HomeMy WebLinkAboutB_1098_PA-2016-01504
CITY
ASHLAND
December 14, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has issued a decision for the following request, as detailed in the
attached findings.
Planning Action: PA-2016-01504
Subject Property: 1098 B Street
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC
Description: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal of staffs approval of a j
request for Site Design Review to allow the re-construction of a second dwelling located on the
property at 1098 B Street. The approved application also includes requests for Exception to Street
Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb
cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current
codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 151/2 -inch Ash tree. The appeal request focuses
on the Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, asserting that the
additional square footage proposed should trigger sidewalk improvements. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S j
MAP: 39 lE 09AD; TAX LOT #:100.
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.
I
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the
effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of
the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of Record
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 `
www.ashland.or.us
SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 1. Appeal of Type 11 Decision. The City Council may call up a Type 11 decision pursuant to section
18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be
defined as the following.
a. The applicant.
b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to
participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to
the Council.
c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to
error.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.1.1, above, may appeal a Type 11 decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying
the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection.
b. Thne for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten
days of the date the notice of decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a
reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies
as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time,
and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
I,
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.4.b,
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be I
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of
C
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
1
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--
`j
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 Arginnent. 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 detennining 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: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 I \
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the
application that the City mailed or received.
c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials
submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times
when the record before the Planning Commission was open.
e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type
11 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.
f
;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
A
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 `
www.ashland.orms ~
i
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 13, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-01504, AN APPEAL OF )
A REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE )
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 672 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-BEDROOM UNIT )
INTO A 2,063 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-BEDROOM UNIT AND THE DEMOLITION)
OF A 504 SQUARE FOOT, ONE-BEDROOM UNIT AND ITS REPLACXEMENT )
WITH A 1,785 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-BEDROOM UNIT FOR THE PROPERTY )
LOCATED AT 1098 B STREET. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR)
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS TO NOT INSTALL CITY STANDARD )
SIDEWALKS, TO ALLOW THE RETENTION OF AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY )
CURB CUT ON NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE THAT IS CLOSER TO THE ) FINDINGS
ADJACENT CURB CUT THAN ALLOWED BY CURRENT CODES, AND FOR A ) CONCLUSIONS &
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE A 15 %2-INCH ASH TREE. STAFF ) ORDERS
INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVELY SUBJECT )
TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS, BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF )
A NOTICE OF DECISION, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER BRENT )
THOMPSON FILED AN APPEAL REQUEST FOCUSED ON THE EXCEPTION )
TO STREET STANDARDS TO NOT INSTALL CITY STANDARD SIDEWALKS, )
ASSERTING THAT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PROPOSED )
SHOULD TRIGGER SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. )
APPLICANT/OWNER: RNN Properties, LLC )
APPELLANT: Brent Thompson, Burke Bollier, LLC )
RE CITALS:
1) Tax lots #100 of Map 391E 09AD is located at 1098 B Street and is zoned R-3 (High Density, Multi-
Family Residential).
2) The application is a request for Site Design Review to allow the expansion of an existing 672 square
foot, two bedroom unit into a 2,063 square foot, three bedroom unit and the demolition of a 504 square
foot, one-bedroom unit and its replacement with a 1,785 square foot, three bedroom unit for the property
located on the property at 1098 B Street. The application also includes requests for Exception to Street
Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on
North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current codes, and for a
Tree Removal Permit to remove a 15'/2 -inch Ash tree. Staff initially approved the application
administratively subject to a number of conditions, but subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Decision,
neighboring property owner Brent Thompson filed an appeal request focused on the Exception to Street
Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, asserting that the additional square footage proposed
should trigger sidewalk improvements. Mr. Thompson had standing to appeal both as a neighboring
property owner who was entitled to receive notice, and as someone who provided written comment on the
original request. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community
Development.
PA 92016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 1
t ;t
3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows:
i
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 I 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.
4) The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as
follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to
a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
PA 92016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 2
C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
5) The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.13 as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority
finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents
a clear public safety hazard (i. e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a
foreseeable danger ofproperty damage to an existing structure or°facility, and such
hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or
pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for° the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following
criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including
but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4
and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks.
C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The
City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal
have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to
be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below
the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City
may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the
alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 3
f
k';1
E
I
6
6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on November 8,
2016 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the
hearing, the Planning Commission determined that staff erred in approving the requested Exception not to
install sidewalks and granted the appeal, denying the previously approved request for an Exception to Street
Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, but approved the remainder of the application subject to
conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
k,
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and 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 Site Design Review, Exception to Street
Standards, and Tree Removal Permit fails to meet the applicable criteria for an Exception to Street
Standards to not install city standard sidewalks in Chapter 18.4.6.020.B.1, but meets all applicable criteria
for Site Design Review approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050, for Exception to Street Standards to allow
the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent
curb cut than allowed by current codes in Chapter 18.4.6.020.B.1, and for a Tree Removal Permit in AMC
18.5.7.040.13 with the attached conditions of approval. The site plan and elevation drawings provided
delineate the proposed building locations, designs and associated site improvements.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that development on the subject property requires Site Design
Review approval and is subject to the "Building Placement, Orientation and Design" standards for
residential development found in AMC 18.4.2.030.
The first criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and
dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards." The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located at the southwest
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 4
corner of the intersection of North Mountain Avenue and B Street. The property is zoned R-3 (high-
density, multi-family residential), and is approximately 6,865 square feet in area. The property's size is
over 6,500 square feet, and as such it can accommodate two residential units within the R-3 district. The
lot currently has two residences on site which were built between 1940 and the early 1950's. The larger
two bedroom unit fronts on B Street and is currently approximately 672 square feet in size, while the rear
unit is a 504 square foot, one bedroom home. The Commission finds that the site presently does not
conform to on-site parking requirements, and both street frontages are without sidewalks or street trees.
The application asserts that all building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area,
lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards have been
satisfied.
The second criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay
zone requirements (part 18.3)." In this instance, the subject property is not located within any overlay zones.
The third criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below." The applicable
standards for Building Placement, Orientation and Design for Residential Development are found in AMC
18.4.2.030. The application suggests that these standards are fully addressed, noting that Unit #1
maintains its existing orientation to B Street and that Unit #2 will be oriented to North Mountain Avenue;
that walkway connections are provided to the right-of-way; that porches, decks and recessed entries are
provided to enhance the sense of entry; and that the four required off-street parking spaces are to be
provided within the garages proposed to be setback more than 20 feet from North Mountain Avenue. The
application further suggests that significantly more than the required eight percent of open space is
provided for the recreational use of tenants. The application notes that approximately 17 percent of the
site is dedicated to open space, however in reviewing the submitted plans it seems.that a substantial portion
of the areas included in these calculations include pedestrian circulation routes and landscaping that is not
suited to recreational use. The Planning Commission finds that there are covered decks, porches and lawn
areas provided for each unit which will satisfy the open space requirement, and a condition has been
attached to require that these spaces be clearly identified in the building permit submittals. The application
further indicates that street trees, landscaping, trash and recycling are to be provided to satisfy the
requirement in part 18.4.
The fourth criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable
standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity,
urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to the subject property." Two units are in place on the property now, and the application notes that
adequate facilities are in place to serve the two units as proposed. The application further explains that
there are existing six-inch water mains in both B Street and Mountain Avenue rights-of-way, with existing
water meters in place along Mountain and a fire hydrant in place near the corner which are to be retained
to serve the proposal; a ten-inch sanitary sewer line in B Street and a 12-inch sanitary sewer line in North
Mountain Avenue which according to the applicants have been verified to provide adequate capacity. The
two existing units currently share a four-inch sewer line which will transition to serve Unit #1 while a new
line will be installed from North Mountain Avenue to serve Unit #2. Electric service is available from
existing poles on North Mountain Avenue and B Street, and the applicants propose to underground
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 5
i
t
F
G
existing overhead services from the pole on B Street to serve a "two-pack meter." There are ten-inch
storm sewer lines in both the B Street and North Mountain Avenue rights-of-way, and the applicants fl
indicate that the Street Department has informed them that there are no capacity issues.
The Planning Commission finds that both North Mountain Avenue and B Street are considered to be
Avenues under the city's Transportation System Plan (TSP), and both are paved with curbs, gutters and
bike lanes in place. There are no sidewalks or park row planting strips on either of the subject property's
street frontages, and the applicant has requested an Exception to the Street Standards rather than installing
them as part of the current request. This Exception, and the appeal of its initial administrative approval,
are discussed in detail below.
i
The final criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses Exceptions to the Site Development and
Design Standards. The application does not request any exceptions to these standards.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the application also includes a request for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove one 15%2 -inch diameter multi-stemmed Ash tree, located near the east property line.
