HomeMy WebLinkAboutA_868_PA-2015-00203
CITY T
1
March 10, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-2015-02203
Subject Property: 868 A Street
Applicant: Mark Lackey
Owner: Harriet & Steve Saturen/Linda Millemann
Description: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a
second story addition to an existing non-conforming cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A
Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S
MAP: 39 lE 09AA; TAX LOT: 6800.
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 Mark Schexnayder in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Harriet & Steve Saturen/Linda. Millemann
Parties of record
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 \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 H decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who MU 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 II decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying
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 I
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
I8.5.1.060.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: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 I
www.ashland.or.us '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 II 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 ' l
i
I°;
t
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; i
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 II applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals,
pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
E
E:
j
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.asbland.or.us I '~l
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 8, 2016
I
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-02203, A REQUEST FOR A )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW TO ENLARGE )
A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED )
AT 868 A STREET. THE PROPOSAL IS TO ENLARGE THE DETACHED ) FINDINGS,
RESDIENTIAL UNIT LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BY ) CONCLUSIONS,
EXPANDING THE FIRST FLOOR AND ADDING A SECOND FLOOR. ) & ORDERS
i
APPLICANTS: Mark Lackey )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #6800 of Map 39 lE 09 AA is located at 868 A Street and is zoned E-1, Employment.
2) The hearing before the Planning Commission involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Design Review to enlarge a nonconforming structure by adding 120 square feet to the first floor and
a second floor of 528 square feet to the detached residential unit located at the rear of the property. The
proposal is outlined in the plans on file in the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in Ashland Municipal Code
(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
drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate
transportation-can and will be provided to the subject property. C
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.
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 1
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 j
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, 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.
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 2
i
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.
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.
8. 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
PA 92015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 3
h=
Standards.
i
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 9,
2016 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was 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.
G
i
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends
as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
'
G
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 "Y'
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design
Review meets all applicable criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A
and Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a request for a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Design Review to enlarge a nonconforming structure by adding 120 square feet to the
first floor and a second floor of 528 square feet to the detached residential unit located at the rear of the
property for the property located at 868 A Street. As proposed, the unit would be slightly more than
twice the current size, with a total size of 1,176 square feet. The detached residential unit located at the
rear of the property is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not comply with the rear
yard requirements of the Employment (E-1) zone.
The subject property is located at 868 A Street, is zoned E-1, and located within the Historic District, Detail
Site Review, and Residential overlays. The property is bounded by an alley to the south, employment-zoned
properties to the east and west, and A Street to the north. The area across the alley to the south is zoned
PA 92015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 4
i
Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The alley abutting the rear of the subject property is a 16-foot wide right-
of-way and the driving surface is approximately 13-feet in width. The subject property is 6,534 square feet
in size.
i
The subject property contains a primary residence that is oriented to A Street and a detached residential unit
located at the rear of the property. There are two parking spaces located at the rear of the property that are
accessed by the alley. The primary residence was constructed in 1906 and is listed as a "historic
contributing" structure on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition
Historic District. The existing historic residence was constructed as a one-story wood frame cottage in a
bungalow style.
The detached residential unit is a garage that was converted into a residential unit after receiving a
Conditional Use Permit approval in 1991 (PA 91-123). The square footage of this unit is approximately 528
square feet according to the application. According to the plans on file from the 1991 approval, the existing
structure is a one-story building that is 12 feet in height from grade to the peak of the roof.
The detached residential unit is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not comply with
the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone. The existing structure as well as the proposed two-story
addition is located four feet from the rear property line. The center line of the alley abutting the rear yard
of the property is the division between the E-1 zone and the R-2 zone to the south. As a result, the
current rear yard requirements for the E-1 zone require the first story of a building on the subject
property to be ten feet from the rear property line and the second story to be 20 feet from the rear
property line.
With the approved conversion of the garage to a residential unit, two off-street parking spaces were required
for the existing dwelling and one additional parking space was required for the detached residential unit for
a total of three vehicle parking spaces. The 1991 planning approval at that time noted that the three parking
spaces were provided off of the rear alley. The approved site plan shows two off-street spaces located on the
subject property and one off-street parking space on the neighboring property at 864 A Street.
The current application and site plan indicate there are two off-street parking spaces located at the rear of
the subject property. While not addressed in the application materials, the applicants' representative
indicated that the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A Street, which
in previous approvals was identified as seining the subject property, was not secured by an easement or any
other similar instrument.
The proposed expansion of the detached residential unit involves adding a second story of the same size
as the existing building footprint and a first story addition of 120 square feet on the north side of the
building towards A Street. A second story deck is proposed to be added above the new first story
addition. The north side of the building includes doors oriented towards A Street and a new walkway
that will connect the detached residential unit to the sidewalk on A Street. The structure will have a peak
height of 22 feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as
measured along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure
would have a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch. The existing structures ridge runs east/west, parallel to
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 5
I'
t
r.
the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a north/south direction, consistent with
the primary residence.
The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primacy
dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar reveal, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band,
comer boards, and "cottage" style double hung windows. The application indicates the structure will
require a new foundation and an eight-inch reveal.
The application proposes to provide two off-street parking spaces in the southwest corner of the property
and to use two on-street parking spaces adjacent to the property frontage on A Street.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the detached residential unit at the rear of the property is a
nonconforming structure because the building does not meet the rear yard requirement for the E-1 zone.
AMC 18.6.1.030 defines nonconforming structure as the following.
Nonconforming Structure. An existing structure that was created in conformance with
the zoning regulations but that subsequently, due to a change in the zone or the zoning
regulations, no longer conforms with the current applicable requirements of the zone in
which it is located. See also, chapter 18.1.4 Nonconforming Situations.
The existing detached residential unit is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not
comply with the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone. The existing structure is located approximately
four feet from the rear property line. A new structure in the E-l zone requires a rear yard of ten-foot !
setback per story where the site abuts a residential zone. The subject property is located in the E-1 zone
and the opposite side of the alley is in the R-2 zone. As a result, a new two story structure on the subject'
site would have to locate the first story at least ten feet from the rear property line and the second story
at least 20 feet from the rear property line.
In September 1991, the subject property received a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an
existing garage located at the rear of the property to a residential unit (PA 91-123). The footprint and
location of the garage were not changed in 1991 and the garage did not meet the rear yard requirements
of the E-1 zone at that time. The converted garage structure is the detached residential unit that is in
place today.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the development is nonconforming because more than 50
percent of the lot is used for residential purposes.
AMC 18.6.1.030 defines nonconforming use as follows.
Nonconforming Use. A use that was allowed by right when established or that
obtained a required land use approval when established, but that subsequently due to a
change in the zone or zoning regulations, the use or the amount of floor area of the use
is now prohibited in the zone. See also, chapter 18.1.4 Nonconforming Situations.
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 6
Single and multi-family dwellings are allowed in the E-1 zone and are therefore not considered a
nonconforming use. In the E-1 zone, single-family and multi-family dwellings are permitted at a density of
15 dwelling units per acre (AMC 18.2.3.130). The residential density of the subject property is 2.25
dwelling units. The property currently includes two residential units and the proposal maintains two
residential units.
While residential uses in the E-1 zone are allowed and therefore are not considered nonconforming uses,
the amount of a building or lot in the E-1 zone that can be used for residential uses is limited. AMC
18.2.3.130.13 specifies the amount of floor area or lot area that can be used for residential uses as
follows.
B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards:
1. If there is one building on a site, ground floorresidential uses shall occupy not
more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more
than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot
area shall be designated for residential uses.
The subject property is used entirely for residential uses and the proposal is to continue using 100
percent of the total lot area for residential uses. If the property were being newly developed with
multiple buildings under current regulations, up to 50 percent of the lot could be dedicated to residential
purposes.
In September 1991, the subject property received a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an
existing garage located at the rear of the property to a residential unit (PA 91-123). The footprint and
location of the garage were not changed in 1991 and the garage did not meet the rear yard requirements
of the E-1 zone at that time. The converted garage structure is the detached residential unit that is in
place today. As a result, the use of the entire lot area for residential uses was solidified with the 1991
Conditional Use Permit approval.
The use of 100 percent of the property for residential uses predates the adoption of the regulation of the
amount of residential uses in the C-1 and E-1 zones in AMC 18.2.3.130.B. In 1991 when the property
received a Conditional Use Permit to convert the garage to a residential unit, the land use ordinance
allowed C-1 and E-1 properties to be developed entirely in residential uses through the Conditional Use
Permit process. The regulation of the amount of residential uses in the C-1 and E-1 zones was put in
place by Ordinance 2688, which was approved on October 20, 1992.
The definition of nonconforming use in AMC 18.6.1.030 qualifies a nonconforming use as a use that
was allowed when it was established but under current code "the use or the amount of floor area of the
PA 92015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 7
use is now prohibited in the zone." In the case of residential uses in the E-1 zone, the amount allowed is
based on floor area if there is one building or lot area if there are multiple buildings.
The Planning Commission finds that the floor area in the definition of nonconforming use is meant to
address those cases where an amount of a use is regulated by the code and therefore is similar to the
intent of lot area for multiple buildings in AMC 18.2.3.130.B. As a result, the Planning Commission
finds the subject property as it exists today is a nonconforming use because of the amount of the lot area
that is used for residential purposes.
i
If for some reason this does not satisfy a future hearing authority, AMC 18.6.1.030 defines
nonconforming development as follows. The Planning Commission finds that the subject property could
be considered a nonconforming development because the lot area used for residential uses exceeds
current limitations.
Nonconforming Development An element of a development, such as lot area,
setback, height, lot coverage, landscaping, sidewalk, or parking area, or lack thereof,
that was created in conformance with development regulations but subsequently, due to
a change in the zone or applicable code standards, is no longer in conformance with the
current applicable development regulations. See also, chapter 18.1.4 Nonconforming
Situations.
According to previous planning actions on file with the City of Ashland, approximately 400 square feet or
16 percent of the total square footage of the primary residence was used for a hair salon from 1989 to 1998
(PA 89-146). Beginning in 1994, the property also had approval to rent hotel/motel units with first one unit,
then two units, and finally three rental units (PA 94-034, PA 96-044, PA 98-065). The hair salon was
removed in 1998 when the motel/hotel was increased from two to three rental units. According to City files,
the property owner lived on site in the primary residence in tandem with use of the property as a hair salon
and a motel/hotel. The original motel approval specified that the detached residential unit at the rear of the
property was used as motel unit during the summer months. In addition, there was testimony from a
neighboring property owner at the February 9, 2016 public hearing that the residential units were used for
long-term rental units throughout the subject property's history. Finally, the primary residence and detached
residential unit were built as residential structures and continued to retain residential character throughout
the history of the property. The Planning Commission finds the subject property including the residential
structures have been historically used for primarily residential purposes.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the changes to nonconforming structures, uses, and
developments may occur with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit application.
AMC 18.1.4.030.B outlines the process for altering nonconforming structures.
B. Planning Approval Required A nonconforming structure may be altered (i.e.,
reconstructed, enlarged, or modified) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 8
under chapter 18.5.4 and approval of required building permits, except that a
planning action is not required for exempt alterations described in subsection
18.1.4.030.A, above. A nonconforming structure maybe rebuilt pursuant to this
subsection, provided in a historic district the applicant must demonstrate that
restoration is not practicable.
AMC 18.6.1.030 defines reconstruct as follows.
Reconstruct To recreate or reassemble a structure or building with a new or
replacement structure that recreates or reproduces its form, shape, and location as
originally built.
AMC 18.1.4.020.13 outlines the process for altering nonconforming uses as follows.
B. Expansion of Nonconforming Use. Expansion of a nonconforming use shall not
exceed 50 percent of the building square footage. Expansion of a nonconforming
use requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4.
ES,
If the residential use of the property is considered a nonconforming use, then the square footage of both
dwelling units represents the square footage of the nonconforming use. There is 3,031 square feet of
building in the primary residence and the detached residential unit at the rear of the property is 528
square feet in size for a total of 3,559 square feet of building square footage for the nonconforming use.
The proposed expansion of the detached residential unit at the rear of the property includes the addition f
F
of 648 square feet of living space. The proposed expansion represents an 18 percent increase in the total
residential building square footage which is below the maximum of a 50 percent increase in the building
square footage.
The Planning Commission treated the subject property as a nonconforming use in making the decision.
However, as covered in section 2.5, the subject property could be considered a nonconforming
development. AMC Title 18 Land Use allows for the enlargement and alteration of nonconforming
developments in AMC 18.1.4.040.13 as follows.
B. Planning Approval Required. A nonconforming development may be enlarged
or altered subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4 and
approval of required building permits, except that a planning action is not required for
exempt alterations described in subsection 18.1.4.040.A, above, and for non-residential
development subject to subsection 18.4.2.040.8.6.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the historic
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 9
F
I
district overlay does not apply to the subject property because the property is located in the E-1 zone
rather than a residential zone. The issue was raised at the public hearing that the MPFA requirements
apply to the proposed development which is located in the E-1 zone.
The MPFA ordinance was adopted on September 23, 2003 by Ordinance 2901. The ordinance
established limits on maximum house sizes in the historic districts in Chapter 18.20 R-1 Single-Family
Residential, Chapter 18.24 R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District, and Chapter 18. 28
R-3 High Density Multiple-Family Residential District. As a result, the MPFA requirements applied to
the residential zones (i.e., R-1, R-2, and R-3) and were not applicable to the non-residential zones such
as E-1.
Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code was updated, reformatted, and reorganized in a multi-
year project during 2013 and 2014. The ordinance was replaced in total with the adoption of Ordinance
3105 on December 17, 2014. As part of the project, the individual chapters on the zoning districts were
eliminated and the base zones and allowed uses are now presented in Table 18.2.2.030 - Uses Allowed
by Zone. This table includes a column for "Special Use Standards." In the row for "Multi-Family
Dwelling", a note is included in the "Special Use Standards" column which says "Dwellings and
additions in Historic District Overlay, see Sec. 18.2.3.120 and 18.2.5.070." Section 18.2.5.070 is the
Maximum Permitted Residential Floor Area in the Historic District. Since multi-family dwellings are
listed as a use that is permitted with special use standards, the assertion at the hearing was that the
MPFA section is applicable to the project.
The Planning Commission finds that the legislative history of the MPFA requirements demonstrate that
MPFA was clearly intended to apply to residential zones. Additionally, the Planning Commission finds
that the notation in Table 18.2.2.030 is an unclear reference that is an oversight that occurred in
reorganization of the ordinance in 2014 and was not intended to apply the MPFA requirements to the
non-residential zones. Section 18.2.5.070 Maximum Permitted Residential Floor Area in the Historic
District is located in Chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. Chapter 18.2.5 Standards for
Residential Zones is intended to apply residential zones. In contrast, MPFA is not included in the
requirements in Chapter 18.2.6 Standards for Non-Residential Zones.
