASCIA
MEMBRANE ROOF MEMBRANE ROOF
0
WOOD FASCIA WOOD FASCIA
5
WOOD 2x4 T O
O
WOOD 2x2 ] SOFFIT AND COVE 0
O
WOOD T&G VERTICAL
z
WOOD RAFTERS SIDING =
~ N
a
WOOD BEAMS
- Z
g O
WOOD POSTS ~
NEW BAR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD O w
_ WINDOWS Z Q
ul
z
5 Z Q Z
O
Lu
w
co W u
2 o r
I b o
~
e Z W ON
3 ` w
CONCRETE BASE CONCRETE BASE CONCRETE BASE 5
FINISH GRADE - aEv
FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE
.1
i
WALL SECTIONS
E \\l (1
ECTN WALL SECTION
TRELLIS SECTION WALL S IO
~ e- ~ ^ ~ 9
a - - - - - - -
HARGADINE STREET
€ I
aEEr
0 oa
Tll
LEGEND:
L F'$Pl rarm. oro cx sr xa uinixa Eaux
TT 4GE R
- - ~ manxuwuu L
LLI ' I arvcorr I ~ nwa .,ru+~
- ~ aErnux aiau~ra~ra x. ac
~ 9 aaaara~~o wEEOr P.arf.,r..r~ 'w
x W- I
3
~ un.HFSF-a ~ w
a
❑ I1ous~ I I
Z xx,,ro aro
0 I z
0
U -
S
I W
I
W
o i f
- w
a ❑
U) ❑ w
E aor.rEaa.oa,x<a..,rE Q
- - - - ox
Z K
o.M Ora xa caxa,a~cn
m I I _ I^ ~ s Z_ m
I~ F Z o
s Eaarxo..~~aa~
nnw:xanccessuue ~ w
ww
r ❑ z
e s I _ _ 1
Qo S
c >w
R HH GF ( - .Gt Jw
>
d - SE H > ,',E Q REVIIINNI
li
aao~[cr saEn I caowx _woEO,
F.
~ rrr.
P I
EROSION
- ~ ~ N~ ~ CONTROL PLAN
- N
ENDER'S ALLEY
x EROSION CONTROL PLAN C1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HARGADINE STREET
€ I
~ o
_ ax
I ' ii ~ecetio_ L ,KSP2 rv I~ x~„ax.,.r. wrw ,xns~
CuTTAGE sr xn rvrv ~xo
s € C1D ~rA
~Ea xn n „E.rr ~s x
= xE a„ oxw,~EE,a ~ ~Pn~rv~
~ I _ _ _ _ s zro ausx vnr cxec:.
za,z u~o xor ro ezwswbrn
_ - nrv,s n,ro ZO
= Ur
W
W o
LLI
~ J"IIESTER - y
o ~
~P
CO II I I l l y„I.1 I Q
H 1I;~E 11 sro
e _ ~ ,a.~ aaw„rrr
Z w Z
g C)
-
W I, ~ w
- 7~r®III I------ zQ N
cc: I ~ Zo 0
Z
Q O
_ U
~ _ I- arwaxsaaaassax[ W ❑
r
)O S
o
zw
HERIT,I E ,I;,cE
H, U-E IF)l _E Q
aE~~
n„w
I -
c--_ Ewsr xnP~xarn
xE„o~x r
e
' / I xoam SITE PLAN
= N
ENDER'S ALLEY
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLAN Ll
- - - - - - -
HARGADINE STREET
0
x - _ _ _ ow
,a „oo
m
I ~ I
- z PTO aT.A
C eE
C_1_D
s
~aT~x~Taa~x~
I
0
s
- wNk NEOT I a~
- wTA ,o x < xa
eP,~~,TAEE
Eanxo,zo
w
a o ryT
g -I m 0
0
w wTw a 0
L 3
Il
I- d1,H-STEa
cn Ili G
I
° O O
U ~aeR TaEETOaE
~,M~oa,orv.oEO o w
x
z¢ N
A ~ ~ ~ _o z
- ~aTx~a~~o~ b w z o Hill o
w
- ~W
co W
LU N
s
_
r
1a- - wI zM o'
LLJ
HF&ITAG_ ',FRL,GE J a
IO J' IEv
vaaEaT Ta~~~T. a~~o~Tr~~.
A
e
sire auN
N
ENDER'S ALLEY
TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION PLAN L2
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
W
Planning Division
C I T Y Or 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE #
-ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? DYES IA NO
Street Address 35 South Second Street
Assessor's Map No. 391E 09BD Tax Lot(s) 5600, 5700
Zoning C-1 D Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name MPM Investments Phone 800-972-4991 E-Mail
Address 35 South Second Street City Ashland Zip a75?0
PROPERTY OWNER
Name MPM InvestmPnts Phone E-Mail
Address 35 South Second Street City Ashland Zip97520
SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title ArLWtect -Name Kistler, mall & White _ Phone 541-4gs-8200 _E-Mail _Matt&kistlersmallwhite corn
Address 66 Water Street City Ashland Zip 97520
Title _ ---Name _ Phone --E-Mail
Address City Zip _
l 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. /understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. l further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that l 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. Ifl have an dou ts, I m advised to seek competent professional advice andasstance
s
U
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, 1 have read and understood the complete application and its conseq ences to me as a property
owner
Property Owner's Signat a (required) Date
[To be competed by City StafQ
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER
Qkonun-dWplannin ffonns & Handouts\Zoning Pennit Application.doc
{
r
Job Address: 35 S SECOND ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
I
C
A Owner's Name: MPM INVESTMENTS C Phone:
P Customer 04942 N State Lic No:
~ T City Lic No:
P KISTLER SMALL & WHITE AIA
Applicant: 545 A ST R
I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 488-8200 T Address:
N Applied: 08/05/2015 O
T Issued: R
Expires: 02/01/2016 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Type 2 for comm site review, CUP, tree removal and exception.
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
Commercial Site Review (type2) 4,282.00 Conditional Use Permit Type 1 1,012.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
CITY Request Line: 541-552-2080 ® F -ASHLAND