Additional large shrubs including cypresses and photinia that have grown to a tree-like form, which are
not by definition considered to be trees in the Ashland Municipal Code, are proposed for removal as well.
The application indicates that the Ash tree is proposed for removal in order to facilitate the development
of Unit 42, which is to be constructed in a manner consistent with applicable Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards, including applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4.
The application asserts that the removal of the Ash tree proposed will not have a significant negative
impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks, noting that the adjacent property has a row of poplars along the fence line which provide an
existing windbreak. The application further suggests that the removal will not have a significant negative
impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property
as there are a significant number of conifers and deciduous trees in the vicinity. The application further
notes that Ash trees are not a desirable tree to have near homes as they are prone to limb drop, and proposes
to provide a mitigation tree to mitigate the requested removal. The Tree Commission considered the
request at its regular meeting on September 8, 2016 and recommended approval as submitted with the
added recommendation that the applicants consider planting larger stature trees instead of the Lindens
noted in the plans provided. The Planning Commission finds that the application satisfies the criteria for
a Tree Removal Permit and has included conditions requiring a mitigation tree be planted to replace the
Ash, and that the Tree Commission's recommendation be considered.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes requests for Exceptions to the Street
Standards in order to not install city standard sidewalks along the property's street frontages and to allow
the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent
curb cut than allowed by current codes. Exceptions to the Street Standards require demonstration that: 1)
There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; 2) The exception will result in equal or superior
transportation facilities and connectivity, which for pedestrian facilities is to consider `feeling of safety,
quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of waltzing along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 6
I
i
crossing r°oadua>}>, " 3) The exception is the minimum necessay ry to alle>iate the di icultyand 4) The
exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
With regard to the driveway curb cut, the Planning Commission finds that North Mountain Avenue is
considered an Avenue or Collector Street under the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and controlled
access standards for Collector Streets call for a separation between driveways of at least 75 feet, and a
separation between driveways and street intersections of at least 50 feet. In this instance, the existing 25-
foot wide driveway curb cut is approximately 90 feet from the B Street intersection where only a 50-foot
separation is required, and it is 20 feet from the driveway to the south where a 75-foot separation is
required. The applicants propose to reduce the existing curb cut width to 12 feet and shift it to achieve a
42-foot separation from the nearest driveway, and have requested an Exception to not meet the full 75-
foot separation requirement. The application suggests that when considered in light of the fact that the
proposal involves renovation and reconstruction of existing units on the site, without any intensification
of the existing use, the exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the financial and
proportional implications of street improvements. The Commission finds that although North Mountain
Avenue is a higher traffic street than B Street both are collectors, and accessing off-street parking from
the existing curb cut is preferable given the value in retaining the existing home's place in the B Street
streetscape. The Commission further finds that while the driveway might be shifted further north to better
address the controlled access standards this would also impact the existing home's placement. The
Commission finds that the proposed Exception seems to present a good balance of substantially improving
the existing driveway separation while retaining the existing home's orientation relative to B Street.
2.6 The Planning Commission further finds that the applicants request an Exception from the
requirement to install city standard sidewalks along the street frontages of the property. The application
asserts that because there is no increase in the number of residential units proposed, there is no quantifiable
increase in traffic flow associated with the proposal which would trigger additional improvements. The
applicants have also noted that there are numerous public utilities including power poles and a fire hydrant
located in the right-of-way which would need to be relocated at significant cost to enable sidewalk
installation. The applicants provided estimates from an Engineer detailing costs involved with sidewalk
installation during the hearing. The application further indicates that the applicants are agreeable with the
installation of a five-foot decomposed granite path within the existing right-of-way to facilitate pedestrian
circulation until utilities can be relocated and sidewalks installed through a local improvement district.
The application materials note that there is currently approximately ten feet between the property lines
and the existing curbs, although the plans provided illustrate 14-15 of right of way between the front
property line and curb along B Street, and approximately 12 feet of right-of-way along North Mountain
Avenue. The Commission finds that the installation of an Avenue-standard seven- to eight-foot
landscaped parkrow planting strip with street trees and a six-foot wide sidewalk would require 13-14 feet
of right-of-way. Staff had initially approved this Exception request with conditions requiring that the
applicants either dedicate the additional right-of-way to accommodate standard frontage improvements or
provide public pedestrian access easements sufficient to accommodate these improvements along both
frontages, and sign in favor of fiiture local improvement districts to complete the required improvements
along both frontages.
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 7 I=
C,
i°
j
r
The Commission finds that subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Complete Application, written
comments were received from neighboring property owner Brent Thompson. Mr. Thompson noted that
he has owned the adjacent property at 1094 and 1096 B Street since 1986, and previously owned the
subject property as well. He indicated that he was not opposed to the proposal, and that he believed that
there was a special circumstance in that the city yard has large vehicles circulating in and out which limits
on-street parking along B Street, and as such merits allowing a driveway nearer to the intersection than
would typically be permitted. Mr. Thompson fiuther suggested that if B Street were widened to enable
on-street parking, it would help in meeting the parking requirements for redevelopment both of his
property and of the applicants' property, and indicated that he would be willing to pay for the installation
of sidewalks along the frontage of his property if the applicants would install sidewalks along their
frontage as well. He concluded that he was not in favor of granting an Exception to allow the applicants
not to install sidewalks along their street frontage. In initially considering Mr. Thompson's comments,
staff noted that, as emphasized by the applicants, existing utilities in place near the corner would increase
the cost of sidewalk installation and that the application as proposed does not involve an increase in density
or a clearly quantifiable increase in traffic flow which would proportionally justify requiring sidewalk
improvements. Staff initially determined that the Exception request was merited given that there are
already two units in existence on the property.
After staff initially approved the application administratively, Mr. Thompson filed an appeal request
focused on the Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks. Mr. Thompson's
appeal asserts that the approval of the Exception was an error in that the 327 percent increase in square
footage and the increase in the number of bedrooms from three to six or seven amounts to an intensification
of use which will increase occupancy and traffic flows for all modes of transportation, and not installing
sidewalks will not result in equal or superior transportation facilities in that pedestrian amenities are
needed at the intersection of two collector streets, particularly when the units proposed are likely to bring
children to this busy corner.
The Commission finds that Planning staff looked into the appeal issues raised by Mr. Thompson with the
City Attorney and Public Works staff, and that while the project does not increase the density of the site,
the magnitude of the project (i.e. a substantial increase in square footage and number of bedrooms) can
be found to be an intensification as a nexus to require street improvements. Planning staff has visited the
site with Public Works staff, and it appears that city standard park rows and sidewalks could be installed
without impacting the utility poles in place, and that the primary impact of the utilities within the right-
of-way would be that the required ramp for ADA accessibility at the intersection would necessitate
relocating the existing fire hydrant. With these points in mind, the Commission finds that requiring
sidewalks on both frontages is appropriate because, as suggested by the appellant, the proposal results in
a substantial increase in square footage and significant increase in the number of bedrooms and will result
in an increase in transportation impacts and pedestrian demand, and sidewalks will provide a greater
comfort level and feeling of safety for pedestrians at the intersection of these collector streets.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that in initially approving the application, staff found that the
proposal to renovate the existing 672 square foot, two-bedroom home on B Street to yield a 2,063 square
foot three-bedroom unit with attached two-car garage, and the demolition of the 504 square foot, two-
bedroom rear unit and its replacement with a new 1,785 square foot second dwelling with attached two
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 8
i
car garage, Exceptions to Street Standards and Tree Removal Permit demonstrated compliance with the
applicable criteria and merited approval.
In considering the appeal request relative to the Exception to Street Standards, the Planning Commission
finds that while the project does not increase the density of the site, the magnitude of the project (i.e. a
substantial increase in square footage and number of bedrooms) results in a significant enough
intensification of use to result in an increase in transportation impacts and pedestrian demand which merits
requiring street frontage improvements on both street frontages, and that these improvements will provide
a greater comfort level and feeling of safety for pedestrians at the intersection of these two collector streets.
The Commission further finds that city standard park rows and sidewalks can be installed without
impacting: the utility poles in place, and that the required ramp for ADA accessibility at the
intersection will necessitate only the relocation of an existing fire hydrant and small telephone and cable
television pedestals.