Finally, the subject property is located in the Detail Site Review overlay which includes a requirement
that development have a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of .50 (AMC 18.4.2.040.C. La). The minimum
FAR for the subject property is 3,267 square feet or half the size of the lot. In contrast, the MPFA for
two multi-family dwellings on a property of the same size is 2,300 square feet. The intent of the
minimum FAR is to have commercial and employment properties in the C-1 and E-1 zones develop at
an intensity that will provide a mix of uses, a walkable environment, and employment space that will
contribute jobs to address the City's employment projections for the next 20 years. Clearly, reducing the
building size by applying the MPFA to the non-residential zones is counter to the minimum FAR h
requirement.
Nevertheless, if the MPFA is applied to the subject property the proposed development complies with
the requirement. The proposed development has 1,600 square feet in the first floor of the primary
residence that counts towards the MPFA. The basement and the detached residential unit are not counted
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 10
in the square footage for MPFA because these portions of a development are exempted by AMC
18.2.5.070. The proposed expansion of the detached residential unit is at the closest point located six
feet and one inch from the primary residence which exceeds the requirement of a six-foot separation to
not be counted in the square footage for MPFA.
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that a Conditional Use Permit may be granted if the approval
authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions.
The first of these criteria is, "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 Coinprehensive
plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. " The Planning
Commission finds that the use of the entire lot for residential uses is a historic condition that predates the
requirement in AMC 18.2.3.130 which requires no more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be
designated for residential uses when more than one building located on a site. Since AMC 18.1.4.020.13
permits the expansion of nonconforming use through the Conditional Use Permit process, the
Conditional Use Permit criteria are applied to the use and associated structures outside of the
nonconforming condition. In this case, the standards with the E-1 zone that apply are primarily
dimensional requirements related to required yard areas and building height.
f
Outside of the nonconforming aspects of the development proposal including the nonconforming rear
yard for the structure at the rear of the property and of the amount of the lot used for residential uses, the
subject site meets the requirements of the E-1 district. The primary residence meets the required
setbacks and is located 36 feet from the rear property line. The existing and proposed buildings are
below the maximum height of 40 feet that is allowed in the E-1 zone.
The second criterion is, "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. " There are two residential units currently in place on the
subject property that are served by City facilities and the number of residential units does not increase
with the proposed expansion of the detached residential unit. A Minor Land Partition and Site Design
Review approved in 1982 required the primary vehicular access to the property via the rear alley and the
pavement of the alley along the entire property's alley frontage in order to provide adequate access for
vehicles and fire apparatus (PA 82-84). In 1989, the Site Design Review and Parking Variance allowing
for a beauty salon on the subject property required, as part of the conditions of the approval, that the
parking area at the rear of the subject property be cleaned, improved and striped prior to the
commencement of the use (PA 89-146). As part of the Conditional Use Permit approving the second
dwelling unit in 1991, it was noted that adequate water, sewer, storm drain, and electric facilities were
required to serve the second dwelling unit. In 1998 the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
expansion of a traveler's accommodation from two units to three units required as conditions of
approval that A Street should be fully improved and that curb cuts be refrained and filled with concrete
(PA 98-065). A sidewalk is in place in the A Street right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The
Planning Commission finds that the past improvements required by previous planning actions addressed
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 11
any deficiencies in City facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities are in place to serve the
expansion of the detached residential unit.
The third criterion is, "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.,4.5, 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; fi the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan; and g) other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed
use. "
In this case, the lot size is 6,534 square feet and the target use of the property is a 3,267 square foot general
office building. The combined square footage of the primary residence and the proposed two-story
residence is 4,207 square feet. An office building of target use size would require seven off-street parking
spaces whereas the current proposal requires four off-street parking spaces.
A new building in the E-1 zone requires a rear yard of ten-foot setback per story where the site abuts a
residential zone. The subject property is located in the E-1 zone and the opposite side of the alley is in
the R-2 zone. As a result, a new structure on the subject site would have to locate the first story at least
ten feet from the rear property line, the second story at least 20 feet from the rear property line, and the
third story at least 30 feet from the rear property line. The same setbacks would apply if the existing
home were converted or enlarged to create a general office building. The allowed building height in the
E-I zone is 40 feet, which is typically the equivalent of a three-story building.
In terms of the target use comparison, the question is whether a greater adverse material effect on the
surrounding neighborhood or impact area would result from the proposal to enlarge the detached
residential unit within four feet of the alley compared to a new general office building or the existing
home converted to an office building that meets the rear yard requirements of ten feet per story.
In terms of similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, the proposed structure will have a peak height of 22
feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as measured
along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure would have
a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch which is the same as the primary residence. The existing structures
ridge runs east/west, parallel to the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a
north/south direction, consistent with the primary residence.
The surrounding area contains a mix of historic and more modern structures in a variety of architectural
styles. The lots on A Street from Seventh to Eighth Street include historic residences as well as more
contemporary structures such as a cabinet shop. The properties on the south side of the alley are in the
R-2 zone and the structures are residential in design.
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 12
~ l
The interface of the structures with the alley is also varied. On the north side of the alley, there five
properties. The majority of the alley frontage is comprised of parking areas or yard areas. There are two
properties that have structures directly abutting the alley with little or no setback located at 864 and 842
A Street. Both of the aforementioned properties have a smaller volume portion of the building abutting
the alley with to a larger building attached approximately 10 to 20 feet into the property. The two
properties on the south side of the alley are residential buildings and have side yards facing the alley.
These structure are between six to ten feet from the property line abutting the alley with one of the two
being a one-story building and the other being a two-story building.
The height of the enlarged second unit is similar to, if not smaller than, the residential structure on the
opposite side of the alley located at 267 Eighth Street In addition, the 16-foot wide alley right-of-way
provides an additional buffer between properties in the employment and residential zones which IG
mitigates the impact of the height of the enlarged second unit. In terms of scale, the enlarged unit is
relatively narrow at 24 feet in width when measured parallel to the alley and the scale is considerable
smaller or narrower than the structure located at 842 A Street or the residential structures on the south
side of the alley. The coverage of the property with the proposed enlargement of the detached
residential unit is proposed to be at 50% which again is similar to the residential structures to the south
of the alley and to the residence to the east located at 886 A Street. The Planning Commission finds the
historic development pattern of the E-1 zone properties on the north side of the alley includes structures
that are located at or within a few feet of the property line adjacent to the alley and therefore do not meet
current requirements for a ten-foot setback per story.
i
Despite the employment zoning of the current times, the property was developed historically as a
residential property. The primary residence is designated as a historic contributing structure on the
National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The
historic status means that it is important to the integrity of the nationally-listed Ashland Railroad
Addition Historic District that the historic integrity of the primary residence is preserved. According to
the applicant's testimony at the Historic Commission meeting on February 3, 2016, the alternative to the
proposed detached two-story structure is to add a second story to the historic contributing structure. The
Historic Commission felt the flexibility in the rear yard setback allows the property to evolve in a way
that is architecturally compatible with the impact area, consistent with the development pattern of the
impact area, and will at the same time preserve the historic home. The Planning Commission agrees
with the Historic Commission and finds that proposed enlargement of the detached residential unit at the
rear of the property is architecturally compatible and similar in scale, bulk, and coverage to the
surrounding structures in the impact area.
The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primary
dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar reveal, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band,
corner boards, and "cottage" style double hung windows. The application indicates the structure will
require a new foundation and an eight-inch reveal. The Planning Commission finds the exterior
materials are architecturally compatible with the existing historic structure and surrounding area.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual assume approximately 9.55
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 13
E
daily trips for a typical single family residence and 6.47 daily trips for a multi-family residential unit.
This would put the likely daily trips for two dwelling units here at 13-20 daily trips. In comparison, the
target use of a 3,267 square foot office would generate an average of 36 trips a day. Therefore, the two
residential units will generate fewer trips and impacts on surrounding streets than the target use of the
property of a 3,267 square foot office building. In addition, it is difficult to make a determination that
there is a demonstrable difference in the likely noise, light, and glare or generation of dust and odors that
would be generated by two residential units compared to a general office building.
The Planning Commission finds that adjacent properties are largely developed according to the
Comprehensive Plan's vision, and that enlarging the second dwelling unit at the rear of the property will
not adversely impact further development of adjacent properties.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to enlarge the residential unit within four feet of the
rear property line will not create a greater adverse material effect on the impact area compared to a
general office use of approximately 3, 200 square feet in size. Whether the general office use was
accommodated in a new building or the existing home converted to an office building, the use could be
accommodated and meet the rear yard requirements of ten feet per story. However, the building could be
multi-story. A typical two-story office building in Ashland is approximately 30 feet in height and would
be taller than the proposed enlarged second unit at just under 22 feet to the peak of the roof.
Additionally, a general office building would typically be a wider structure that is larger in scale and
size than the proposed 24-foot wide residential unit. Finally, according to ITE estimates the target use
would generate approximately 16 to 23 additional automobile trips per day than the proposed
development consisting of two residential units.
There was testimony received at the public hearing on February 9 regarding the impact of the proposed
second story balcony on the privacy of the property directly to the east, which is located at 886 A Street.
The property located at 886 A Street is similar to the subject property in that it is also zoned E-1, is a
similar lot size at approximately 6,100 square feet, and contains residential structures that are used for
residential purposes. The Planning Commission finds that the new second story of detached residential
structure has been thoughtfully designed in that the second story addition does not contain windows
facing the 886 A Street property. In addition, the second story deck faces towards A Street and the
interior of the subject property as opposed to be located on the east side of the building.
Since both properties, as well as all of the properties fronting A Street on the same block, are zoned E-1,
a standard side yard is not required by the land use ordinance. The existing and proposed side yard
setback to the east of the detached residential unit is seven feet and nine inches. In terms of looking at
the impacts of the balcony compared to those of the target use, a new commercial structure or addition
could be located closer to the east or side property line than the proposed expansion of the detached
residential unit. In addition, a general office could be multi-story and contain a balcony on the side of
the building.
The fourth criterion is that, "A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that
is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. " In this instance, the proposed enlargement of a
nonconforming structure and expansion of a nonconforming use is permitted through the Conditional
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 14
Use Permit process in accordance with AMC 18.1.4.030.13 and AMC 18.1.4.030.13.
The fifth criterion provides that, "For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for°
conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of [the]... E-I [zones are as
follows]: 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. " In this case, the lot size is 6,534 square feet and the target use of the property is a 3,267
square foot office building.
2.9 The project requires Site Design Review because any project involving two or more residential units
requires Site Design Review approval (AMC 18.5.2.020.B.1) and is subject to the Historic District
Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 because the project is located in the Historic District overlay (AMC
18.3.12.050).
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." Outside of the nonconforming aspects of the
structure at the rear of the property and of the residential uses discussed previously, the subject site
meets the requirements of the E-1 district. The primary residence meets the required setbacks and is
located 36 feet from the rear property line. The existing and proposed buildings are below the maximum
height of 40 feet that is allowed in the E-1 zone. The landscaped area is approximately 50 percent of the
lot area which exceeds the 15 percent requirement.'
The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable
overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The project is subject to the Historic District Standards in AMC
18.4.2.050 because the project is located in the Historic District overlay (AMC 18.3.12.050). The
proposed enlargement of the residential unit at the rear of the property is within the range of heights of
the buildings on and across the alley, is of a similar scale (i.e., height, width and massing) of buildings in
the vicinity, is consistent with setback lines of adjacent historic buildings, and has a similar roof pitch
with historic residential buildings in the vicinity. The form of buildings (i.e., vertical versus horizontal
building) is varied in the surrounding area and does not consist of a predominant orientation. The
Planning Commission finds the application meets the Historic District Standards.
The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and
Design Standards ofpart 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below." The Planning Commission
finds that generally, these 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
and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. The orientation of the primary residence to the street is
not impacted by the proposal and the property continues to satisfy these requirements. The proposed
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 15
E
expansion of the detached residence will also have entrance facing A Street as well as a pedestrian
connection from the door to the sidewalk on A Street.
The development requires a total of four off-street parking spaces with two spaces required for the
primary dwelling and two spaces required for the proposed unit at the rear of the property (AMC
18.4.3.040). The application proposes to provide two parking spaces at the rear of the property and
accessed by the alley, and to use the two on-street spaces on the on the property's A Street frontage. The
property as it exists today requires three off-street parking spaces with two required for the primary
dwelling and one space required for the unit at the rear of the property. The proposed increase in the size
of the unit at the rear of the property increases the off-street parking requirement by one space.
The 1998 planning application for a three-unit motel was required to have four off-street parking spaces
and the approved configuration was three parking spaces adjacent to the alley and one on-street credit
(PA 98-065). After reviewing the planning files, staff determined that one of the three off-street parking
spaces that has been historically shown as serving the subject property is physically located on the
adjacent property to the west (cabinet shop at 864 A Street). The applicants' representative indicated that
the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A Street was not secured by
an easement or any other similar instrument. As a result, this third parking spaces is not available for the
current proposal.'
r
Off-street parking may be reduced by the use of on-street parking spaces (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). One on-
street parking space may be used in place of one off-street parking space. The required off-street
parking may be reduced up to 50 percent through an on-street parking credit. The use of on-street
parking spaces to meet the required off-street parking requirement is not an automatic credit, but rather a
discretionary decision that the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission finds that the use of
two on-street credits is allowable under AMC 18.4.3.060.A because a total of four spaces are required
and two credits would be a 50 percent of the required off-street parking.
The lots that front on A Street are zoned E-1 and the zoning allows a mix of commercial, light industrial,
and residential uses. The Planning Commission finds that the long term redevelopment of many of the
lots in the impact area that are abutting A Street is unlikely given the historic development pattern, lot
sizes, and recent investment in several of the properties. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that
the on-street parking on the north side of the street abutting the public park provides additional parking
opportunities. Finally, the parking occupancy inventories completed by the City as part of the
Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Study show the highest parking occupancy rates surrounding the
downtown core with occupancy rates decreasing in the residential areas west of Second Street. The
Planning Commission finds that the use of two on-street parking spaces on the property's A Street
frontage will not significantly impact the availability of on-street parking now or in the future and that
the use of two on-street credits is appropriate given the parking demand for the subject property's two
residential units.
The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable
standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for 1i)ater,
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the proper o) and adequate
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 16
1
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." There are two residential units
currently in place on the subject property that are served by City facilities and the number of residential
units does not increase with the proposed expansion of the detached residential unit. A Minor Land
Partition and Site Design Review approved in 1982 required that the applicant to provide the primary
vehicular access to the property via the rear alley and required to pave the alley along the entire
property's alley frontage in order to provide adequate access for vehicles and fire apparatus (PA 82-84).