The Planning Commission further finds that Public Works staff has explained that ramps for ADA-
accessibility at corners are expensive because they require a full survey of the corner and engineered
design as part of meeting ADA grade requirements, and that corner ramps must be provided if either
frontage is improved. Public Works/Engineering staff has indicated that the city is willing to handle the
hydrant relocation (i.e. complete the work or pay for it) and that the applicants would need to address the I
small telephone & cable pedestals requiring relocation. Public Works/Engineering has further indicated
that if only one frontage were to be required to be improved with sidewalks, they would recommend that
it be North Mountain Avenue rather than B Street because North Mountain Avenue is an identified "Safe I
Routes to School" corridor and frontage improvements there would go a long way toward completing a
full corridor connection to nearby schools. They further indicate that if both frontages were improved
with sidewalks, Public Works/Engineering would participate in the design and construction cost of the
ramp at the corner. The typical city share in a Local Improvement District would be 60 percent, and Public
Works/Engineering staff have indicated that they would be agreeable to a condition that the applicants
complete sidewalks on both frontages and complete or bond for their share (not to exceed 50 percent of
the design and construction cost) of the corner ramp prior to occupancy approval.
The Commission finds that the proposal is a significant redevelopment of the site, tripling the living space
and creating significantly more circulation from four parking spaces in and out of the substandard
driveway on Mountain Avenue, a Safe Route to School, and adding impacts to B Street where it narrows.
Commissioners find that the standards for an Exception have not been met, and do not believe that a gravel
pathway is equivalent to full sidewalk improvements. Commissioners further find that while one written
estimate of costs has been provided by the applicants, they have suggested several differing, higher
estimates through their testimony which makes relying on these estimates difficult. The Commission
finds that the Public Works/Engineering Division has worked to reduce the cost burden for this particular
applicant and that requiring sidewalks on both frontages is justified.
The Commission accordingly grants the appeal and requires city standard sidewalk installation along the
property's North Mountain Avenue frontage and a combination of sidewalks and park rows or parking bays
on B Street to accommodate on-street parking along the B Street frontage. The Commission re-affirms
staff's approval of the remainder of the original request subject to the conditions detailed below.
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 9
I
r
r
r
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that in his appeal letter, Mr. Thompson notes that there is a 12-
foot ingress and egress easement at the rear of the property which might be used to address some of the
access needs for the property, but he does not raise appeal issues specific to this easement, which serves
his adjacent properties to the west at 1094 and 1096 B Street. Mr. Thompson previously owned the subject
property and granted himself this easement to facilitate future development of his B Street properties when
an alley in roughly the same location was vacated by the city.
The Commission finds that there is no driveway curb cut in place on North Mountain Avenue to provide
access to use this easement, dirt piles on the subject property currently prevent its use, and both its 12-
foot width and proximity to the adjacent driveway to the south on Mountain do not conform with current
standards. All of these issues would need to be addressed if the easement were ever to be used to support
further development of the neighboring properties.
The Commission further finds that as an access easement, the property cannot be used to meet landscaping
or recreation space requirements by the applicants as Mr. Thompson could require that improvements be
removed to facilitate his use of the easement. In reviewing the Site Plan in light of Mr. Thompson's letter,
the Commission notes that there are fences, landscaping and a heat pump proposed to be located in the
easement, and the Commission has accordingly included a condition requiring that the applicants provide
a revised Site Plan which addresses treatment of the easement area in a manner which does not preclude
the easement-allowed ingress and egress while addressing landscaping, coverage and recreational space
requirements outside of the easement area.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the request for Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks is not supported by 4
evidence contained within the whole record, and grants the appeal denying this Exception. The requests
for Site Design Review to reconstruct two units, Exception to Street Standards to allow the retention of
an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than
allowed by current codes, and Tree Removal Permit to remove a 151/2 -inch Ash tree are supported by
evidence contained within the whole record.
The Planning Commission grants the appeal, denies the requested Exception to Street Standards in order
to not install sidewalks, and requires city standard sidewalk and parkrow installation along the property's
North Mountain Avenue frontage and a combination of sidewalks and parkrows or parking bays on B Street
to provide at a minimum a curbside sidewalk while widening the street to accommodate on-street parking.
The Commission re-affirms staff's approval of the remainder of the original request subject to the
conditions detailed below. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for
any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-01504 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.
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 10
C
r
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as
part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with
those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted
and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their September 8, 2016 meeting,
where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff
Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. These
recommendations included that the applicants provide a mitigation tree for the Ash to be removed,
as proposed by the applicants, and that they consider planting larger stature trees instead of the
Lindens noted in the plans provided.
4) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved
addressing; fire apparatus access; fire flow; fire sprinklers for those units determined by Building
and Fire Code to require them based on review of final building permit plans; and provisions for
"Knox Box" key boxes.
5) That the applicants shall receive approval of a Demolition/Relocation Permit prior to the
demolition of the 504 square foot rear unit prior to demolition if deemed necessary by the Building
Official.
6) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalks along B Street and North
Mountain Avenue shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and
Engineering Divisions prior to building permit issuance or work in the street right-of-way/installation
of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalk, shall be a minimum of six-feet in width
with a seven- to eight-foot landscaped parkrows between the sidewalk and the street on Mountain
Avenue, and a combination of sidewalks and park rows or parking bays on B Street to widen the street
to accommodate on-street parking. All frontage improvements, including but not limited to the
sidewalk and street trees shall be constructed across the entire B Street and North Mountain Avenue
frontages of the site to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department
and in accordance with the approved plan prior to final building inspection or the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. The City of Ashland shall be responsible for the relocation of the existing
fire hydrant; the applicants shall be responsible for the relocation of the two existing pedestals.
Applicants shall be required to complete sidewalks and street tree planting on both frontages and
complete or bond for their share (not to exceed 50 percent of the design and construction cost) of the
corner ramp installation prior to occupancy.
7) 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. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described
in the application, and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used.
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 11 E''''
t
I(;
c Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the
property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent properties
d) Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of
the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address:
1) the recormnendations of the Tree Commission from their September 8, 2016 meeting
where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff
Advisor; 2) Required size- and species-specific planting details and associated irrigation
plans addressing the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a
maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications to satisfy the Water
Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies; 3) Clear identification of the required
eight percent recreational space including porches, decks, lawns and other areas proposed
to satisfy the open space requirement; and 4) treatment of the ingress/egress easement area
along the south property line which does not preclude the easement-allowed ingress and
egress while addressing the landscaping, coverage and recreational space requirements.
e) Stoi nwater drainage and grading plans for the review and approval of the Engineering,
Building and Planning Departments.
I) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning
and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary
connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations
of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins. Any meters, cabinets, or vaults shall be located in areas
least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs.
Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at
applicant's expense.
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including any required transformers, cabinets and all other
necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric,
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition,
excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas
least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access
needs of the Electric Department.
h) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes two bicycle parking spaces in
each of the garages. Where bicycle parking is provided in garages, hanging racks shall
not be used and final interior dimensions of garages shall be provided to insure adequate
space is provided. Inverted u-racks shall be used for non-garage 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.
i) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar
Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height -6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback]
and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing
point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 12
r
:
j) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and other
coverage areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 75 percent as allowed in the
R-3 zoning district.
lc 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.
8) That prior to the issuance of a building permit;
a. A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed
according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The Verification
Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to 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, and storm water (less any credits for
previously demolished structures) shall be paid.
C. That the applicants shall dedicate the additional right-of-way along B Street and North
Mountain Avenue necessary to accommodate required frontage improvements or provide
public pedestrian access easements sufficient to accommodate the required improvements
along both frontages. {
9) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) All hardscaping, including sidewalks on both frontages, the relocation and reduction of the
North Mountain Avenue driveway curb cut under permit from the Public Works
Department; landscaping, including required recreational areas, mitigation trees, and street
trees selected from and planted according to the approved street tree list; and the irrigation
system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the
Staff Advisor.
b) All utility service and equipment installations including undergrounding of existing
overhead electric services shall be completed according to Electric, Engineering, Planning,
and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. k
c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent residential proprieties.
C) 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 the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC
18.4.4.040.
g) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
h) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the North Mountain
Avenue and B Street frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All street
PA #2016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 13
t
trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance
with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The sheet
trees shall be irrigated.
i) A replacement tree to mitigate the Ash tree removed shall be planted and irrigated
according to the approved plan.
10) That all garage parking spaces shall remain available for vehicle parking only and shall not be used
for material storage, as required in AMC 18.4.3.110. This limitation shall be reflected in signage
posted and maintained in each garage.
December 13, 2016
Planning Commission Approval Date
I
PA 92016-01504
December 13, 2016
Page 14
E
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
I
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On 12/14/161 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
I
listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each
{
person's name for Planning Action #2016-01504, 1098 B Street.
Signature of Employee
P
t((t
t:
Document412114/2016
E
PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 100 PA-2016-01504 PA-2016-01504
RNN PROPERTIES LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BRENT THOMPSON
2640 E BARNETT RD 1424 IVY STREET P.O. BOX 201
MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 l
P
PA-2016-01504 PA-2016-01504 1098 B ST
JOHN TURMAN CHRIS HEARN
PO BOX 8062 515 E MAIN ST NOD 12/14/16
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 5
I
is
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 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: 'u' z7
h
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be perruitted to speak. The Ashland Plaruring COTrrrrriSSiorr genet-ally
invites the public to speak on agenda iterrrs and during public forurrr on non-agenda iterrrs unless tinge
constraints hinit public testhnonjy. No person has are absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and ruay constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the rooru.
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 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 nonnal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Lain, requires that all cio) ineetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Plarrrrirrg Corrrr7riSSi019 generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and duringpublic forum on non-agenda items unless tune
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak orparticipate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings acrd strictly fo11o141 the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
f
r
r
c
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF PORT
i
i
November 8, 2016
PLANNING ACTION: #2016-01504
OVYER/APPLICANT: RNN Properties, LLC
LOCATION: 1098 B Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density, Multi-Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
(See also htt ,v,ashland.oj~..-,,.-..-.--"3 :rtes/AMC Clint 18 cureeut.pdf)
18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design
18.4.3 Parking, Access and Circulation
18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening
18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.4.6 Public Facilities
18.5.2 Site Design Review
18.5.7 Tree Removal
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: August 25, 2016
REQUEST: The application involves a request for Site Design Review to allow the expansion of
an existing 672 square foot, two bedroom unit into a 2,063 square foot, three bedroom unit and the
demolition of a 504 square foot, one-bedroom unit and its replacement with a 1,785 square foot,
three bedroom unit for the property located on the property at 1098 B Street. The application also
includes requests for Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, to allow
the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the
adjacent curb cut than allowed by current codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 151/2 -
inch Ash tree. Staff initially approved the application administratively subject to a number of
conditions, and subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Decision, neighboring property owner Brent
Thompson filed an appeal request which focuses on the Exception to Street Standards to not install
city standard sidewalks, asserting that the additional square footage proposed should trigger
sidewalk improvements.
1. Relevant Facts
I) Background - History of Application
Planning Action 2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 1 of 13
i
There are no other planning actions of record for this property.
Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Site Description
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of North
Mountain Avenue and B Street. The property is zoned R-3 (high-density, multi-
family residential), and is approximately 6,865 square feet in area. The property's
size is over 6,500 square feet, and as such it can accommodate two residential units
within the R-3 district. The lot currently has two residences on site which were built
between 1940 and the early 1950's. The larger two bedroom unit fronts on B Street
and is currently approximately 672 square feet in size, while the rear unit is a 504
square foot, one bedroom home. The site presently does not conform to on-site
parking requirements, and each street frontage is without sidewalks or street trees.
The application materials provided note that a public alley which straddled the lot's
south (rear) property line was previously vacated by the city in the early 1980's, and
7'/2 feet of the vacated right-of-way was deeded to each of the properties abutting the
alley including both the subject property and the property immediately to the south. 4
The adjacent properties to the west at 1094 and 1096 B Street, owned by the
appellant, also have a 12-foot ingress and egress easement over the subject property
adjacent to the south property line. It is staff's understanding that the appellant Mr.
Thompson previously owned the subject property and granted himself this ingress
egress easement when the alley was vacated to provide access for future development
of his B Street properties. There is no driveway curb cut in place on North Mountain
Avenue to provide access to use this easement, dirt piles on the subject property
currently prevent its use, and both its 12-foot width and proximity to the adjacent
driveway to the south on Mountain do not conform with current standards. All of
these issues would need to be addressed if the easement were to be used to support
further development of the neighboring properties.
Current Proposal
The application requests Site Design Review for the expansion of the existing 672
square foot, two bedroom unit fronting on B Street into a 2,063 square foot, three
bedroom unit with attached two car garage and the demolition of a 504 square foot,
one-bedroom unit fronting on North Mountain Avenue and its replacement with a
1,785 square foot, three bedroom unit with an attached two car garage. The
application also includes requests for Exception to Street Standards to not install city
standard sidewalks, to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North
Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current
codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 15V2 -inch Ash tree. Staff initially
approved the application administratively subject to a number of conditions, and
subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Decision, neighboring property owner Brent
Thompson filed an appeal request which focuses on the Exception to Street Standards
to not install city standard sidewalks, asserting that the additional square footage
proposed should trigger sidewalk improvements.
r,
Planning Action #2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant; RNN Properties, LLC Page 2 of 13
F
K Project Impact
As detailed in AMC 18.5.2.020.B., the construction of two or more residential units on a single
lot or the construction of attached or common wall dwellings is subject to Site Design Review.
Residential units of less than 10,000 square feet may be approved administratively through a
Type I procedure as provided in AMC 18.5.2.030.E. The current application was initially
approved administratively subject to a number of conditions, and subsequent to the mailing
of a Notice of Decision, neighboring property owner Brent Thompson filed a timely appeal
request which focuses on the Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard
sidewalks, asserting that the additional square footage proposed should trigger sidewalk
improvements. Mr. Thompson has standing to appeal both as a neighboring property owner
who was entitled to receive notice, and as someone who provided written comment on the
original request.
AMC 18.5.1.050.G. explains that appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor are
"de novel" hearings before the Planning Commission and follow the standard Type II public hearing
procedure except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. The
appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and
specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant
evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument
concerning any relevant ordinance provision.
Site Design Review
Development on the subject property requires Site Design Review approval and is subject to
the "Building Placement, Orientation and Design" standards for residential development
found in AMC 18.4.2.030.
The first criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with all of
the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The application asserts that all building
and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building
height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards have been satisfied.
The second criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with
applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." In this instance, the subject property is not
located within any overlay zones.
The third criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the E
applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below." The applicable standards for Building Placement, Orientation and Design for
Residential Development are found in AMC 18.4.2.030. The application suggests that these
standards are fully addressed, noting that Unit #1 maintains its existing orientation to B Street
and that Unit #2 will be oriented to North Mountain Avenue; that walkway connections are
provided to the right-of-way; that porches, decks and recessed entries are provided to
enhance the sense of entry; and that the four required off-street parking spaces are to be
provided within the garages proposed to be setback more than 20 feet from North Mountain
Avenue. The application further suggests that significantly more than the required eight
Planning Action 2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 3 of 13
percent of open space is provided for the recreational use of tenants. The application notes
that approximately 17 percent of the site is dedicated to open space, however in reviewing
the submitted plans it seems that a substantial portion of the areas included in these
calculations include pedestrian circulation routes and landscaping that is not suited to
recreational use. In staff's assessment, there are covered decks, porches and lawn areas
provided for each unit which will satisfy the open space requirement, and a condition was
included on the original approval to require that these spaces be clearly identified in the
building permit submittals and is again recommended below. The application further
indicates that street trees, landscaping, trash and recycling are to be provided to satisfy the
requirement in part 18.4.
I
The fourth criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the
applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." Two units are in place
on the property now, and the application notes that adequate facilities are in place to serve
the two units as proposed. The application further explains that there are existing six-inch
water mains in both B Street and Mountain Avenue rights-of-way, with existing water meters
in place along Mountain and a fire hydrant in place near the corner which are to be retained
to serve the proposal; a ten-inch sanitary sewer line in B Street and a 12-inch sanitary sewer
line in North Mountain Avenue which according to the applicants have been verified to
provide adequate capacity. The two existing units currently share a four-inch sewer line
which will transition to serve Unit #1 while a new line will be installed from North Mountain
Avenue to serve Unit #2. Electric service is available fiom existing poles on North Mountain
Avenue and B Street, and the applicants propose to underground existing overhead services
from the pole on B Street to serve a "two-pack meter." There are ten-inch storm sewer lines
in both the B Street and North Mountain Avenue rights-of-way, and the applicants indicate I
that the Street Department has informed them that there are no capacity issues. f
f
Both North Mountain Avenue and B Street are considered to be Avenues under the city's
Transportation System Plan (TSP), and both are paved with curbs, gutters and bike lanes in
place. There are no sidewalks or park row planting strips on either of the subject property's
street frontages, and the applicant has requested an Exception to the Street Standards,
discussed in detail below, rather than installing them as part of the current request.