In 1989, the Site Design Review and Parking Variance allowing for a beauty salon on the subject
property required, as part of the conditions of the approval, that the parking area at the rear of the subject
property be cleaned, improved and striped prior to the commencement of the use (89-146). As part of
the Conditional Use Permit approving the second dwelling unit in 1991, it was noted that adequate
water, sewer, storm drain, and electric facilities were required to serve the second dwelling unit. In 1998
the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a traveler's accommodation from two units to
three units required as conditions of approval that A Street should be fully improved and that curb cuts
be refrained and filled with concrete (PA 98-065). A sidewalk is in place in the A Street right-of-way
adjacent to the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that the past improvements required by
previous planning actions addressed any deficiencies in City facilities and that adequate capacity of City
facilities are in place to serve the expansion of the detached residential unit.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to enlarge a nonconforming structure by
adding 120 square feet to the first floor and a second floor of 528 square feet to the detached residential
unit located at the rear of the property for the property located at 868 A 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 #2015-02203. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-02203 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 building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the construction does not include the
demolition, as defined in AMC 15.04.210.A.1, of the detached residential unit at the rear of the
property. If the proposal does include a demolition, the conditional use permit and site design
review approvals of PA 2015-02203 are not valid.
3) 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 approval shall be submitted
and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 17
{
4) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to any required public and
private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and
fire apparatus access easements.
b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval
of the Staff Advisor. Materials shall be consistent with those described in 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) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes four covered bicycle parking
spaces. Inverted ii-racks shall be used for bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be
installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.1 prior to the issuance
of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle
parking spacing and coverage requirements are met.
e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and other
coverage areas.
f) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls
must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb
gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved
alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site
collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
5) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including
excavation, or the storage of materials:
a) That tree protection measures shall be installed for all trees greater than six inches diameter
at breast height on the subject property, including the two large evergreens in the northeast
comer of the property, according to the AMC 18.4.5.030.C. The application shall obtain a
Tree Verification Permit to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to
be protected on the site.
b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and
connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit,
and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation
(less any credits for previously demolished sti actures) shall be paid.
6) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site
Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 18
{
the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC
18.4.4.040.
b All bicycle pailcmg shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
i
i
March E, 2016 i;
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2015-02203
March 8, 2016
Page 19
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6900 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7000 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6700
ADLEMAN ALAN R MCCULLOH KENNETH S/STAYCE E MUNROE ROBERT W
886 A ST 267 EIGHTH ST 864 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6800 PA-2015-02203 PA-2015-02203
SATUREN STEVEN L ET AL LINDA MILLEMANN INTEGRITY BUILDING CONTRACTORS
868 A ST UNIT 1 256 1/2 SIXTH ST MARK LACKEY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PO BOX 225
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 868 A St
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
1424 S IVY NOD 3/10/16 MEDFORD, OR 97501 7
1
e
I
I'
I
r
f
f
t,.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On March 10, 2016 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 #2015-02203, 868 A Street.
Signature of Employee
Document2 3/1012016
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
hlamc
- (please print)
Add r ess (no P .O. l1oa)
Phonc .S"~1'f qtr C ,S~[. 1G,mail a< < J~', =.1 l rc,o c-, It C L
Tonight's Meeting Date
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number V I I OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon lam, does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit pzrblic testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which ar•e rim easonably loud or• disruptive ar•e
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please print) - -
Address (no P.O. Boa)
Phone Email
Tonight's Meeting Date
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Lary requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon larv does 1701
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
ConstT'aims limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are znareasonably lozrd or disruptive ar°e
disrespectful and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders rr,ill be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
d) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please print)
Address (no P.O. Box) -
Phone l mail r
Tonight's Meeting Date r"_ _t-) -11
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) f ;
Land Use Public Hearing
For•_ Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this forin and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the ordei° of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespecful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please print) -
Address (no P.O. Box)_
Phone~-~f Email
Tonight's Meeting Date qtr
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak The Ashland Planzniiig COiiuiiissio7l generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public iestirrioiiy. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings, for public heai-iligs arld strictlj,, follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Continents and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name i
(please print,)
- -
Address (no P.O. Box)
Phone
Tonight's Meeting Date
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitled to speak. The Ashland Platu7ing Con7missiol7 gei7erally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate i77 every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directi077s of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are wu•easonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
' Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please print) - - - -
Address (no P.O. 13ox)
Phone V"Inail
Tonight's Meeting Date
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number _ OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Lam requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon la", does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order- of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions ia,hich are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders mill be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-00797, a request for a ) REQUEST FOR
Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to allow for the reconstruction of ) AN
an existing nonconforming residential unit located at the rear of the property for the ) EXTENSION
property located at 868 A Street. The proposal also includes expanding the first ) OF THE 120-
floor of the nonconforming structure and adding a second story. ) DAY TIME
LIMIT
APPLICANTS: Mark Lackey ORS 227.178(1)
Applicants request a 60-day extension to the time limits set forth in ORS 227.178(1).
i
I
i
i
I
JJ
Mark Bey, applicant Date
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."]
E
f
I
4
f
i
c
E
k
o~ R,t3 ~
y
F
i
l
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Planning Application Review
February 3, 2016
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02203
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street
APPLICANT: Mark Lackey
OWNER: Linda Millemann, Steven and Harriet Saturen
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for
a second story addition to the existing cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A
Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 6800
I
Recommendation:
The Historic Commission recommends approving the application as submitted. The Historic
Commission believes that the applicants have made changes to architectural details of the
structure that make the building more historically accurate. In addition, the height, bulk, and
scale of the structure is appropriate for the historic district.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
i
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY
j 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: 2016-02203
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street
OWNER: Harriet & Steve Saturen/Linda Millemann
APPLICANT: Mark Lackey
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a second story
addition to an existing non-conforming cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-l; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E
09AA; TAX LOT: 6800.
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday February 3, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: i ,
- qS~
SUBJECTPROPERTY
X
868 A Street
2015-02203
Ya
a 1
- I
T
a _
v
1:600 A„ _ - GfYY of
1 inch = 50 feet w }E -AS"LAN L>
Y Mapping is _-tlc only end bea s na wa runty of accuracy.
All leaturea, structures, frscllines, eaae,nant ar roadway locallons
0 25 Sa Feet should be lndependentl_ 1vmlf~d for exlatenca and/or locadon,
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\Mailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2015-02203 Type 11.docx
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.5.4.050.A
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 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, 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.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
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.
CiAcomm-dev\planningTianning Actions\Noticing Folder-Wailed Notices & Signs\2016TA-2015-02203 Type ll.docx
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
c
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
h
2. On January 22, 2016 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 #2015-02203, 868 A Street.
Signat re of Employee
DocumenQ 1122/2016
S
21 ID
yy
i YOU'
k,
it 1 3
HIM., t to s:
a -
t~
.1.,,2pu a
1 Et t EI ~'LL tl
Sf ~ 4
ilil _ lul IYI 0 'il'.~
Ilr 654M ~'ir'~~~ ; _
6 ~i'iP Ill
fp 490
t
t
a' 3..
1 , ~~1~ 2M
IE 840 22'nl
V ZU -9 U,
ZN5
fi t@RL id' 6 930 :2 2,D, 5 Mt
d
.1.'J
J i
77410
1 L +L ®qJ lJ~. t U12 2 104
ry 1
7212
a t t
1+X17 U' I 'll ll' 2 20 Y
2-tI
HUD 2M ,17t7
e t 6 ` t' t t~ - ^I rl.'LI'il'. 68
t d rl it
-
24 2H
'Y1 a r° .230
t P Lit
_ w
tl A'iJ-lP ° t~ t r
6Gt r . @ a E
a
aim ; L
9 d ° jl
K
U U.
a
TO U U,
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 6900 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7200 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 8500
ADLEMAN ALAN R AUBIN-ADDICOTT SUZANNE COLE MARY ELLEN/JOHN C
886 A ST 115 BROOKS LN 286 8TH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7700 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 2215 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 8400
DANLEY WILLIAM E JR TRUSTEE ET DOUGLAS JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL FENWICK STEPHEN C
871 B ST 2120 CALAVERAS AVE PO BOX 338
ASHLAND, OR 97520 DAVIS, CA 95616 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7800
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7300 KAPLAN-STANTON ALENE PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 8300
GREENE DAVID E TRUSTEE H/STANTON JOHN M JR LARMORE JANET/JOHN T STRONG
885 B ST
367 OXFORD ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 248 EIGHTH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 2201 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7000 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7500
LUZ GEORGE A/SHELDON H MCCULLOH KENNETH S/STAYCE E MKH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO
4910 CROWSON AVE 267 EIGHTH ST 2022 CRESTVIEW DR
BATCHELOR, MD 21212 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 6700 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7600 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 6400
MUNROE ROBERT W RAGEN DANIEL A JR RUBINSTEIN ILENE K
864 A ST 855 B ST 854 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 6800 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 7100 PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 2216
SATUREN STEVEN L ET AL SCHAAF NED TRUSTEE ET AL SMITH ALFORD R JR TRUSTEE
265 STEINMAN DR 175 NEIL CREEK RD PO BOX 833
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391E09AA 6200 PA-2015-02203 PA-2015-02203
UNION PACIFIC RR CO INTEGRITY BUILDING CONTRACTORS LINDA MILLEMANN
1400 DOUGLAS - STOP 1640 P.O. BOX 225 868 A STREET
OMAHA, NE 68179 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203
ROBERT MUNROE
CABINET WORKS
165 B STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
I"
o
PLANNING ACTION 2015-02203
868 A Street 6 F.~
Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit findings addendum:
The request is for a Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing 538 sf
single story residential dwelling unit by adding a second story. The residential unit in question
was a garage that converted with a Conditional Use Permit in the early 1990s from garage to a
dwelling. At the time of the conversion there were two parking spaces for the residence and two
on-street parking credits for the "new dwelling". The proposed Conditional Use Permit to expand
the structure will not alter the existing parking configuration of two on-site parking spaces and
two on-street parking credits.
A Site Design Review Permit is required because the proposed addition is to a structure in the
Employment (E-1) zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the existing structure
does not comply with the required setback in the E-1 zone and is considered non-conforming.
The unit is considered a non-conforming structure because it is four feet, two and a quarter
inches away from the rear (south) property line. In the E-1 zone when abutting a residential zone,
a 10-foot per story setback is required. New construction of a two story structure would require a
20-foot setback. The subject property and those to the north, east and west are zoned E-1. The
properties across the alley to the south are zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-2).
Expansion, enlargement, modification and reconstruction is allowed with a conditional use
permit though AMC 18.1.4.030.B "nonconforming structure may be altered (i.e., reconstructed,
enlar ed, or modified) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 1 8.5.4 and
approval of required building permits.... A nonconforming structure may be rebuilt pursuant to
this subsection, provided in a historic district the applicant must demonstrate that restoration is
not practicable. "
The requested expansion involves the construction of a second story to expand the existing
residential dwelling unit and provide the residents, an artist and an author additional living area
and studio work space. Due to the placement of the existing residential unit and the limited area
of footprint expansion, the applicant found that adding a second story was the best option to add
square footage without a complete alteration of the existing residence. It would be possible to
add a second floor to the existing structure but not without compromising the historic integrity of
the primary contributing historic resource on the property, the Thomas Herbig House.
The proposed structure has a peak height of 22-feet, 10-inches and an average building height of
18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24-feet wide along the rear property line, no change is
proposed to the width. The structure is proposed with a single gable roof, with 6:12 pitch. Five
foot walls along the sides are proposed. The existing structures ridge runs east to west, parallel to
the alley. The proposed gable ridge is turned to orient north / south, consistent with the historic
contributing structure on the subject property. A 10-foot X 12-foot addition is proposed to the
lower level; a rooftop deck is proposed above.
The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored and
remodeled front structure. Horizontal wood siding with similar revel, 2 X 8 fascia boards, 1
corbels, 2 X 8 belly band, corner boards and "cottage" style double hung windows. The structure
is proposed to have a new foundation and provide an eight-inch revel.
According to the conditional use permit criteria #5 when reviewing conditional use permit
applications for conformity with the approval criteria, the target uses of each zone is the required
comparison. Per AMC 18.5.4.050.3 "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 " Emphasis
added.
The target use of the zone is Employment. More specifically, general offices developed at an
intensity of .50 floor area ratio and complying with all ordinance requirements. That said, the
target use of the zone for the subject lot is a 3,250 sf office. The office building could be up to 3-
stories and 40-feet tall. There would be no required setbacks excepting the rear yard (the one for
which the conditional use permit in this application is requested) where 10-feet per story due to
the proximity to the residential zone that is across the alley.
When two zoning districts abut each other it is typical that the zoning district boundary is the
mid-line of the adjacent right-of-way. In this case that is the alley. If the setback was measured
from the middle of the alley the structure would be 12-feet from the district boundary. Setbacks
through are measured from the lot line thus requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
Amended findings addressing the Conditional Use Permit criteria and the Site Design Review
criteria can be found on the following pages, The criteria from the code is in a san serif font and
the applicant's findings are in Times New Roman.
Conditional Use Permit:
18.5.4.050 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 use of the structure is non-conforming in the sense that it is use is residential in nature,
According to the records of the City of Ashland and of Jackson County the garage was converted
to a residential unit in the early 1990s, a conditional use permit was obtained. The additional
allows the structure to come closer to conformance with the use of the Employment zoned land
because the additional square footage allows for the residents, an author and a paint artist to have
studio workspace within their dwelling. Both of the residents sell their products on the internet
Page 2 of 13
and in art galleries. The additional square footage will allow them to work from home and
continue to sell on the internet and at local art galleries.
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.
Adequate city facilities existing and continue to exist to serve the proposed additional square
footage. There are two existing off-street parking spaces adjacent to the cottage. There are two
on-street parking credits on A Street for the primary residence. The proposed addition is not
affecting how the parking was historically permitted. The cottage has always been more than 500
sf and has required two parking spaces in addition to the two required parking spaces for the
primary structure. The proposal will not modify the parking. Over the years the property has
been used as multi-family residential, hotel / motel, and a beauty salon. With all of these uses
that parking configuration as remained the same with two parking spaces at the rear of the
property and two on-street credits. The alley is paved behind the property and A Street is paved
with curb and gutter and a five-foot public sidewalk along the frontage of the property. The
property is one tax lot from the end of A Street to where Eighth Street intersects, this end of A
Street sees significantly lower traffic volumes that the sections of A Street between Oak and
Sixth Streets where there is commercial development on both sides, of the street. The property to
the north across A Street from the subject property is a City of Ashland Park (Railroad Park).
The applicant's find that the circumstances that allowed for the on-street credit are the same and
the parking impacts from the proposed additional square footage will not have a negative impact
on the livability of the zone more so than the current use of the property and adjacent properties.
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.