The final criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses Exceptions to the Site
Development and Design Standards. The application does not request any exceptions to
these standards.
Tree Removal Permit
The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove one 151/2 -inch
diameter multi-stemmed Ash tree, located near the east property line. Additional large
shrubs including cypresses and photinia that have grown to a tree-like form, which are not
by definition considered to be trees in the Ashland Municipal Code, are proposed for removal
as well.
The application indicates that the Ash tree is proposed for removal in order to facilitate the
development of Unit #2, which is to be constructed in a manner consistent with applicable
Planning Action #2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 4 of 13
{t
I
t
c
Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including applicable Site Development and
Design Standards in part 18.4. The application asserts that the removal of the Ash tree
proposed will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, noting that the adjacent property
has a row of poplars along the fence line which provide an existing windbreak. The
application further suggests that the removal will not have a significant negative impact on
the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property as there are a significant number of conifers and deciduous trees in the vicinity.
The application further notes that Ash trees are not a desirable tree to have near homes as
they are prone to limb drop, and proposes to provide a mitigation tree to mitigate the
requested removal.
The Tree Commission considered the request at its regular meeting on September 8, 2016
and recommended approval as submitted with the added recommendation that the applicants
consider planting larger stature trees instead of the Lindens noted in the plans provided.
Conditions requiring a mitigation tree and that the Tree Commission's recommendation be
considered were included in staff's initial approval and have again been included below.
Exceptions to the Street Standards
The application includes requests for Exceptions to the Street Standards in order to not install
city standard sidewalks along the property's street frontages and to allow the retention of an
existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut
than allowed by current codes. Exceptions to the Street Standards require demonstration
that: 1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; 2) The exception
will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity, which for
pedestrian facilities is to consider 'feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability) to safety and efficiency crossing roadway; " 3) The
exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and 4) The exception is
consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
Driveway Curb Cut
North Mountain Avenue is considered an Avenue or Collector Street under the
Transportation System Plan (TSP), and controlled access standards for Collector Streets call
for a separation between driveways of at least 75 feet, and a separation between driveways
and street intersections of at least 50 feet. In this instance, the existing 25-foot wide driveway
curb cut is approximately 90 feet from the B Street intersection where a 50-foot separation
is required, and it is 20 feet from the driveway to the south where a 75-foot separation is
required. The applicants propose to reduce the existing curb cut width to 12 feet and shift it
to achieve a 42-foot separation from the nearest driveway, and have requested an Exception.
The application suggests that when considered in light of the fact that the proposal involves
renovation and reconstruction of existing units on the site, without any intensification of the
existing use, the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the financial
and proportional implications of street improvements.
In staff's assessment, although North Mountain Avenue is a higher traffic street than B Street
both are collectors, and accessing off-street parking from the existing curb cut is preferable
given the value in retaining the existing home's place in the B Street streetscape, and while
Planning Action 2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 5 of 13
the driveway might be shifted further north to better address the controlled access standards
this would also impact the existing home's placement. The proposed Exception seems to
present a good balance of substantially improving the existing driveway separation while
retaining the existing home's orientation relative to B Street.
Sidewalks
The applicants do not propose to install sidewalks along the street frontages of the property
as required by city street standards, necessitating an Exception. The application asserts that
because there is no increase in the number of residential units proposed, there is no
quantifiable increase in traffic flow associated with the proposal which would trigger
additional improvements, and have further indicated to staff that there are numerous public
utilities including power poles and a fire hydrant located in the right-of-way which would
need to be relocated at significant cost to enable sidewalk installation. The application further
indicates that the applicants are agreeable with the installation of a five-foot decomposed
granite path within the existing right-of-way to facilitate pedestrian circulation until utilities
can be relocated and sidewalks installed through a local improvement district. In staff's
view, if such a path is installed it would need to be placed in the same location as a sidewalk
(i. e. not curbside), accompanied by the removal of existing vegetation from the right-of-way,
and approved by Public Works.
The application materials note that there is currently approximately ten feet between the
property lines and the existing curbs, although the plans provided illustrate 14-15 of right of
way between the front property line and curb along B Street, and approximately 12 feet of
right-of-way along North Mountain Avenue. The installation of an Avenue-standard seven-
to eight-foot landscaped parkrow planting strip with street trees and a six-foot wide sidewalk
would require 13-14 feet of right-of-way, and conditions were initially attached to the staff
approval requiring that the applicants either dedicate any additional right-of-way to
accommodate standard frontage improvements or provide sufficient public pedestrian access
easements to accommodate these improvements along both frontages, and sign in favor of
future local improvement districts to complete the required improvements along both
frontages.
Appeal Request
Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Complete Application, written comments were
received from neighboring property owner Brent Thompson. Mr. Thompson noted that he
has owned the adjacent property at 1094 and 1096 B Street since 1986, and previously owned
the subject property as well. He indicated that he was not opposed to the proposal, and that
he believed that there was a special circumstance in that the city yard has large vehicles
circulating in and out which limits on-street parking along B Street, and as such merits
allowing a driveway nearer to the intersection than would typically be permitted. Mr.
Thompson further suggested that if B Street were widened to enable on-street parking, it
would help in meeting the parking requirements for redevelopment both of his property and
of the applicants' property, and indicated that he would be willing to pay for the installation
of sidewalks along the frontage of his property if the applicants would install sidewalks along
their frontage as well. He concluded that he was not in favor of granting an Exception to
allow the applicants not to install sidewalks along their street frontage.
Planning Action #2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 6 of 13
i
t
R
In initially considering Mr. Thompson's comments, staff noted that, as emphasized by the
applicants, existing utilities in place near the corner would significantly increase the cost of
sidewalk installation and the application as proposed does not involve an increase in density
or a clearly quantifiable increase in traffic flow which would proportionally justify requiring
sidewalk improvements. Staff initially determined that the Exception request was merited
given that there are already two units in existence on the property.
After staff initially approved the application administratively, Mr. Thompson filed an appeal
request which focuses on the Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard
sidewalks. In his appeal request, Mr. Thompson asserts that the approval of the Exception
was an error in that the 327 percent increase in square footage and increase in the number of
bedrooms from three to six or seven amounts to an intensification of use which will increase
occupancy and traffic flows for all modes of transportation, and the result will not be equal
or superior transportation facilities in that pedestrian amenities are needed at the intersection
of two collector streets, particularly when the units proposed are likely to bring children to
this busy corner.
Staff has looked into the appeal issues raised by Mr. Thompson with the City Attorney and
Public Works staff. While the project does not increase the density of the site, the magnitude
of the project (i.e. a substantial increase in square footage and number of bedrooms) could
be found to be an intensification that would likely serve as a nexus to require street
improvements on at least one frontage. In visiting the site with Public Works staff, it appears
that city standard park rows and sidewalks could be installed without impacting the utility
poles in place, and that the primary impact of the utilities within the right-of-way would be
that the required ramp for ADA accessibility at the intersection would necessitate relocation
of the existing fire hydrant. With these points in mind, staff believes that requiring sidewalks
on one frontage is appropriate if the Planning Commission concurs with Mr. Thompson that
the substantial increase in square footage and significant increase in the number of bedrooms
will result in an increase in transportation impacts and pedestrian demand and provide a
greater comfort level and feeling of safety for pedestrians at the intersection of these collector
streets.
Mr. Thompson notes in his appeal letter that his 12-foot ingress and egress easement at the
rear of the property may be used to address some of the access needs for the property, but
does not raise appeal issues specific to this easement, which serves his adjacent properties to
the west at 1094 and 1096 B Street. It is staff's understanding that Mr. Thompson previously
owned the subject property and granted himself this easement to facilitate future
development of his B Street properties. As an access easement, the property cannot be used
to meet landscaping or recreation space requirements, and in reviewing the Site Plan in light
of Mr. Thompson's letter, staff has noted that there are fences, landscaping and a heat pump
proposed to be located in the easement. Staff has accordingly recommended a new condition
to require that the applicants provide a revised Site Plan which addresses treatment of the
easement area which does not preclude the easement-allowed ingress and egress while
addressing landscaping, coverage and recreational space requirements outside of the
easement area.
i
Planning Action 2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 7 of 13
f
i
i
1
M Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter
are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks,'
lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height,
building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements
(part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided
by subsection E, below. C
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 i
of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the
Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect
of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the
exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and
approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site
Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum
which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but
granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves
the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
The criteria for approval of an Exception to the Street Standards are described in
AMC Chapter 18.4.6.020.6.1 as follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
C' The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18.4.6.040.A.