The existing primary residence has a single story footprint of 1,885.6 sf, The cottage has an
existing footprint of 538 sf. The proposal includes an addition of 105 sf to the ground floor and
441 square feet on the second floor for a total proposed square footage of 1,099 sf The proposed
lot coverage of the parcel is 51 percent. The proposed second story addition is proposed with a
gable roof that has a peak height of 22-feet, 9 %2-inches and an average building height of 18.395
feet. The proposed addition is not considered a half story due to five-foot pony walls on the sides
but has a similar roof pitch and reduced bulk due the reduced plate height. When compared to
structures in the impact area, the 2,791 sf of building on the lot, the 18.395-foot-tall building and
51 percent lot coverage is similar in scale, bulk and coverage as a number of the structures within
the impact area.
Page 3 of 13
On the E-1 lands in the immediate vicinity, the cabinet shop to the west (a non-historic / non-
contributing structure) is 2,640 s£ This structure extends nearly the entire length of the entire
N/S dimension of the parcel. This structure does not comply with the ten-foot rear yard setback
due to a single story addition to the large shop building and appears to be within a foot or less of
the rear property line. Additionally, this structure covers a large portion of the 5,662 sf lot. To
the west of the shop building on the adjacent lot is a two-unit hotel that was created from a
previously converted medical office, this structure is 858 s£ On the lot to the west of the hotel
units is a 1,350 sf dance studio. This structure also does not comply with side yard setbacks and
appears to be located within a foot of the rear property line. Additionally, this concrete block
building is bulky and out of scale with the structures on the adjacent properties. The property to
the east of the dance studio is Chozu Bath and Tea House. This structure at 2,035 sf with a 500 sf
detached structure provides significantly more coverage than the proposed enlarged cottage. The
parcel to the south is a residential duplex that is 3,588 sf with an attached 420 sf garage. This
structure covers a large portion of the 7,405 sf lot. The property to the east has a small 776 sf
single story cottage with approximately 500 sf single story garage. The proposal at 51 percent lot
coverage is less than the 85 percent lot coverage that is allowed by code in the E-1 zone.
The structure to the south (across the alley) has a peak height of nearly 28-feet, significantly
taller than the proposed second story addition. The structure to the west, the cabinet shop is 15-
feet to the top of the parapet. The maximum height in the zone is 40-feet. The proposed structure
is less than the allowed height in the zone, less than the structure to the south and similar to the
structure to the west. Additionally, as stated previously, the proposed structure with 6:12 roof
pitch, reduced plate height at the side walls, is similar in scale, bulk and coverage as to the
structures in the vicinity especially when considered against the possible development when
compared to the target use of the zone.
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.
The generation of trips from a lot with two residential units is typically going to be less than that
of a 3,250 sf office. The applicant finds that over the years the property has been used as multiple
family dwellings (at one point the main residence was a duplex), residential dwelling unit and a
beauty salon, and a hotel/motel (B&B), all of these uses would generate similar or more traffic
than the proposed expanded residence. The rear yard setback for which the conditional use
permit applies will not affect the generation of traffic. Additionally, the property is in close
proximity to the bike paths, complete sidewalks and is within walking and biking distance of
services such as shopping, dining, art galleries, dentist offices, veterinary clinic, etc. providing
necessary services for the residences.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
The impact area is eclectic in architectural features. This is due to the area being a transitional
area. Though the majority of the structures in the vicinity reflect residential form and massing,
Page of 13
there are clearly commercial structures on adjacent parcels. In both of the instances of the
commercial structures that abut the alley, the 10-foot per story setback code is violated.
The code allows for greater flexibility when compared to the prominent architectural themes in
the impact area. This is especially true when the conditional use permit criteria require the
compatibility determination to be based on the target use of the zone which is a 3,250 sf office
building. Additionally, when comparing the proposed addition that has architectural character
and where a little over four feet of setback to the employment zoned properties to the east where
boxy, utilitarian buildings, the proposed structure will have a positive impact on the alley
streetscape.
Prior to the recent, extensive remodel, the primary residence had a number of different
architectural styles itself including some gingerbread treatments in the gables, craftsman style
corbels, Victorian style turned porch posts among others. The property owners heeded the
Historic Commission's recommendations and incorporated historically appropriate design
elements and removed proposed design features that they had desired in order to restore the
Thomas Herbig House to a more historically appropriate fagade. These modifications to the
applicant's original proposal cost the project more money but in the end did produce a better end
product. The prosed addition reflects the traditional architectural features of the historic
contributing structure on the property.
~ r
I
i
There are ranch style apartments from the 1980s, two-story structures completed in the 1990s,
original structures such as the cottage on the adjacent property to the west and the two story I-
house on the corner of Seventh and A Street, and heavily remodeled historic structures, (Chozu
Bath house, two-unit hotel, etc.) in the immediate vincinity. There are also more industrial style
structures like the large shop building on the adjacent property to the west and a concrete block
building further to the west down the alley. (See attached photo inventory)
The proposed structure is less tall than the residence to the south. The proposed structure is
similar in height as the cabinet shop to the west. The proposed structure is proposed to have
elements of the architectural design of the front residence and other structures in the vicinity are
included in the proposed structure. These include matching siding, inclusion of corbels, corner
boards, similar door and window trim, window style, and complementary color scheme.
Page 5 of 13
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
The addition of the second story and the properties continued use as two residential units will not
have a negative impact on air quality, generation of dust, orders or other environmental
pollutants when compared to a 3,250 sf office, when compared to other uses allowed in the E-1
zone or when compared to the cabinet shop to the west.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The addition of the second story will not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties in the
impact area when compared to the noise, light and glare that a 3,250 sf office building would.
The continued use of the property as residential will have less of an impact when compared to a
typical commercial use.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed addition that does not comply with setbacks will not prevent the development of
the adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The property to the east could
develop to a use allowed in the E-1 zone regardless of the setback of the subject property. The
adjacent property to the west could redevelop with its existing non-conforming rear yard setback
(does not comply with 10-foot per story rear yard setback) and the requested conditional use
permit does not prevent the redevelopment of that property as envisioned in the comprehensive
plan.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
The proposed use of the property is not being modified through the conditional use permit
request.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted
pursuant to this ordinance.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure is allowed with the approval of a conditional use
permit. The property is within the residential overlay and residential uses are allowed on the
property. There are two existing residences that exceed 500 sf on the property. The number of
bedrooms on the property and the number of required parking spaces will not be increased with
the conditional use permit.
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.
Page 6 of 13
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.
As stated previously, the target use of the zone is Employment. More specifically, general offices
developed at an intensity of .50 floor area ratio and complying with all ordinance requirements.
That said, the target use of the zone for the subject lot is a 3,250 sf office. The office building
could be up to 40-feet tall and have no setbacks excepting the rear yard (the one for which the
conditional use permit in this application is requested) where 10-feet per story due to the
proximity to the residential zone.
Site Development and Design Review
18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria
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.
The proposal is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand a non-conforming structure
which is allowed in AMC 18.1.4.030.B. The lot dimensions, area, density are not changing. The
floor area is less than required by code for the E-1 zone but the proposed addition brings the
property closer to conformance with the required 3,250 sf office building standards by providing
2,837 sf of floor area that could be converted to office or similar uses in the E-1 zone. The
existing primary residence and its orientation to A Street is not being modified. The proposed
building with an average height of 18.4 feet is less than the maximum of 40-feet in the zone.
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
The subject property is pre-existing, non-conforming with two residential units in the E-1 zone.
This is non-conformity is not being modified or increased. In fact, the proposed addition will
allow for the construction of artists' studio space within the increased square footage of the rear
residential unit that allows the for the resident artist to have studio work space within their
residence.
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 f-, below.
Page 7 of 13
The subject property is Employment Zoned and is located within the Detail Site Review overlay,
additionally, the property is within the Railroad Historic District. As demonstrated below, the
proposed addition is compatible with the Historic District Design Standards.
The proposed orientation and streetscape of the property is not being modified with the proposed
addition.
8, Historic District Design Standards. In addition to the standards of part 18.4, the approval
authority uses the following standards for new construction, and restoration and rehabilitation
of existing buildings within the Historic District overlay.
1. Transitional Areas. For projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays,
appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural
and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area
while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject
property.
The subject property abuts the R-2 (residential) zone. The proposed additions form, massing,
height, scale, placement and architectural treatment is residential in nature. The height and the
mass adjacent to the alley is similar to the residential structure to the south across the alley. The
proposed addition is setback off of the alley where the directly adjacent E-1 property is less than
seven feet from the side of the historic contributing structure on the property and within one foot
of the rear property line. This structure with an approximately 12-foot plate height at the property
line and one long linear mass is significantly bulkier, massive and out of scale with historic
structures in the vicinity, far from compliance with the underlying historic district design
standards.
Additionally, the increased square footage allows for the inclusion of studio workspace within
the expanded residence providing employment related use in the Employment zone.
2. Height. Construct new buildings to a height within the range of historic building heights on
and across the street.
Plate height on proposed structure is 13 feet, 10-inches, the peak height is 22-feet, 9 '/x-inches
and the average height is 18.4 feet. The structure is at the rear of the property behind the historic
contributing structure that is adjacent to A Street. The adjacent residence to the east is a single
story structure with an approximately 12-foot peak height, the structure to the west, the cabinet
shop is approximately 15-feet. The most adjacent structure, the duplex to the south across the
alley has an approximately 27-foot peak. The structure is within range of the building heights on
the street and adjacent to the alley that abuts the rear property line. The property across the street
is occupied by a city park.
3. Scale: Height, width, and massing of new buildings conform to historic buildings in the
immediate vicinity.
Page 8 of 13
The scale is being modified through the second story addition which creates additional height.
The width of the structure is not proposed to be modified. The scale of the proposed addition
with the reduced rear yard setback is in conformance with the 10-foot setback of the 27-foot tall
structure to the south and the less than one-foot setback of the large building that occupies the
site to the west. See the photo below that shows the massing and scale of these two buildings.
i
4. Massing: Small, varied masses consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity.
The proposed structure has a reduced plate height to reduce the overall structure height. The
mass of the structure is varied through the use of the 2 X 8 belly band, the corner boards,
matching trim and siding as the front structure. The structures in the immediate vicinity are
generally inconsistent with this standard and the proposed structure incorporates design elements
from the historic contributing structure on the property and the structure to the south across the
alley.
5. Setbacks: Front walls of new buildings are in the same plane as facades of adjacent historic
buildings.
There are no "new" buildings on the site as the proposal is an addition to an existing structure.
The front fagade adjacent to A Street is not being modified by the proposal.
6. Roof: Roof shape, pitches, and materials consistent with historic buildings in the immediate
vicinity.
The gable roof shape, the 6:12 pitch roof with composition shingles is consistent with the historic
contributing structure on the subject lot and to the south across the alley.
7. Rhythm of Openings: Pattern or rhythm of wall to door/window openings on the primary
facade or other visually prominent elevation is maintained. Maintain compatible width--to-
height ratio of bays in the fagade.
Page 9 of 13
The pattern of the window and door openings are consistent with the development pattern in the
vicinity and does not detract from the historic contributing structure on the property.
8. Base or Platforms: A clearly defined base, or platform characteristic of historic buildings in
the immediate vicinity.
The existing structure is on a slab. Depending on the findings of the project engineer, the slab
will either be reinforced to sustain the weight of the second story addition or the structure will be
lifted and a traditional foundation with an eight-inch exposure will be installed. Either method
will provide for a defined base for the structure.
9. Form: Form (i.e., vertical/horizontal emphasis of building) that is consistent with that of
adjacent historic buildings.)
The form of the building is consistent with the adjacent buildings. The proposed second story
addition with the reduced setback is consistent with the form of the structures on the adjacent
properties. The proposed structure with the belly band to break the height, the horizontal siding,
the double hung window are examples of the architectural details that alter the form for the
structure. The property to the east has a small cottage with a detached garage, this residence is
historic contributing. The property to the west is non-historic, non-contributing. The structure on
this site is very horizontal in form. The structure to the south is also non-historic, non-
contributing. This structure is tall (approximately 27-foot peals) and has a large horizontal
volume along the alley.
10. Entrances: Well-defined primary entrances with covered porches, porticos, and other
architectural features compatible but not imitative of historic counterparts.
A small covered entrance is proposed for the expanded structure.
11. Imitation of Historic Features: Accurate restoration of original architectural features on
historic buildings. New construction, including additions, that is clearly contemporary in design,
which enhances but does not compete visually with adjacent historic buildings.
The proposed addition to the existing structure will reflect the architectural features of the
historic contributing structure on the subject property. The window style, the foundation with the
visible rebar holes are contemporary in design but do not detract from the historic design
elements. The structure is designed to complement the historic building on the subject property,
the property at 858 A Street and on the property to the east. The structure to the south and west:
are not historic.
Page 10 of 13
i
12. Additions: Additions that are visually unobtrusive from a public right-of-way, and do not
obscure or eliminate character defining features of historic buildings.
The proposed addition is not visually obtrusive from A Street. The proposed addition with the
reduced plate height and modified ridge direction reduce the visual obstiuction created through
the addition of the second story. The second story addition could have been proposed above the
existing historic contributing structure on the site in order to comply with the rear yard setback.
This would have obscured and eliminated the defining character of the historic building. The
addition with the reduced setback allows for the structure to be closer to the alley and less
visually obtrusive to the historic building on the adjacent property to the east.
13. Garage placed behind the primary historic building with access from a side street or alley if
available.
The existing structure was historically a garage. The garage was converted to a residence in the
early 1990s.
Rehabilitation Standards.
a. Historic architectural styles and associated features shall not be replicated in new additions
or associated buildings.
The applicant has proposed a building that is complimentary to the existing historic contributing
structure on the property. The applicant had proposed corbels to match those on the historic
contributing structure and is open to not installing them if it is found that the inclusion of the
corbels is replicating a historic architectural style,
b. Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can
be documented.
The existing non-conforming garage lacks architectural features. Architectural features from the
historic contributing are proposed to be incorporated into the proposed addition.
c. Replacement finishes on exterior walls of historic buildings shall match the original finish.
Exterior finishes on new additions to historic buildings shall be compatible with, but not
replicate, the finish of the historic building.
The proposed addition will match the finish of the existing dwelling unit and the historic
contributing structure on the property.
d. Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except
in those instances where it was used as the original siding.
Horizontal siding is proposed.
Page 11 of 13
e. Exterior wall colors on new additions shall match those of the historic building.
i
The proposed color is complementary of the historic structures in the vicinity.
f. Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured aluminum
siding, and artificial stone shall be avoided.
The proposed materials are consistent with the materials found in the vicinity of the subject
property.
g. Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in
new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size, but not replicate original
windows in the historic building.
The proposed "cottage" style double hung windows, their proportion, shape and size are
compatible with the historic contributing structure on the property but do not replicate the
windows.
h. Reconstructed roofs on historic buildings shall match the pitch and form of the original roof.