Planning Action #2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant; RNN Properties, LLC Page 8 of 13
4
The criteria for "free Removal Permit approval are described in AMC Chapter
18.5.7.040.8 as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds
that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a
clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a'
foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such
hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning.
See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or
can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions,
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but
not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and
Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
C, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City
shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have
been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used
as permitted in the zone,
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below
the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
In initially approved the application, staff found that the proposal to renovate the existing
672 square foot, two bedroom home on B Street to yield a 2,063 square foot three bedroom
unit with attached two-car garage, and the demolition of the 504 square foot, two bedroom
rear home and its replacement with a new 1,785 square foot second dwelling with attached
two car garage, Exceptions to Street Standards and Tree Removal Permit demonstrated
compliance with the applicable criteria and merited approval.
Planning Action 2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant; RNN Properties, LLC Page 9 of 13
i
I
In considering the appeal request relative to the Exception to Street Standards, staff has
looked into the issues raised by Mr. Thompson with the City Attorney and Public Works
staff. The City Attorney has indicated that while the project does not increase the density of
the site, the magnitude of the project (i.e. a substantial increase in square footage and
number of bedrooms) could be found to be significant enough intensification of use to
provide a nexus to require street improvements on at least one frontage. In visiting the site
with Public Works staff, it appears that city standard park rows and sidewalks could be
installed without impacting the utility poles in place, and that the primary impact of the
utilities within the right-of-way would be that the required ramp for ADA accessibility at the
intersection would necessitate relocation of the existing fire hydrant. With these points in E
mind, staff believes that requiring sidewalks on one frontage is appropriate if the Planning
Commission concurs with Mr. Thompson that such a substantial increase in square footage
and significant increase in the number of bedrooms will result in an increase in transportation
impacts and pedestrian demand and provide a greater comfort level and feeling of safety for
pedestrians at the intersection of these two collector streets.
E
Staff would accordingly recommend that the Planning Commission grant the appeal and
require city standard sidewalk installation along the property's B Street frontage, and re-
affirm the approval of the remainder of the original approval with the following conditions:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved
I
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 E
F
approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their September 8, 2016
meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final f
approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein. These recommendations included that the applicants provide a mitigation
tree for the Ash to be removed, as proposed by the applicants, and that they consider planting E
larger stature trees instead of the Lindens noted in the plans provided.
4) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including
approved addressing; fire apparatus access; fire flow; fire sprinklers for those units
determined by Building and Fire Code to require them based on review of final building
permit plans; and provisions for "Knox Box" key boxes.
5) That the applicants shall receive approval of a Demolition/Relocation Permit prior to the
demolition of the 504 square foot rear unit prior to demolition if deemed necessary by the
Building Official.
6) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along B Street shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior
to building permit issuance or work in the street right-of-way/installation of improvements t
in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalk shall be a minimum of six-feet in width with a seven-
to eight-foot landscaped parkrows between the sidewalk and the street. All frontage
improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk and street trees shall be constructed E
across the entire B Street frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of
Ashland Street Standards. All public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk
i
E
Planning Action #2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 10 of 13
E
I
i
t {
and street trees shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public
i
Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to final building
inspection or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7) 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. Colors and materials shall be
consistent with those described in the application, and very bright or neon
paint colors shall not be used.
C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be
directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent properties
d) Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be provided for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These E
revised plans shall address: 1) the recommendations of the Tree Commission
from their September 8, 2016 meeting where consistent with applicable
criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff Advisor; 2)
Required size- and species-specific planting details and associated irrigation
plans addressing the requirements for programmable automatic timer
controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications
to satisfy the Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies; 3)
Clear identification of the required eight percent recreational space including
porches, decks, lawns and other areas proposed to satisfy the open space
requirement; and 4) treatment of the ingress/egress easement area along the
south property line which does not preclude the easement-allowed ingress and
egress while addressing the landscaping, coverage and recreational space
requirements.
e) Stormwater drainage and grading plans for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments.
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include
the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent
to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and
catch basins. Any meters, cabinets, or vaults shall be located in areas least
visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access
needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by
the applicant at applicant's expense.
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including any required
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be
reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning
Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or building
permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least
visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the
Planning Action 2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 11 of 13
access needs of the Electric Department.
h) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes two bicycle parking
spaces in each of the garages. Where bicycle parking is provided in garages,
hanging racks shall not be used and final interior dimensions of garages shall
be provided to insure adequate space is provided. Inverted a-racks shall be
used for non-garage 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.
i) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies
with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height -6)/(0.445 + Slope) _
Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly
identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from
natural grade.
j) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways,
parking, and other coverage areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more
than 75 percent as allowed in the R-3 zoning district.
k) 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.
8) That prior to the issuance of a building permit;
a. A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures
installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff
Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree to
be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be
retained and protected on and adjacent to 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, and storm water (less any credits for previously demolished structures)
shall be paid.
C. That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for
future street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow
with irrigated street trees, curb, gutter, storm drainage and undergrounding of
utilities for North Mountain Avenue. Nothing in this condition is intended to
prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their
rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating
in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party
by City ordinances and resolutions.
d. That the applicants shall dedicate any additional right-of-way along B Street
and North Mountain Avenue to accommodate required city standard frontage
improvements or provide sufficient public pedestrian access easements to
accommodate these improvements along both frontages.
Planning Action #2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant; RNN Properties, LLC Page 12 of 13
f".
t
i
9) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) All hardscaping, including the relocation and reduction of the North Mountain
Avenue driveway curb cut under permit from the Public Works Department;
landscaping, including required recreational areas, mitigation trees, and street trees
selected from and planted according to the approved street tree list; and the irrigation
system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by
the Staff Advisor.
b) All utility service and equipment installations including undergrounding of existing
overhead electric services shall be completed according to Electric, Engineering,
Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and approved by the
Staff Advisor.
C) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
e) 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 the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as
required in AMC 18.4.4.040.
g) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
h) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the North»
Mountain Avenue and B Street frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall
be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site
Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
i) A replacement tree to mitigate the Ash tree removed shall be planted and irrigated
according to the approved plan.
10) That all garage parking spaces shall remain available for vehicle parking only and shall not
be used for material storage, as required in AMC 18.4.3.110. This limitation shall be reflected
in signage posted and maintained in each garage.
:
l
Planning Action 2016-01504 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC Page 13 of 13
i'
_ C I T Y Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
1 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY; 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01504
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 109E B Street
OWNER/AP PLICANT: RNN Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal of staff's approval of a request for Site Design
Review to allow the re-construction of a second dwelling located on the property at 109E B Street. The approved
application also includes requests for Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, to allow
the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut
than allowed by current codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 15% -inch Ash tree. The appeal request
focuses on the Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, asserting that the additional
square footage proposed should trigger sidewalk improvements. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High
Density Multi-Family Residential, ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09AD; TAX LOT :100.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
r
B ST PA ;!2018:0,504
1088 B STREET
/t SUBJECTPROPERTY
~ I yl
Z
f
L LJ~ Z
-
F
F tt
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.
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Fotder\lvlaited Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01504 Appeal.docx
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.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18A.6.020.B.1
Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all
of the following circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle
cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.8
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or
property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18,5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets
all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone,
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
E
Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Folder\blailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01504 Appeal.docx
E
l I
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson )
I
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: F
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On 10/26/161 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
E
listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each
E
person's name for Planning Action #2016-01504, 1098 B St - Appeal.
f
i
{I
Signature of Employee
I
f
Document310/26/2016
r
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 301 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 600 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 200
ARP ALISSA J BLUE IRIS PROPERTIES LLC BURKE-BOLLIER LLC
416 GUTHRIE ST PO BOX 531 BRENT E THOMPSON
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 P 0 BOX 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391 E10 900 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60002 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60003
COMMUNITY WORKS INC CRUZ SANDRA CURRER PETER SHERMAN REV TRUST
900 E MAIN ST 72 N MOUNTAIN AVE P 0 BOX 1314
MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 300 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 7500 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 712
GARFAS KATHLEEN P TRUSTEE ET AL JACOBSON SEPORA MAYIM JOLKOVSKY DAVID L TRUSTEE ET AL
1188 TYLER CREEK RD 1031 PAKINGTON ST 1205 DRAKE DR B
ASHLAND, OR 97520 VICTORIA, BC V8V382 DAVIS, CA 95616
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60004 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 100 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 601
RHOADES VERNA SORGEE/RHOADES RNN PROPERTIES LLC RODRIGUEZ ROBERT E LIVING TRUST
DUSTIN JACKSON RICHARD/NISHA 61 N MOUNTAIN AVE
51 SCENIC DR 2640 E BARNETT RD, E-431 ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 701 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 500 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 603
SEIDEMAN JEFFREY M TRUSTEE ET AL STAUDACHER JACK G ET AL TALENT PROPERTIES LLC
1600 E THIRD AVE 2005 88 EMENICK ST 64 N 3RD ST
SAN MATEO, CA 94401 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 501 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60001 PA-2016-01504
WHITEHURST DAVID K WOLF STEPHEN H ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
88 THEO DR PO BOX 152 1424 S IVY ST
TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-2016-01504 PA-2016-01504 1098 B St APPEAL
JOHN TURMAN TOM GIORDANO 10/26/16
PO BOX 8062 495 CHESTBUT #2 20
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520
r=
I
f
o
a ST
3
i
I
i
I I
j '
j
M
7so
.501 601.