Roofs on new additions shall match the pitch and form of the historic building, and shall be
attached at a different height so the addition can be clearly differentiated from the historic
building. Shed roofs are acceptable for one-story rear additions.
The proposed 6:12 pitch roof with composition shingles will match pitch and form of the historic
building. The eaves are proposed to be 18-inches to match the existing historic contributing
structure on the site.
i. Asphalt or composition shingle roofs are preferred. Asphalt shingles which match the original
roof material in color and texture are acceptable. Wood shake, woodshingle, tile, and metal
roofs shall be avoided.
The historic building had a metal roof installed, the new roof is proposed as composition
shingles.
j. New porches or entries shall be compatible with, but not replicate, the historic character of
the building.
No porches are proposed. A small covering with a gable roof is proposed to define the entrance
of the unit.
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.
Page 12 of 13
The proposal sill not have an impact on the capacity of the existing City facilities that service the
site. The structure is serviced by city facilities and the increase in the number of restrooms will
not negatively affect city facilities.
i
Conclusion:
The applicant finds that the proposed addition of a second floor above an existing non-
conforming structure that is adjacent to the rear property line abutting a public alleyway
complies with the criteria from the Conditional Use Permit and the Site Design Review chapters
of the Ashland Municipal Code.
The applicant finds that the though the setback is non-conforming the proposed structures height,
mass, scaling, bulk, coverage and architectural compatibility is similar to other structures in the
immediate vicinity. The proposed structure has a greater setback than the immediate structure to
the west and a similar setback as the structure to the south. The applicant finds that the addition
of living space above the existing cottage is more historically appropriate than adding a second
story addition to the historic contributing structure, the Thomas Herbig house in order to provide
the necessary additional living space.
The conditional use permit criteria require that the proposal be compared to the target use of the E`
zone. Even though it is not the property owner's intention to construct a 40-foot tall, 3,250 sf
commercial office on the property, that is the target use of the zone and the proposal will have
significantly less of an impact even with the reduced setback along the alley.
Thank you for your consideration.
Page 1 of 13
RE: PLANNING ACTION 2015-02203
868 A Street
Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit findings addendum 12/21/2015:
Vertical massing and scale:
1. Existing primary residence at 868 A Street. Recently renovated to meet Historic District Design
Standards. Note existing cottage at left (at south end of property). This is the existing structure
in this proposal. Note massing and scale of cabinet shop to right. Setbacks or Historic
Compatibility are not met with this structure.
a
I
i
i
2. Cabinet shop to right (west) of primary residence. Note large scale, lack of proper setback, and
non-compliance with Historic Standards.
,I I
i
i
I
II
3. View from the porch to the west from 868 primary residence looking at cabinet shop at 864 A
Street. Note scale, massing, setback, lack of Historic Standards detailing.
i
View from dining room at 868 A Street looking west at cabinet shop. Historic windows in the
existing home were preserved and have a great view of the cabinet shop at 864 A Street. Note
extreme massing, scale, lack of historic detailing, lack of light and view.
4. View of setback to the west of the cabinet shop at 864 A. Street. Note setback, massing, and
scale.
i r
i
{
I
i ~
~ I
_ i
5. View of West face of inet shop at 864 A. Street. Note 15' wall' ;ht scale and lack of
historic detailing.
r
i
i I
! I
I
f
I
i
I
I
L
6. View of 842 A Street. Note massing, scale, lack of historic detailing.
i
i
I
i
I
I
View of rear of cabinet shop at 864 A Street. Cabinet shop and structure on other side of alley for
perspective in scaling and set Proposed 5' plate 538 square foot secc story structure in white
down alley on left.
Note very large scale of structure to the South (right) and lack of proper setback at cabinet shop on left.
i
I
1
Note extreme massing and scale of structure to the South (left). Proposed 5' plate height cottage
second story addition at left. The structure to the South will still dwarf the proposed cottage as well as
surrounding structures.
i
II
f
I
Note lack of setbacks on cabinet shop to the West. This structure has a wall height of 15'. This is taller
than the proposed 14' plate height at cottage at 868 A. Street.
i
7. No setbacks at cabinet shop at 864A. Street.
i
8. View of cabinet shop from proposed structure at alley. Note 15' wall, no historic detailing,
massing, and scale. This is taller than the 14' plate height of the proposed cottage addition.
r
. -
1
~t
I~ 1
r _vY ~ S r i , c i I..
9. View of property to the South of 868 A Street from bedroom window. This enormous structure
was built on the site of a demolished historic building. Note that the structure blocks entire
view of the Ashland Watershed from the property at 868 A. Street. Note lack of historic
detailing standards, rr ing, and very large scale. This structure 6 inates the immediate
area. Address is 267 8th Street.
I
I
f
i
- III
Same photo with proposed structure at left. Note scale.
i
j
t I
i
I
{ I
I
Same structure to the South of 868 A Street. Note scale and lack of historic detailing.
f
I;
l
{
l
I `
{
North face of large scale structure at 267 8th Street. Note severe massing, very large scale, lack
of historic detailing. This structure dominates the area and blocks view to that property to the
north. This second story in this proposal would be small in scale compared to this structure.
a r I ,
i
~ j
i
I
i
i
10. Other large scale structures surrounding the proposed second story addition at 868 A Street.
2487 Ih Street. Severe lack of historic detailing, massing, scale.
4.
i
I
270 8th Street.
~I
I
i
2347 Ih Street.
842 A Street at alley access. Note scale, massing, lack of historic detailing. This structure is
three lots north of proposed second story addition at 868 A Street.
I
= ~ I
~ I
i
View from alley behind A Street. Note general scale, massing, and detailing of all structures.
Note scale of structure at far end of alley on 8th Street. A second story addition to the existing
cottage at rear of property at 868 Street would not impede any surrounding massing or scacle.
The proposed structure: - small compared to its surrounding, would have historic compatibility,
and would beset back,.---Sher from the alley than most of the sum .ding structures.
r
I
I
11. Views to the North and East would be unimpeded.
li I
i
i
12. Properties on B Street. Note scaling.
l
I
i
r a I i
i
I
i
I
I
I I
f
c
L
F
c
i
c
r
12-22-15
Dear members of the Historic Commission,
We purchased the property at 868 A Street in 2004 in partnership with our dear friend. Our plan was
and remains to create two separate dwellings that could meet our needs for retirement and our partner's
needs for living and work space.
We are baffled by the recent questions and concerns raised at your meeting regarding our plans. We
thought we were continuing to act in complete conformity to all city codes and to all suggestions from
your commission prior to the meeting. Yesterday we met with our neighbor at 886 A Street, Alan
Adelman. We showed him our current, compromise plan for remodeling the second structure and he
agreed he had no objection.
Some reasons for our confusion include:
1.We put much thought, care and added expense throughout our planning and execution so far to keep
the historic looks of these buildings.
2.We conform to all city codes and we plan to remain consistent with the neighborhood in looks: the
proposed peak is lower than those of the neighboring houses; vertical and horizontal form are
consistent with most structures in this block of transition zoning; we are conforming to the city's
definitions regarding mass and scale.
3.Our plan reduces the need (from that of all previous uses of this property) for parking spaces as we
are converting the business use to only making studio space for art production, not retail or rental
space.
4.It appears we are being subject to residential codes although the reason for the remodel is to create
space for two artists to have employment.
If our current plan is not approved we shall be forced to build upwards on the main structure to produce
the studio space and/or to leave the cottage exactly as it exists as a rental.
The current concerns have greatly impacted our lives and our livelihoods. We have lost several months
of collecting rent due to construction delays. We are disheartened that we may not be able to live in
close proximity to our dearest friends.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you with some of my concerns.
Sincerely,
C
Steve Saturen
-T-,
i
_ ~II
Neighboring Cabinet Shop with 15' Wall at Plate o n
r
- C3
Property Line 93.53' ~y
r M
~ a
I r
v
Survey Comer _ _ N74°10'06"W Property Line 20.10' 777 N n N
FT I i' A
I I
I Parking Space ( u b
9'x22'
~ is, Sidewalk
868 A Street
a „ Ashland, OR 97520
m 'a --e- 77 -r- R 391 E 09AA Tax Lot 6800
1 Parng Space
9'x22' Lot= 6708 SgFt
--1-._ - - _ - - - Total Lot Coverage 3422.66 51% O
- C
m x e ia~ ( 1 wn, New Lot Coverage at Cottage (ARU) -120 SgPI r
N ' I Total New Square Footage at Cottage (ARU) = 649 SgFt i of coverage at Existing Main House (SFR) = 1885.60 SgFt
(D (K
i-D
Total Impervious Surfaces =879SgFt R N
~zL
M~.
\ I V
Azl-l
I~ I F
a- _
9ldowalk -
Lf)
- »
I A- C'4
o•oporty Lie e2- ` - o
- - I - \ Not To Scale V
DATE:
f2j21/2015
SCALE:
. Not 7o Scale
SHEET:
1
t
i
I
it
it
i'
-I
32' 22'
- - Sb b sYb" g"-9 i ~ °r'2 7
Z-1 1/2"
J
r~
Hi z '
sr s III ' r' i ;7 ' ? ° ; - x a 1 J
x i .
a I
~y L
Bedroom
a. - -
studio
r~ e
L _ _ J jv " - L 7 Q Area
-
q°-& 772" - ELI
i
Kitchen ' r `D I Bath i Q
r n
o
1
-J- 32 4
Floor 1 Living Area
Floor 2 Living Area IIaa pptt
643 BIN 5235gft vN
<p N
to n
N G
N
0
DATE:
12/2I/2015
SCALE,
114" = 1'
SHEET;
1
TJ -
Continuous Ridge Vent - _
Matching 6:12 Composition Roof
2x8 Fascia Boards Horizontal
Wood Siding * 9a Vent
Matching 18" Eve Matching Continuous Ridge
\ g Gorbles Matching Composition 6;12 Roof
Cottage Style Double Hung Windows Roof Over Entry To Break Up Vertical Massing Matching Corbels
2xb Belly Band 6" Exposed Concrete Foundation
Corner Trim 2x8 Belley Band
Deck udth Wood Craftsman Railing Comer Boards r
above Floor 1
8" Exposed Concrete Foundation - Deck Above Floor 1 uA Craftsman Woo Railing _
Cottage Style Double Hung Windows }
• i~ * Horizontal Wood Siding
n n ' J y
aa+
N ~ cn
b 0 `y
4-
0
~ 24' - 22' ~ 10'-
32'
North Elevation East Elevation
o
R CA
= v r
0
~UQD M
E
'0 ~E
Matching 18" Eves Continuous Ridge Vent J1
Continuous Ridge Vent Cottage Style Doubel Hung Matching 6:12 Composition Roof
Matching Composition 6:12 Roof Windows to Match Main Residence 2x8 Wood Fascia
Matching Corbels
Roof Over Entry to Break Up Vertical Massing 24 Belly Band Horizontal Wood Siding
5' Plate Height at Floor 2 Matching Corbels
2x8 Bally Band
Comer Boards Entry Roof to Break Up Vertical Massing Corner Boards _
Deck Above Floor 1 u4 Craftsman Wood Railing B" Exposed Concrete Foundation
Cottage Style Double Hung Wlndoun
Horizontal Wood Siding
6" Exposed Concrete Foundation N
0 1 6" n fl7 N
in ~ ~ ry 61
N
ni
~ DATE:
10' 22' 24' 12/21/2015
32'
South Elevation SCALE;
West Elevation
SHEET:
CD
r° bJ} n
N
bl U irr
G
N N
a~
N
_ ev
DATE;
12/21/2015
v ~
I
_ _ SCALE:
- _ Not To Scale
SHEET;
i
Mark Schexnayder
From: Mark Schexnayder
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 2:52 PM
To: 'Amy Gunter'; 'reverbmark@gmail.com'
Subject: 868 A Street - Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit - PA-2015-02203
Dear Mark & Amy,
After consulting with the Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Staff has determined that a decision regarding
this planning action will only be rendered through a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Therefore, the
Historic Commissions recommendation will be to the Planning Commission.
As currently proposed, Staff does not feel that we can support the application because it does not meet the approval
criteria for a Conditional Use Permit or the Historic Design Standards.
You may choose to continue with the application process, extend the application time line, or withdraw the application.
I will need a response with your decision by Tuesday, December 22, 2015.
Thank You,
Mark Schexnayder
Assistant Planner
City of Ashland
1
CITY OF
LA
we i
Planning Department
51 Winbum Way
Ashland, OR 97520
541488-5305' 1
T~
- J
Ashland Historic Commission
Design Review Form
Applicant Date
Address A 5 -
Proposed Action
I
O Commercial O'Residential
O New Construction O Changes to Existing Structure
Historic Review Board Comments:
U`
t
In the spirit of the historic design protecting and compatibility of your protect, if you wish to amend your
-building plan in-order-to apply any recommendations ofi he Historic Review Board, we encourage you to f
prepare an addendum and resubmit it to the Buildin ,Department
Applicant Signature Historic Review Board Signature
Glcomm-devlplanninglCommisslons & CommitleesWistoric CommissionNisc Admin-FORMSUesign Review Form.doc
12/13/2007
RE: PLANNING ACTION 2015-02203x-
868 A Street
Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit findings addendum:
The request is for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing 538 sf single story residential
dwelling unit by adding a second story. A Site Design Review Permit is required because the
proposed addition is to a structure in the Employment (E-1) zone.
The unit is considered a non-conforming structure because it is four feet away from the rear
(south) property line, where, in the E-1 zone when abutting a residential zone, a 10-foot per story
setback is required. New construction of a two story structure would require a 20-foot setback.
The subject property and those to the north, east and west are zoned E-1. The properties across
the alley to the south are zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-2).
Expansion, enlargement, modification and reconstruction is allowed with a conditional use
permit though AMC 18.1.4.030.13 "nonconforming structure may be altered (i. e., reconstructed,
enlar end, or modified) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4 and
approval of required building permits.... A nonconforming structure may be rebuilt pursuant to
this subsection, provided in a historic district the applicant must demonstrate that restoration is
not practicable. "
The requested expansion involves the construction of a second story to expand the existing
residential dwelling unit and provide the residents, an artist and an author additional living area
and working studio space. Due to the placement of the existing garage and the limited area of
footprint expansion, going up is the only option to add square footage without a complete
alteration of the existing residence and without compromising the integrity of the primary
contributing historic resource on the property, the Thomas Herbig House, a reduced setback
through the conditional use permit process is being sought.
According to the conditional use permit criteria #5 when reviewing conditional use permit
applications for conformity with the approval criteria, the target uses of each zone is the required
comparison. Per AMC 18.5.4.050.3 "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." Emphasis
added.