:3 u 6001
a ~I
~..02
_I j ~#l~lilf ~1{hl
Notice of Land Use Appeal -'Type
(Ashland Municipal Code § 18.5.1.050.G.
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es):
2.
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
C. Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision: Planning Action Title of planning ti n:
IC) 2~ I (0 - d c~ 6%
W%104
D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.
The person named in ❑ 1 am the applicant.
Box A.1. above lal received notice of the planning action.
qualifies as a party ❑ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because: notice due to error.
The person named in ❑ 1 am the applicant.
Box A.2, above ❑ 1 received notice of the planning action.
qualifies as a party ❑ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because: notice due to error.
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a party.
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary): s5 Ei 7N-- D
l
is is an error &MZpplikb'lje'~c7eria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ or other law in § requires that
attach additional pages if necessar :
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code'
§ or other law in § requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
§ or other law in § requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
c'
C
i
i
I
I
4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For i4
each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law that were violated.
Appeal Fee
With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $150.00 which is the appeal fee required
by § 18.5.1.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date:
Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed
with the Community Development Department, Attn: Planning Commission Secretary, 20 E
Main St, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-5305, prior to the effective date of the
decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal
Code Section 18.5.1.050.
Burke Bollier LLC
Brent Thompson
P.O. Box 201
Ashland OR 97520
Ashland Planning Commission
Wmburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Re:PA -2016-01504, 1095 and 1095 1/2 B St
To the Commission,
I would like a public hearing on the above matter because the required conditions
and the proposal itself as tentatively approved don't require what the neighborhood nor
the City in general needs for the long term. The City needs pedestrian amenities
particularly where two major streets, aka avenues or collector streets, intersect.
For 30 years Ashland has had as a goal what is called modal equity. A part of that
is the ongoing quest to install sidewalks in multi family zones where the probability of
foot traffic is greatest. Also, Goal .14 of Senate Bill 100 requires that all forms of
transportation be considered in all land use actions. This was followed up with The
Transportation Planning Rule in the early 1990's which increased incentives and
requirements for transportation besides the automobile in all planning actions.
It cannot be validly asserted that this project does not cross the boundary of a major
density change for the lot. At present there are two structures, one of 672 square feet and
another of 504 sq ft for a total of 1176 sq ft. The proposal calls for two structures, one
of 2063 and another of 1755 sq ft which is a square footage increase of 327%. It follows
that with a square footage increase of 327% there would be a significant increase in
occupancy and therefore traffic flow of all forms of transportation.
Also, the demolition of the rear structure should trigger sidewalk improvements.
And the reality is that the front structure will likely not be able to be saved so the
probabilities are that there will be two new structures on the lot. The site will go from
having three bedrooms to six or seven. That would likely mean there would be children.
Children need to be able to walk and bicycle on sidewalks. If cost is the issue as to why
the applicant wants to avoid installing sidewalks, the applicant might consider shrinking
the project. That busy corner may not be the best spot for large units. But either way the
sidewalks should be installed.
That there are utility poles in a possible sidewalk area can be dealt with. Sidewalks
can be installed around them. Also, it will be cheaper for the applicant to have the
sidewalks placed during the construction than if a local improvement district is formed.
I do believe the applicant should be given leeway regarding curb cuts, The 12'
easement in the rear may be used to satisfy some of the access needed.
All
r~
Job Address: 1098 B ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
A Owner's Name: RNN PROPERTIES LLC ~ Phone:
P Customer 06481 State Lic No:
P BRENT THOMPSON 1 City Lic No:
L Applicant: R
I Address:
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 488-0407 T Address:
N Applied: 10/19/2016
T Issued: 10/19/2016
Expires: 10/19/2016 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: 391 E09AD100 City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Appeal of PA-2016-01504
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
Appeal fee 150.00
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 C I T Y OF
i
r
t
~~"'r•.°yll~l~ilAr lr~lluha3~~X~91II'Y,°!>''~~~iilt~~; Iol il~sl~i~~i
I'
IE
ii
I
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following:
Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 150.00
Fees Paid: $ 150.00
Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0
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
CITY F
f'
ASHLAND
October 11, 2016
r
f.
Notice of Final Decision
On October 10, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: 2016-01504
Subject Property: 1098 B Street
Applicant: RNN Properties, LLC
Description: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the re-construction of a
second dwelling located on the property at 1098 B Street. Also included are requests for Exception to
Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks, to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb
cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current codes, and
for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 151/2 -inch Ash tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE
09AD; TAX LOT #:100
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 121 day after the
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.
Prior to the final decision date anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a
reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.1.050(F)
and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.5.1.050(G). The
ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be
made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice)
E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to
subsection 18.5.1.050.G, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after the City mails the notice of decision.
F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below.
1. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department may request reconsideration of the action
after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no
fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision.
Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence
during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity
to respond to the issue prior to making a decision.
2. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailing the notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall
decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter.
3. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the
decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten days to affirm, modify, or reverse
the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any
party entitled to notice of the planning action.
4. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the
reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration.
G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following:
1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision.
a. The applicant or owner of the subject property.
b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection
18.5.1.050.B.
c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the
City by the specified deadline.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050.G.1, above, may
appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of
this subsection. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community
organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. If an appellant prevails at the
hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded.
b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of
decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall
contain.
i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision.
ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal.
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal.
iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period.
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. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before
the Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other
documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other
relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument
concerning any relevant ordinance provision.
4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type II public hearing procedures,
pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A - E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final
decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the
adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of
Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050
-
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
11
www.ashland.onus
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01504
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1098 B Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: RNN Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the re-
construction of a second dwelling located on the property at 1098 B Street. Also included are
requests for Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard sidewalks and to allow the
retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent
curb cut than allowed by current codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 151/2 -inch Ash
tree.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09AD; TAX LOT 9:100
SUBMITTAL DATE: August 5, 2016
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: August 29, 2016
STAFF APPROVAL DATE: October 10, 2016
APPEAL DEADLINE: October 24, 2016
FINAL DECISION DATE: October 25, 2016
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: April 25, 2018
DECISION:
I
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of North Mountain
Avenue and B Street. The property is zoned R-3 (high-density, multi-family residential), and is
approximately 6,865 square feet in area. The property's size is over 6,500 square feet, and as such
it can accommodate two residential units within the R-3 district. The lot currently has two
residences on site which were built between 1940 and the early 1950's. The primary home fronts
on B Street and is approximately 672 square feet in size, while the rear unit is a 504 square foot,
one bed room home. The site presently does not conform to on-site parking requirements, and
each street frontage is without sidewalks or street trees.
The proposal is a request for Site Design Review approval to allow retention of the primary
residence, with renovation and addition to yield a 2,063 square foot unit with attached two-car
garage, and the demolition of the 504 square foot rear unit and its replacement with a new 1,785
square foot second dwelling with attached two-car garage located at the rear of the property. The
application also includes requests for Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard
sidewalks and to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue
that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit
to remove a 151/2 -inch Ash tree.
Site Design Review
Development on the subject property requires Site Design Review approval and is subject to the
"Building Placement, Orientation and Design" standards for residential development found in
AMC 18.4.2.030.
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 1
i
The first criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with all of the
applicable provisions of the underlying zone (pail 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 application asserts that all building and yard
setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards have been satisfied. j
i
The second criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with applicable
overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." In this instance, the subject property is not located within any
overlay zones.