The target use of the zone is Employment. More specifically, general offices developed at an
intensity of .50 floor area ratio and complying with all ordinance requirements. That said, the
target use of the zone for the subject lot is a 3,250 sf office. The office building could be up to 3-
stories and 40-feet tall. There would be no required setbacks excepting the rear yard (the one for
which the conditional use permit in this application is requested) where 10-feet per story due to
the proximity to the residential zone that is across the alley.
When two zoning districts abut each other it is typical that the zoning district boua Oat y 1s. t i
mid-line of the adjacent right-of-way. In this case that is the alley. If the setback was measured
from the middle of the alley the structure would be 12-feet from the district boundary. Setbacks
through are measured from the lot line thus requiring a conditional use permit.
I
Amended findings addressing the Conditional Use Permit criteria and the Site Design Review
criteria can be found on the following pages.
Conditional Use Permit:
18.5.4.050 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 use of the structure is non-conforming in the sense that it is use is residential in nature.
According to the records of the City of Ashland and of Jackson County the garage was converted
to a residential unit in the early 1990's, a conditional use permit was obtained. The additional
allows the structure to come closer to conformance with the use of the Employment zoned land
because the additional square footage allows for the residents, an author and a paint artist to have
working studio space within their dwelling.
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.
Adequate city facilities existing and continue to exist to serve the proposed additional square c
footage. There are two existing off-street parking spaces adjacent to the cottage. There are two
on-street parking credits on A Street for the primary residence. The proposed addition is not
affecting how the parking was historically permitted. The cottage has always been more than 500
sf and has required two parking spaces in addition to the two required parking spaces for the
primary structure.
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.
The existing primary residence has an single story footprint of 1,692 sf and the cottage has a
proposed square footage of 1,145 sf and a proposed peak height of 22-feet. The combination of
Page 2 of 6
i
the two structures at 2,837 sf are similar bulk and mass as a number of the structures within the
impact area. For instance, the cabinet shop to the west (a non-historic / non-contributing
structure) is 2,640 sf. This structure stretches nearly the length of the entire N/S area of the
parcel and does not comply with the ten-foot rear yard setback due to a single story addition to
the large shop building. Additionally, this structure covers a large portion of the 5,662 sf lot. To
the west of the shop building on the adjacent lot is a two-unit hotel that was created from a
previously converted medical office. On the lot to the west of the hotel units is a 1,350 sf dance
studio. This structure does not comply with rear or side yard setbacks and appears to be on the
property lines. Additionally, as a former vehicle repair garage the concrete block building is
bulky. The property to the east of the dance studio is Chozu Bath and Tea House. This structure
at 2,035 sf with a 500 sf detached structure provides significantly more coverage than the
proposed enlarged cottage. The parcel to the south is a residential duplex that is 3,588 sf with an
attached 420 sf garage. This structure is close to 24-feet tall and covers a large portion of the
7,405 sf lot. The structure is larger in scale that the both the existing and the proposed addition
on the subject lot. The proposal at 30% lot coverage is less than the 85% lot coverage that is
allowed by code in the E-1 zone.
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.
The generation of trips from a lot with two residential units is typically going to be less than that
of a 3,250 sf office. Additionally, the property is in close proximity to the bike paths, complete
sidewalks and is within walking and biking distance of services such as shopping, dining, art
galleries, dentist offices, veterinary clinic, etc.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
The impact area is eclectic in architectural features. This is due to the area being a transitional
area. Though there is a lot of residential form and massing, the code allows for greater flexibility
when compared to the prominent architectural themes in the impact area. This is especially true
when the conditional use permit criteria require the compatibility determination to be based on
the target use of the zone which is a 3,250 sf office building.
Prior to the recent, extensive remodel, the primary residence had a number of different
architectural styles itself including some gingerbread treatments in the gables, craftsman style
corbels, Victorian style turned porch posts among others.
There are ranch style apartments from the 1980s, two-story structures completed in the 1990s,
original structures such as the cottage on the adjacent property to the west and the two story I-
house on the corner of Seventh and A Street, and heavily remodeled historic structures, (Chozu
Bath house, two-unit hotel, etc.). There are also more industrial style structures like the large
shop building on the adjacent property to the west and a concrete block building further to the
west down the alley.
Page 3 of 6
The proposed structure is less tall than the residence to the south. The proposed structure is
similar in height as the cabinet shop to the west. The proposed structure is proposed to have
elements of the architectural design of the front residence included in the proposed structure.
These include matching siding, inclusion of corbels, corner, door and window trim, window
style, and complementary color scheme.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
The addition of the second story and the properties continued use as two residential units will not
have a negative impact on air quality, generation of dust, orders or other environmental
pollutants when compared to a 3,250 sf office or when compared to other uses allowed in the E-1
zone.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The addition of the second story will not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties in the
impact area when compared to the noise, light and glare that a 3,250 sf office building would.
The continued use of the property as residential will have less of an impact when compared to a
commercial use.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed addition that does not comply with setbacks will not prevent the development of
the adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. They could develop to a use
allowed in the E-1 zone regardless of the use of the subject property.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
The proposed use of the property is not being modified through the conditional use permit
request.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted
pursuant to this ordinance.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure is allowed with the approval of a conditional use
permit. The property is within the residential overlay and residential uses are allowed on the
property. There are two existing residences on the property. This will not be increased with the
conditional use permit.
0 2015
Page 4 of 6
S
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.
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.
As stated previously, the target use of the zone is Employment. More specifically, general offices
developed at an intensity of .50 floor area ratio and complying with all ordinance requirements.
That said, the target use of the zone for the subject lot is a 3,250 sf office. The office building
could be up to 40-feet tall and have no setbacks excepting the rear yard (the one for which the
conditional use permit in this application is requested) where 10-feet per story due to the
proximity to the residential zone.
(Ji
1
Site Development and Design Review
18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria
E
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.
The proposal is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand a non-conforming structure
which is allowed in AMC 18.1.4.030.13. The lot dimensions, area, density are not changing. The
floor area is less than required by code for the E-1 zone but the proposed addition brings the i'
property closer to conformance with the required 3,250 sf office building standards by providing
2,837 sf of floor area that could be converted to office or similar uses in the E-1 zone. The
existing primary residence and its orientation to A Street is not being modified. The proposed
I'
building with an average height of 21 %2 feet is less than the maximum of 40-feet in the zone.
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
The subject property is pre-existing, non-conforming with two residential units in the E-1 zone
and no employment based businesses. This is non-conformity is not being modified or increased.
In fact, the proposed addition will allow for the construction of artists' studio space within the
increased square footage of the rear residential unit.
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.
Page 5 of 6
The subject property is Employment Zoned and is located within the Detail Site Review overlay,
additionally, the property is within the Railroad Historic District. As demonstrated below, the
proposed addition is compatible with the Historic District Design Standards.
The proposed orientation and streetscape of the property is not being modified with the proposed
addition.
B. Historic District Design Standards. In addition to the standards of part 18.4, the approval
authority uses the following standards for new construction, and restoration and rehabilitation of
existing buildings within the Historic District overlay.
1. Transitional Areas. For projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays,
appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural
and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area E,
while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject
property.
2. Height.
Scale
Massing: the mass of the proposed
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.
The proposal sill not have an impact on the capacity of the existing City facilities that service the
site.
E
I
Page 6 of 6
I
RE: PLANNING ACTION 2015-02203
868 A Street
Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit findings addendum:
Vertical massing and scale:
1. Existing primary residence at 868 A Street. Recently renovated to meet Historic District Design
Standards. Note existing cottage at left (at south end of property). This is the existing structure
in this proposal. Note massing and scale of cabinet shop to right. Setbacks or Historic
Compatibility are not met with this structure.
pi~
k %
~ f "a N4Qp ~r
ELI'
I 7i x~~F 'Yr F I I E Lpsq~~~`S FI;4Y5 ~`EII
2. Cabinet shop to right (west) of primary residence. Note large scale, lack of proper setback, and
non-compliance with Historic Standards.
i
r
-
€
BEL
3. View from the porch to the west from 868 primary residence looking at cabinet shop at 864 A
Street. Note scale, massing, setback, lack of Historic Standards detailing.
f
Offs
I
7 I
View from dining room at 868 A Street looking west at cabinet shop. Historic windows in the
existing home were preserved and have a great view of the cabinet shop at 864 A Street. Note
extreme massing, scale, lack of historic detailing, lack of light and view.
}
; - a>k -
ILI
4. View of setback to the west of the cabinet shop at 864 A. Street. Note setback, massing , and
scale.
.a
-
rt
5. View of West face of cabinet shop at 864 A. Street. (Vote 15' wall _rght scale and lack of
historic detailing.
6. View of 842 A Street. Note massing, scale, lack of historic detailing.
J
-
r;
i v~
7. View of rear of cabin' hop at 864 A Street. Existing structure in '--a8 SgFt proposed second
story addition shown ac right next to blue vehicle. Note no setbaL Jr cabinet shop at 864 A
Street, no historic detailing, massing and scale.
.~L
k
_ g
8. No setbacks at cabinet shop at 864 A. Street.
9. View of cabinet shop from proposed structure at alley. Note 15' wall, no historic detailing,
i
massing, and scale.
-
fZ7
.
10. View of property to the South of 868 A Street from bedroom wins This enormous structure
was built on the site of a demolished historic building. Note that the structure blocks entire
view of the Ashland Watershed from the property at 868 A. Street. Note lack of historic
detailing standards, massing, and very large scale. This structure dominates the immediate
area. Address is 267 8th Street.
Same photo with proposed structure at left. Note scale.
t
- M-ili~
Same structure to the South of 868 A Street. Note scale and lack of historic detailing.
I
i
I
~I
-
4
'k
North face of large scale structure at 267 8th Street. Note severe massing, very large scale, lack
of historic detailing. This structure dominates the area and blocks view to that property to the
north. This second story in this proposal would be small in scale compared to this structure.
l
1
11. Other large scale structures surrounding the proposed second story addition at 868 A Street.
2487 Ih Street. Severe lack of historic detailing, massing, scale.
^r-f
270 8th Street.
2347 Ih Street.
ell
842 A Street at alley access. Note scale, massing, lack of historic detailing. This structure is
three lots north of proposed second story addition at 868 A Street.
- -
View from alley behind A Street. Note general scale, massing, and detailing of all structures.
Note scale of structure at far end of alley on 8th Street. A second story addition to the existing
cottage at rear of property at 868 Street would not impede any surrounding massing or scacle.
The proposed structL- s small compared to its surrounding, woW ' have historic compatibility,
and would be set bacPc rurther from the alley than most of the sur. Ming structures.
kkl
~~\1
r
12. Views to the North and East would be unimpeded.
i
t
City of Ashland Planning Department December 6, 2015
To Whom it May Concern,
When Harriet and Steve Saturen and I purchased the property at 868 A Street in Ashland over ten
years ago it was our dream to ultimately renovate both the house and the cottage and live there. Harriet
and Steve would occupy the house and I would occupy the cottage. We knew at the time that there
would have to be work done on both buildings, but we were excited to envision living on A Street in
Ashland, as we have always liked the Railroad District neighborhood.
As Harriet and Steve recently renovated the main house they took great care in its design and
worked cooperatively with the Historic Commission to make sure that the new structure would be in
keeping with the neighborhood's look and feel, At times they altered what they were originally
envisioning in order to work with the desires of the Historic Commission. It is easy to see, now that it
is completed, that they were successful with that, and it is a very attractive addition to the
neighborhood.
Now it is time for the cottage to be renovated. I will be living there with my partner, Shari Southard.
We are both artists. Shari is an accomplished visual artist and I am a published author. Part of the
redesign of the cottage involves adding a second floor to it that will include two small studios for us, as
well as some small amount of additional living space in order for it to be large enough for two people
to live in it. It is now only 500 square feet. It will not be a large home, but adding approximately an
additional 500 square feet will bring it to about 1000 square foot total, enough for the two of us.
We have been working closely with Mark Lackey, of Integrity Building, who has been consulting
with the Historic Commission and the Planning Department. Shari and I have also been willing to work
with their ideas and have altered some of what we were planning for our home in order to do so.
Everything we are doing is in compliance with city codes, and it is unfortunate that some of our
neighbors have reacted to the plans negatively. I understand that change is hard, but the cottage will be
renovated with the same care and attention to design needs, as was the main house.
We are not infringing on anyone's solar access. And while I am sad that our second story may
obscure some of our neighbor's view of Mt. Grizzly, that very same neighbor constructed a second floor
on her home, effectively obscuring our view of the watershed mountains to the west.
We cannot build out, as the cottage sits close to the alley. Building up is the only way we have of
adding some much needed space to our home.
The plans we have come up with, with Mark's help, will actually make the cottage have a much
more harmonious look to it, matching the look of the main house, and fitting in well with the overall
look of the neighborhood.
My only desire here is to create a home that my partner and I can live and work in, one that fits in
well with the look of the neighborhood, and to be, as we have always been, no matter where we live,
good neighbors to those around us. We thought that changing these homes from rentals to owner
occupied and renovating them would be positive additions to our neighbors. It has been most
distressing to be met with so much negativity from a few neighbors when what we are trying to do is to
improve our own property in accordance with regulations of the city and the input from the Historic
Commission.
Harriet and Steve and I are old friends, dating back to the University of Oregon in the 1970's. It has
i
long been a dream of ours to live in proximity to one another, which is why we bought the property
years ago. We would greatly appreciate anything you can do to facilitate this process and to help us to
finally achieve that dream.
Thank you so much for your consideration with this.
Linda Millemann
Harriet Saturen
Steve Saturen
ti
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2015
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER 6:00p.m. - SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community
Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way
Historic Commissioners Present: Mr. Skibby, Ms. Renwick, Mr. Emery, Mr. Ladygo, Mr. Shostrom,
Mr. Giordano, Mr. Swink, Mr. Whitford
Commission Members Absent: Ms. Kencairn (E)
Council Liaison : Carol Voisin
Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Mark Schexnayder; Clerk: Regan Trapp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Giordano motioned to approve minutes with corrections from November 4, 2015. Mr. Ladygo
seconded. Mr. Whitford and Mr. Swink both abstained.
PUBLIC FORUM:
Bruce Bayard of 621 A Street, Ashland, Oregon, addressed the Commission regarding the Gateway
Island Project. Mr. Bayard briefly described his time as a Public Arts Commissioner and stated that
he was on the selection panel for the Gateway Island Project. Mr. Bayard went on to say that his
reason for speaking is because he would like to see better intra-commission relationships between
the Public Art Commission and Historic Commission. He spoke on past experiences with the flawed
process and would urge the Historic Commission to participate in the process and find better ways to
communicate within the City Commissions.
Mr. Skibby closed the public forum.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
Ms Voisin gave the Council Liaison report.
Mr. Skibby read aloud the procedure for public hearings.
PLANNING ACTION REVIEW:
PLANNING ACTION: 2015-02203
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Linda McMilleman & Steve Saturen/ Mark Lackey
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a
second story addition to the existing cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39
1 E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 6800.
There was no conflict of interest or ex parte contact with the applicant.
Mr. Schexnayder gave the staff report on PA-2015-02203.
Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing to the applicant.
Amy Gunter of Rogue Planning and Development at 1424 S. Ivy, Medford, Oregon addressed the
Commission. Ms. Gunter emphasized that the target use of the zone is general office developed at
a .5 floor area ratio which equates to a 3,250 square foot office or office/residential combo. She
went on to say that in E-1 zones you can have 85% lot coverage and no setbacks to the north.
There is a 40 ft height limitation (or 3 stories) with a rear yard setback of 10 ft per story when
abutting a residential zone. Ms. Gunter implied one could argue that the "residential use is non-
conforming. She stated that the property has been a residential unit for decades and has been
granted conditional use permits to further the residential growth. Ms. Gunter elaborated on the
Conditional Use Permit criteria and compared the home to the neighboring lots and then passed
around some photos of the different lots to show similarity in bulk and massing. Ms. Gunter
heartily endorsed the architectural compatibility of the existing structure as compared with the
Historic Design Standards and the scale and height are comparable to other buildings in the E-1
zone. Ms. Gunter clarified that they have taken all necessary measures to make it look like a
residential unit and have continued the residential elements that are happening on the existing
house, making it compatible with the residential structures in the vicinity.
There were questions from the Commission regarding foundation, placement of buildings, siding
materials and setbacks. Ms. Gunter elaborated on materials used for the project.
Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing to the applicant and opened to the public for comments.
Robert Monroe owner of Cabinet Works at 165 B Street, Ashland, Oregon addressed the
Commission. Mr. Monroe gave a history of the development in the A Street area and stressed that
he has concerns about the setbacks of the structure. Mr. Monroe directed attention to 18.1.4.030
from the land use code which talks about non-conforming structures. Mr. Monroe is concerned
about it blocking neighbor's views of the mountains and will look right into Mr. Adelman's backyard
creating a privacy issue.
Stacy McCullough of 267 8th Street, Ashland, Oregon addressed the Commission. Ms.
McCullough told the Commission that the 2nd story addition will block all her views of the mountains
and she would not get the morning sun along the alleyway like she does now. She emphasized
that the reason she bought her home was for the views she gets and believes she will be "blocked
in" if the structure is allowed to be built. She showed the Commission photos of her views of the
mountains.
Allen Adelman of 886 A Street, Ashland, Oregon addressed the Commission. Mr. Adelman is
concerned that if the structure goes up he will lose his privacy. He stated that the applicant is
pushing the envelope with the proposed setbacks. He went on to say that he lives in an 800
square foot home and will feel boxed in if the structure goes up. There are numerous parking
issues in the neighborhood and he feels that the Commission needs to look at the bigger picture.
He invited the Commission to come to the area and look at what is proposed for it. Mr. Monroe
spoke out of order and said that the basement is finished and has bedrooms in it. Mr. Adelman
finished by stating that he never received the Notice of Complete in the mail.
Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing and opened to staff for comments.
Mr. Schexnayder called attention to the mailing of the Notice. He stated that, according to the
labels and affidavit, the Notice was mailed to Mr. Adelman. Mr. Schexnayder went on to say that in
the non-conforming section of the Land Use Code 18.1.4.030 a non conforming structure may be
altered with planning approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Skibby commented that according
to the Land Use Code, no one is guaranteed a view and Mr. Schexnayder concurred. There was
much discussion on the solar ordinance, setbacks and what is allowed in E-1 and residential
zones.
Mr. Skibby opened the hearing to the applicant for rebuttal time.
Ms. Gunter addressed the Commission and wanted to reiterate that the criteria speaks to massing
scale and height compared to the target use of the zone. She stated that yes the setbacks are non
-conforming but they would still have much less of an impact than a 40 ft tall structure 20 ft off the
property line would. She went on to say that views are not protected through the Land Use
Ordinance and they believe they have met all criteria for the Historic District Site Design and Use
Standards.
Mr. Schexnayder stated that with the Conditional Use Permit, this is would all be legal and by code
and would be a staff administrative decision.
Mr. Skibby closed to the applicants and opened to the Commission for comments.
Commissions concerns are setbacks and the lack of an additional 10 feet for setback. They spoke
about protecting the residential setback when adjacent to E-1 and believe it should be honored.
Mr. Giordano thought a compromise might be to make the structure 1 %2 stories rather than 2 to
preserve some views and sunlight but it would eliminate half of the upstairs. The Commission as a
whole was undecided on this option and the decision was to continue this Planning Action until the
next meeting to give the applicant time to respond.
The first motion, made by Mr. Shostrom was to deny PA-2015-02203 but was withdrawn to give the
applicants more time to alter their design.
Mr. Shostrom motioned to continue PA-2015-02203 until January's meeting and allow the applicant
time to respond to compliance with scale and massing in relation to the setbacks and try to meet
existing ordinances and standards within the zone. Mr. Swink seconded. No one opposed.
NEW ITEMS:
Review board schedule
Project assignments for planning actions
85 Winburn Way
Mr. Schexnayder addressed the Commission regarding the reasons 85 Winburn Way will not be
presented for planning action review. He went on to say that this is a hillside physical and
environmental constraints permit and is not subject to Site Design or Conditional Use Permit review
by the Historic Commission. He stated that the applicants have asked for the opportunity to
present the proposal to the full Commission.
Carlos Delgado, Architect at 217 Fourth Street, Ashland, Oregon addressed the Commission. He
presented the color rendering of the proposed residence at 85 Winburn Way to the Commission.
Mr. Delgado gave an overview of the project proposal and gave a brief history on the applicants,
Bryan and Stephanie Deboer. Mr. Delgado pointed out that the applicants are wanting a more
"urban project" home in Ashland, to retire in. He went on to say that they are meeting all the
standards in the Historic District in regards to height, solar, setbacks, MPFA and wall frontages.
Mr. Skibby commented that it's modern but the design and texture fits nicely in the area. Ms.
Renwick called attention to the fact that it looks way smaller than it really is. Mr. Shostrom outlined
the fact that it is residential, but it doesn't look like it. He went on to say that all the buildings in the
area, even though commercial, have a residential feel. Mr. Shostrom mentioned that in looking at
the proposal it speaks to the transition between commercial and residential because of the high
scale of design. He commented that the way the building "steps up" is a soft feel and the applicant
has done a great job with the cascading effect of the plantar boxes and the recessed parking and
lower parking garage are a great concept. Mr. Ladygo said as compared to the previous drawings,
this is a beautiful design and the massing is good. Ms. Renwick appreciates how Mr. Delgado
addressed the issue of the driveway by not having them back out onto Winburn Way.
The Commission asked questions about design of pillars and retaining walls, siding (possibly
redwood, cedar, or teak) and tree removal.
The Commission, as a whole, feels this is an appropriate project for the area and will improve it
greatly.
OLD BUSINESS:
Email from David Sherr regarding plantings in the Plaza - The Commission discussed this and
agreed that no one needs to respond to the email.
"Gather" sculpture - Emails
Ms. Renwick addressed the email and stated that the City allows service to 2 Commissions
according to chapter 2.04.09.09C. Ms. Renwick went on the say that herself and Ms. Kencairn
have no conflict of interest in regards to the selection of the art. Ms Renwick impressed upon the
fact that the sculptress will be doing her own landscaping. She clarified that at the study session
for the council they concluded that the process taken by the Public Arts Commission was legal and
by the rules. She impressed upon the fact that if the Historic Commission doesn't agree with the
rules than they need to be active in changing them. Mr. Skibby stressed that the City Council is
working on some ideas for better communication between the Commissions. Mr. Ladygo
emphasized that there are 2 qualified members that would be interested in a liaison position
between both the Historic Commission and the Public Arts Commission. He went on to say that if
the communication lines were open between the Commissions then there wouldn't be this
immediate conflict. Mr. Ladygo added that the emails that have been sent regarding the "Gather"
sculpture are all subjective in nature and based on "personal taste". He stated that the sculpture
would not obstruct anyone's views and will blend in, in any season. Mr. Swink expressed his
disappointment at not being able to attend the meeting in November and that he would have made
more of a statement against the sculpture. Mr. Swink believes that while the sculpture is nice
looking, it's inappropriately placed and doesn't represent Ashland for him. Ms Renwick interrupted
Mr. Swink by saying it's subjective. Mr. Swink agreed with Ms. Renwick that it is subjective but
stated that he has seen a lot of public artwork in relation to historic buildings and believes that
something better could have been chosen. There was much discussion about the size, scale, and
appropriateness of the sculpture where Commissioners were voicing their opinions. Ms. Renwick
briefly outlined what Ms. Voisin had said at the last meeting and stated that "It's not about the art".
Their job was to focus on the scale, size, materials and location of the sculpture, that's all. Mr.
Skibby moved the discussion along and said they will wait to hear from the City Council on the
process. Ms. Renwick made a recommendation to the Commission by going to the City's website
and clicking on the gateway project banner public input section. She went on to say that they are
taking the public's responses and creating word clouds. In Ms. Renwick's opinion they are one of
the most effective visual things she has ever seen.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
There were no items to discuss.
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
Mr. Skibby shared with the Commission in regards to a visit he had with Barry Thalden, an
architect from SOU. Mr. Thalden invited Mr. Skibby to look at a sign making router. Mr. Thalden
offered to engrave the plaques for the Historical markers at a low cost. Mr. Skibby passed around'
samples of the plaques to the Commission. Mr. Skibby reported that all the engraving is done on
the computer and the service is available if this is the way everyone wants to go. Mr. Skibby says
they may work with smaller projects. Mr.Shostrom and Ms. Renwick were concerned about the
quality of the material and how long it would last. This material may be able to be used in other
areas of the City.
Review Board Schedule ~
December 10th Terry, Allison, Bill
December 17th Terry, Sam, Andrew
December 24th Terry, Kerry, Tom
December 31St Terry, Kerry, Bill
January 7th Terry, Keith, Tom
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All
PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford
PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom
PA-2014-00251 30 S. First St Whitford
BD-2013-00813 374 Hargadine Swink
PA-2013-01828 310 Oak St. (Thompson) Shostrom
PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Renwick
PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Kencairn
PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery
PA-2015-00541 345 Lithia Way Giordano & Renwick
PA-2015-00493 37 N. Main Skibby
PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Ladygo
PA-2015-01163 868 A' Street Kencairn
PA-2015-00980 637 B' Street Shostrom
PA-2015-00797 266 Third Ladygo
PA-2015-01115 34 S. Pioneer Ladygo
PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom
PA-2015-01512 198 Hillcrest Swink
PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby
PA-2015-01769 860 C Renwick
PA-2015-01517 209 Oak Shostrom
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Next meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2016 at 6;00 pm.
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Planning Application Review
December 2, 2015
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02203
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street
APPLICANT: Mark Lackey
OWNER: Linda Millemann, Steven and Harriet Saturen
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for
a second story addition to the existing cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A
Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 6800
Recommendation: j
The Ashland Historic Commission will continue this hearing at the next regularly scheduled
Historic Commission Meeting.
I
G
I
I
i
i
r
r
G
k
l
i
I
I
r
i
I
t
r
Department of Community Development Tel: 541.488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.orms
G
NPS Form 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-66)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation
Amended-March 2002
Section Number: 7 Page: 66 Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, Ashland, OR
$500. A family member, E. N. Butler built several bungalows in Ashland in the 1920s and
likely built this one. Butler sold the property to Peter Murray in 1923. In 1948 the house was
occupied by P. C. Woods and in 1964 it was owned and occupied by SP employee Merced
Chacon and his wife Ventura. The Butler House retains sufficient integrity to relate its historic
period of development.
ID # 216.0
THE CABINET WORKS 1985c
864 A STREET 391E09AB 1600
Other: Utilitarian Non-Historic, Non-Contributing
This large wood-frame building, long used as a cabinet shop, was probably built shortly prior to
the 1989 split of this tax lot from that of the Herbig House (ID #217.0), to the east.
ID # 217.0 Survey #23
HERBIG, THOMAS AND M. L. HOUSE 0
868 A STREET 391E09AB 1601
Arts & Crafts: Bungalow Historic Contributing
A single-story wood frame dwelling in the bungalow style, this structure was probably built
shortly after M. L. Swab and Thomas Herbig were married in 1906. The couple sold the house
to Louis H. Wyant in 1909, who retained ownership until 1925. There is no listing for the
Herbig House in 1948 but the 1964 city directory show Mike Taylor as the owner and occupant.
By 1991 the Herbig House was converted for use a hair salon. With only minor changes, the
house retains sufficient integrity to relate its historic period of development.
ED # 218.0 Survey #29
DEWS, OLIVER RENTAL HOUSE 1903c
854 A STREET 391E09AB 1700
Other Vernacular Historic Contributing
A small single-story wood-frame hipped-roof vernacular cottage, the Dews Rental House was
built in 1903 after the land was soldpto Oliver and Hattie Dews, who resided next door. Dews,
who operated a drayage business, kept this house for rental purposes. Hattie Dews sold the
property to M. A. Walker in 1909 and the following year it was being rented by Joseph Bailey, a
hostler for the railroad. M. C. Weber lived here in 1948 and in 1964 Frank H. Breaszeale was
the tenant. The Dews Rental House retains sufficient integrity to relate its historic period of
development.
ID # 219.0
WALT ANDERS AUTO REPAIR 1976
842 A STREET 391E09AB 1800
Other: Utilitarian Non-Historic, Non-Contributing
This utilitarian concrete volume was apparently built in 1976 and the following year is listed as
the site of the Walt Anders Auto Repair Shop which occupied the site for many years.
ID # 220.0 Survey #25
DEWS, OLIVER HOUSE 1902c
832 A STREET 391E09AB 1900
Other: Vernacular Historic Contributing
This single-story wood-frame vernacular ell was probably built sometime after Oliver B. and
Hattie Dews purchased the property in 1902 from E. McNair Holmes. Dews, who operated a
drayage business at the time this house was built, was later employed by the railroad as a car
repairer. In 1910 Hattie and her two step-children Edmund and Ellen lived here. The house
remained in family ownership form many years and was a rented to George and Anna Graham
u o I-- _
0 U)
`
N ; co
e" oo~
4
jJy
,
r
{ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ z<"` n it
i
r
i
I
Lt r t ll 1
1 b
Ir ~k
7a -
71
I +uew~ S m ~ x ~ i
R T AF q 1 ( / S ~ ~ !
F-
t
#219,000
842AST'
i
i
Planning Department, 51 Winbu ii Nay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 1 T F
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ALAND
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2015-02203
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street
OWNERIAPPLICANT: Linda McMilleman & Steve Saturen/ Mark Lackey
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a second story addition to the
existing cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09AA; TAX LOTS:
6800,
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 24, 2015
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: December 8, 2015
i
I
SU BJECTPROPERTY
r < - 889 A Street
-209''x02203
/I
I
C
Z
-
1
z 1~ l
9s00 - - -c.rv of
9inch =50 feet
Mopplnd le athematic only aid been no worrenty of eccureoy.
Ail features, c4ucrurea, is<Iiltiea, eaaertnnt or roorlvvy locetlonc
chould ba Independently/leld verifkdfor exlcience and/or location.
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn
Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a
notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the
comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the
application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning
Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC
18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this
application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your
right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. oCx
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.5.4.050.A
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 1822 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 1822 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.
L 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.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
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 18A
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.
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-02203.doca
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 November 24, 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 #2015-02203, 868 A Street.
Signature of Employee
DocumeW 11/2412015
F Ii ~
Il pja'f, If,p I., ~1
Il"7'r u'. ll'ti t'.
11 ih? ;T
fli Y~ n t}~i'f fn IIf Efii
11Iii' Il~•d" ttyi [1~7nLL 11G1P,; Eni'G fit11,H~~v 1
P !111 '11044
L 114 , Oil Y ~ti Lf i p ail ilffL ~'l o n 11, t n'.Q p~ 1,111 l, a
IlA, F r~" f 1
dnlc I out fl Rif W1 I;
f11P.Vr ~sr' >~1lnn' 1
nfl r4 H
i
Fr: nuRnIn~' in n'F~ inn's
lna.q 1~t~>3r not nnbH
Q
i
i < <
f'
n. nn~~n ttn »
in a FA Ell 4f r;
f~11~
I n kJ t;' i a nk
8 1t ~ p S~
l 6
in DR In
e
I n. ~
'll 4 ~110 ~'i 4 onrf
CR,P:n. ,
nR FT
k k
O V,
nnE?`n,L« Inui f nffn'u
on, 1I
,,T77~..pp 77 ,n-n nth. 'ntyH''. ~p p ~7 {
'if'if N [ I~ l f'f of i. U L G `RDLIV In G .X E ry 7 -a
f f~llf~lf '
so [I
In Gv~ 'ISO
Qe~'
94. ~w OU I 0-9 5E 'R DTE
t Q17~N~"GEF [►H~
iPq) w Ey ~T[lEl ON-R
W k,
t ni.~' Ike ,~pryry {n~OZ n ll' ~ f' 'n [1f E P
~V:P y.Kijf ale z , 10& c.... v,; 6f.
tip, H0fk
l In n° 11, f
V1194 II
f F~IF> ,.pf~ ~Ifl~~i;k»'nCh'~ k,
1; ~n n~ ~1 t~~~Ga
In lif ~'!1 ~ 1kS'{~ .k
f GEC
out
MIT?
I
I gEy gi
t znn~rr Pn011 ~90E,12
I Bill, t'
_ . ,
":j j 7' i
ill111E I ,aR, to in
n~G r
k ~ ~ I ~ n'~ rQJ7{k.
nfrE k i °T J..I ~..ik ~k1 ~ ll~'1P❑~
.L. ~ ~ In H, F. V ~7 l~ llf I , In nz, ~ ~l n tl (l rb~
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6900 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7200 r A-2015-02203 391 E09AA 8500
ADLEMAN ALAN R AUBIN-ADDICOTT SUZANNE TRUSTEE COLE MARY ELLEN/JOHN C
886 A ST 115 BROOKS LN 286 8TH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
i
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7700 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 2215 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 8400
DANLEY WILLIAM E JR TRUSTEE DOUGLAS JAMES R TRUSTEE FENWICK STEPHEN C
871 B ST 2120 CALAVERAS AVE PO BOX 338
ASHLAND, OR 97520 DAVIS, CA 95616 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7300 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7800 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 8300
GREENE DAVID E TRUSTEE KAPLAN-STANTON ALENE H/STANTON LARMORE JANET/JOHN T STRONG
367 OXFORD ST JOHN M 248 EIGHTH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 885 B ST ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 2201 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7000 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7500
LUZ GEORGE A/SHELDON H MCCULLOH KENNETH S/STAYCE E MKH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
4910 CROWSON AVE 267 EIGHTH ST COMPANY LLC
BATCHELOR, MD 21212 ASHLAND, OR 97520 2022 CRESTVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6700 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7600 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6600
MUNROE ROBERT W RAGEN DANIEL A JR RUBINSTEIN ILENE K
864 A ST 855 B ST 854 AST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6800 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 7100 PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 2216
SATUREN STEVEN L SCHAAF NED TRUSTEE SMITH ALFORD R JR TRUSTEE
265 STEINMAN DR 175 NEIL CREEK RD PO BOX 833
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I
PA-2015-02203 391 E09AA 6200 PA-2015-02203 PA-2015-02203
UNION PACIFIC RR CO INTEGRITY BUILDING CONTRACTORS LINDA MCMILLEMAN & STEVE SATUREN
1400 DOUGLAS - STOP 1640 PO BOX 225 868 A STREET
OMAHA, NE 68179 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
868 A STREET
11/24/2015 NOC
21
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
C I T Y O F 51 Winhu n Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE W(2/ - r`e.~ &13
ASHLAND H L AN 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
~
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT S-0 _ ADD,
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ® YES NO
Street Address 1A
Assessor's Map No. 391 E 3 t 09 A Tax Lot(s) Boo
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name All Phone 41- ft-al E-Mail .
Address PO City SN I~0 Zip 9-7 5610
PROPERTY OWNER
Name 0N0 ~ATvVU~W Phone T`1013"32 E-Mail k trt c (1 P 15ft~ ~
Address City As,~ KO Zip bs o
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Name Phone 5141-00-411 E-Mail eNtf b 1 k 00 6 rA A• P
Address- City &t Zip ~OA
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense. If I hav vised to-seek competent professional advice and as (stance.
l l c , ~
Signature Date
Applica
r6
As owner of the property_j . vo ved in this request, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
E.
dubs
Property Owner's Signature (required) Date
[ro be completed by City Staff]
l ~d
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER 0
Q:\comm-dev~planning\Forms & Handoufs\Zoning Pemiit Application.doe
y
i
BUILDING CONTRACTORS
%"V%V.INTEGRMBUILDIN000NTRACTORS.COM PHONE: 541-890-2371
PO BOX 225 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 FAX: 541-488-7486
11/16/15
Ashland Planning Division
51 Windburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Type 1 application for second story addition to existing rear cottage at 868 A. Street #3, Ashland, OR
97520. Additional square footage to be 538 Sqft.
The property is Zoned E1.
Maximum Building Height: 40ft
Standard Yard Requirements: N/A
Lot Coverage: N/A
Landscape Requirements: 15%. Existing and met.
Trees: 18.4.5.030. No trees are to be removed during or after construction for this addition.
Narrative
Additional square footage of proposed addition to be 538 Sqft. The property contains 2 permitted existing
dwellings. The 538 Sqft proposal is to the existing cottage at rear of property. The main dwelling
recently renovated contains 1 bedroom and 3031 Sqft which 1402 of this square footage is basement.
Footprint of existing main dwelling is 1629 sqft. Existing secondary dwelling is 528 sqft. Lot coverage
of the 6944 sqft lot is currently at 27.5%. The proposed addition will only boost the lot coverage to
29.5%. Current parking coverage of the lot is 7% which is not proposed to change. Lawn and
landscaping lot coverage will be 63.5%.
Findings of Fact: Applicable Land Use Ordinance findings based on Pre-Application and conference.
Off-Street Automobile Parking
Code (AMC) Chapter 18.4.3. Proposed use requires four (4) parking spaces, two (2) for the existing front
dwelling and two (2) for the cottage (AMC 18.4.3.040). Rear alley access providing 18' x 27'4"
provides two of the needed parking spaces. Lot line at 58' at street side of property (east on A Street)
provides in excess of 44' to meet desired off-street credit for a total of four (4) parking spaces 18.4.3.060
2-4.
Historic District Overlay
Meetings with Ashland Historic Commission have guided the process through recommendations. Design
revisions include rotating the primary roof line (ridge) to parallel the main house, using exterior
treatments to represent historic detailing of the main house such as corbels at eves, attic vents, matching
roof pitch, and siding materials (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.4). Vertical massing to be dealt with using details
consisting of corner boards and a belly band (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.4). A matching roof to be used over the
second story porch matching character of main house and historic standards of district (AMC
18.4.2.050.B.6). Double hung cottage style windows will be used matching the existing main house
(AMC 18.4.2.050.B.7). Exterior paint color scheme to be scheduled to compliment and not detract from
existing main house. Same color tones to be used per Historic Commission recommendations.
i
15.5.2.050
A. Underlying Zone
The proposal complies with all provisions of the E1 Zone. Setbacks meet existing non-conforming
structure requirements. Building height within acceptable dimensions. Lot coverage well within
requirements. Building orientation, architecture, and historic standards are addressed above and met.
B. Overlay Zones
Met
C. Site Development and Design Standards
The property is a pre-existing development. Additional Design Standards, including Historic District
Standards, are described above and proposed to be met.
D. City Facilities
All city facilities are existing.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards
See Development and Design Standards.
1. Proposal is to an existing structure.
2. Proposed addition brings the existing structure detailing up to Site Development and Design
Standards by implementing Historic Commissions recommendations.
15.4.2.030
C. Building Orientation
1. Building Orientation. N/A. Proposed addition is to an existing structure/dwelling located at
the rear of the property.
2. Limitation on Parking Between Primary Entrance and Street. N/A. No new parking areas
are to be created.
3. Build-to Line. N/A. Proposed addition is to existing structure. New construction not to
impede any setbacks.
D. Garages
N/A. No structures of this type to be constructed with this proposal.
E. Building Materials
Building materials and paint colors to be used per Historic Commission recommendations and to
match those used on the existing main dwelling.
F. Streetscape
No existing trees to be removed.
G. Landscaping and Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas.
Existing.
H. Open Space
N/A.
t
Z
0
Q
N
Q
UJ
IQ ~
FW
• z le
o>
N~
rc
F
Q
W
Z
bb
®0
- - - -
- -
Parking 2T4" x 18'~
12 2 Parking Spaces
i 0 U
I m ~ r1
A Street
I m
~L IS
rr T- --I
J2'-t 1116' V.nM, Brkam m
OtlA 17 $
ur I ~ ssdTMpswej
e~
ear
o
N ern rsSe' 1~ N
I ~7 I w
r-W
,e. X 74 IM, v ;.eST a N
4 rn
q- L
(I va ra, LIVING AREA ' S
zose• r ' I _ ~ ~ ~'wn a N ~
L1f 4
9Y-i 1116'
-1n1E
`71 LIVING AREA
648¢ 11
t i
® t i
e t
• e
1 st Floor
DATE;
11/18/2015
SCALE:
SHEET;
a
- u
N
q
W
Q
z_
o>
N
ce
rc
w
p
DEB e m
Y
z
32'-1112" 0
18'-6 518" 3'-9 318" 9'-9112" 22.4 ~+Q r
3'-6118" 91-5 518" 51-57/81, 11'-q 112" 10'-6112" m 0,
12'-0 112" 3 w R$
Fr iI 3'-10118"
3'-7 3' 5'-2112" 3 3' 8 9 8` d 0
u 7:1
r
~v - c I
m t i
UP J
'Ru
vorta~ 1 ~t~ iffl J 0 N
Bath a a a a 0
m o
g 4 3' " - k 6'405116" I
GI _ o o r m~ o ~ in
i
m C m El m
in
Bedroom f I m- ---1 - - - -
n
L ~ J vonPw m IB1 n y. ~ -m m-- C iY E4j ~ N
w
_ annm~ 4-6112" .o m ;o 5ludio I I I
` in °#f Area v J 1 n N N 0"
q'-11 112" ~ 'm 0
II'~T Kitchen m m hle~ita0on fi EGK
❑ b m I N i 11 "x1118" Q N
1{ m m Bath 3 m ~ 'J3
t
D.W M ~ rv i= m I
LI-11/2' S'-8.. -
I a:
- J
6'•115116" 3'-,'011116 3' 6'-1112° 3'-8118" 3' 3'-3718°
3'-011116" 10, 11114" 3,_1'•101/4"4'3316" 1'•11116"
6'•115116" 3' ' 3' F-11/2"-
5'-4 112" ' 8'-4114" 7.2114"
22'-1 1✓2"
22'-4" ~
92'-9"
e '
LIVING AREA
645 sq ft $ 1 1
LIVING AREA
•
4q1 sg ft
•
e
1 st Floor
E6
DATE:
11/18/2015
2nd Floor
SCALE:
SHEET;
- Matching 6:12 Pilch
Roof/Eye Corbees
0
Matching 18" Eve Depth Matching 18" Eve Depth Matching 6:12 Roof Pitch u
Cottage Style Double Hung 1Nlndows Cottage Style Double Hung Windows- RooflEve Corbels
Belt' Band at Floor Change Belly Band at Floor Changes Attic Vent
comer Trim Corner Trim Horizontal Siding m 0
Covered Decked Matching 6:12 Pitch m
No Eves ~ Q
zN
o>
'ma
~w
Q
tu
I
:p Z
ry :f
N
ry
lV
•r it' ~
•r bf1 r
G ~
07 ®0
C0
bjD U~
p N
32'•3' 24'•1118" 0
P,
Elevation b Elevation 4
yU)
Matching 6:12 Fitch q) N w
RooflEve Corbels N w
Matching 18" Eve Depth Matching 16" Eve
Matching 6:12 Roof Pitch Cottage Stye Double HungYlindcws Cottage Stye Double Hung N9ndows 0 J3 Roof/Eve Corbels Bally Band at Floor Change
Belly Band at Floor Change 73
s
Attic Vent GornerTdm LomerTrim ~ u1
Horizontal Siding Paint color to Compliment Main (E>dsting) House 4
m X2'•6 ry o ~ "
0
h 0 i t
lY ® F
r s
~o
I
DATE:
111/18/2015
1 24'•2'
-}F 32.3 SCALE:
Elevation 7
Elevation 8
I SHEET;
t
z
F
a
tt
N
w
0
m~
zn
w
w
a
a
K
m
f
i
0
bq vi
r
®0
5= N
~ 0 N tlr'
~ d
•
e '
~ i
•
f
i
DATE'
I
'I I ~il ;III I n l IIII!~lilfll
P
_ _ SCALE;
as
SHEET;
Job Address: 868 A ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
A C
Owner's Name: SATUREN STEVEN L O Phone:
Customer 08326 N State Lic No:
L MARK LACKEY T City Lic No:
Applicant: PO BOX 225 R
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: T Address:
N Applied: 11/18/2015 O
T Issued: R
Expires: 05/16/2016 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: 391 E09AB1601 City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Site Design & Review & CUP to enlarge nonconforming structure
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
Residential Site Review 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
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF
-AS H LAN E-j"