The third criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below." The
applicable standards for Building Placement, Orientation and Design for Residential Development
are found in AMC 18.4.2.030. The application suggests that these standards are fully addressed,
noting that Unit #1 maintains its existing orientation to B Street and that Unit #2 will be oriented
to North Mountain Avenue; that walkway connections are provided to the right-of-way; that
porches, decks and recessed entries are provided to enhance the sense of entry; and that the four
required off-street parking spaces are to be provided within the garages proposed to be setback
more than 20 feet from North Mountain Avenue. The application further suggests that
significantly more than the required eight percent of, open space is provided for the recreational
use of tenants. The application notes that approximately 17 percent of the site is dedicated to open
space, however in reviewing the submitted plans it seems that a substantial portion of the areas
included in these calculations include pedestrian circulation routes and landscaping is not suited
to recreational use. In staff's assessment, there are covered decks, porches and lawn areas provided
for each unit which will more than satisfy the open space requirement, and a condition has been
included to require that these spaces be clearly identified in the building permit submittals. The
application further indicates that street trees, landscaping, trash and recycling are to be provided
to satisfy the requirement in part 18.4.
The fourth criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the
applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water,
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." Two units are in place on the property
now, and the application notes that adequate facilities are in place to serve the two units as
proposed. The application further explains that there are existing six-inch water mains in both B
Street and Mountain Avenue rights-of-way, with existing water meters in place along Mountain
and a fire hydrant in place near the corner which are to be retained to serve the proposal; a ten-
inch sanitary sewer line in B Street and a 12-inch sanitary sewer line in North Mountain Avenue
which according to the applicants have been verified to provide adequate capacity. The two
existing units currently share a four-inch sewer line which will transition to serve Unit #1 while a
new line will be installed from North Mountain Avenue to serve Unit #2. Electric service is
available from existing poles on North Mountain Avenue and B Street, and the applicants propose
to underground existing overhead services from the pole on B Street to serve a "two-pack meter."
There are ten-inch storm sewer lines in both the B Street and North Mountain Avenue rights-of-
way, and the applicants indicate that the Street Department has informed them that there are no
capacity issues.
I
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 2
4
y
k
Both North Mountain Avenue and B Street are considered to be Avenues under the city's
Transportation System Plan (TSP), and both are paved with curbs, gutters and bike lanes in place.
There are no sidewalks or park row planting strips on either of the subject property's street
frontages, and the applicant has requested an Exception to the Street Standards, discussed in detail
below, rather than installing them as part of the current request.
The final criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses Exceptions to the Site Development
and Design Standards. The application does not request any exceptions to these standards.
Exceptions to the Street Standards
The application does include requests for Exceptions to the Street Standards in order to not install
city standard sidewalks along the property's street frontages and to allow the retention of an
existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than
allowed by current codes. Exceptions to the Street Standards require demonstration that: 1) There
is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; 2) The exception will result in equal or
superior transportation facilities and connectivity, which for pedestrian facilities is to consider
`feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability
to safety and efficiency crossing roadway; " 3) The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate
the difficulty; and 4) The exception is consistent with the Purpose andlntent ofthe Street Standards
in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
Sidewalks
The applicants do not propose to install sidewalks along the street frontages of the property as
required by city street standards, necessitating an Exception. The application asserts that because
there is no increase in the number of residential units proposed, there is no quantifiable increase in
traffic flow associated with the proposal which would trigger additional improvements, and have
further indicated to staff that there are numerous public utilities including power poles and a fire
hydrant located in the right-of-way which would need to be relocated at significant cost to enable
sidewalk installation. The application further indicates that the applicants are agreeable with the
installation of a five-foot decomposed granite path within the existing right-of-way to facilitate
pedestrian circulation until the utilities can be relocated and sidewalks installed through a local
improvement district.
The application notes that there is currently approximately ten feet between the property lines and
the existing curbs. The installation of an Avenue-standard seven- to eight-foot landscaped parkrow
planting strip with street trees and a six-foot wide sidewalk would require 13-14 feet of right-of-
way, and conditions have accordingly been included below to require that the applicants either
dedicate an additional three-to-four feet of right-of-way to accommodate standard frontage
improvements or provide sufficient public pedestrian access easements to accommodate these
improvements along both frontages and sign in favor of future local improvement districts to
complete the required improvements along both frontages.
Driveway Curb Cut
North Mountain Avenue is considered an Avenue or Collector Street under the Transportation
System Plan (TSP), and controlled access standards for Collector Streets call for a separation
between driveways of at least 75 feet, and a separation between driveways and street intersections
of at least 50 feet. In this instance, the existing 25-foot wide driveway curb cut is approximately
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 3
t
90 feet from the B Street intersection where a 50-foot separation is required, and it is 20 feet from
the driveway to the south where a 75-foot separation is required. The applicants propose to reduce
the existing curb cut width to 12 feet and shift it to achieve a 42-foot separation from the nearest
driveway, and have requested an Exception. The application suggests that when considered in
light of the fact that the proposal involves renovation and reconstruction of existing units on the j
site, without any intensification of the existing use, the exceptions requested are the minimum
necessary to alleviate the financial and proportional implications of street improvements.
In staff's assessment, although North Mountain Avenue is a higher traffic street than B Street,
accessing off-street parking from the existing curb cut is preferable given the value in retaining the
existing home's place in the B Street streetscape, and while the driveway might be shifted further
north to better address the controlled access standards this would also impact the existing home's
placement. The proposed Exception seems to present a good balance of substantially improving
the existing driveway separation while retaining the existing home's orientation relative to B
Street.
Tree Removal Permit
The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove one 151/2 -inch multi-
stemmed Ash tree, located near the east property line. Additional large shrubs including cypresses
and photinia that have grown to a tree-like form, which are not by definition considered to be trees
in the Ashland Municipal Code, are proposed for removal as well.
The application indicates that the Ash tree is proposed for removal in order to facilitate the
development of Unit #2, which is to be constructed in a manner consistent with applicable Land
Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including applicable Site Development and Design
Standards in part 18.4. The application asserts that the removal of the Ash tree proposed will not
have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of
adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, noting that the adjacent property has a row of poplars along
the fence line which provide an existing windbreak. The application further suggests that the
removal will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property as there are a significant number of
conifers and deciduous trees in the vicinity. The application further notes that Ash trees are not a
desirable tree to have near homes as they are prone to limb drop, and proposes to provide a
mitigation tree to mitigate the requested removal.
The Tree Commission considered the request at its regular meeting on September 8, 2016 and
recommended approval as submitted with the added recommendation that the applicants consider
planting larger stature trees instead of the Lindens noted in the plans provided. Conditions
requiring a mitigation tree and that the Tree Commission's recommendation be considered have
been included below.
Neighbors' Comments Received
Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Complete Application, written comments were received
from neighboring property owner Brent Thompson. Mr. Thompson notes that he has owned the
adjacent property at 1094 and 1096 B Street since 1986, and previously owned the subject
property. He indicates that he is not opposed to the proposal, and that he believes that there is a
special circumstance in that the city yard has large vehicles circulating in and out which limits on-
street parking along B Street, and as such merits allowing a driveway nearer to the intersection
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 4
than would typically be permitted.
Mr. Thompson further suggests that if B Street were widened to enable on-street parking, it would
help in meeting the parking requirements for redevelopment both of his property and of the
applicants' property, and indicates that he would be willing to pay for the installation of sidewalks
along the frontage of his property if the applicants here would install sidewalks along their frontage
as well. He concludes that he would not be in favor of granting an Exception to allow the
applicants not to install sidewalks along their street frontage and further notes that in the event that
such an Exception is granted he would request a public hearing.
Frontage improvements and on-street parking for Mr. Thompson's property would need to be
considered as part of a Site Design Review for the redevelopment of his property. In considering
his comments as they relate to the current application staff would note that, as emphasized by the
applicants, existing utilities in place near the corner would significantly increase the cost of
sidewalk installation and the application as proposed does not involve the intensification of use of
the property or any quantifiable increase in traffic flow which would proportionally justify
requiring sidewalk improvements. In staff's view, the Exception requested is merited given that
there are already two units in existence on the property. Should Mr. Thompson wish to request a
public hearing on the matter, an appeal would need to be requested within 12 days of the mailing
of the Notice of Decision as provided in AMC 18.5.1.050.G.
E
The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 as
follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone
(part 18.2), including but not limited to; building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density
and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public
Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve
exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 184 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.
PA 92016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 5
The criteria for approval of an Exception to the Street Standards are described in AMC
Chapter 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site, r
b, The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the
following factors where applicable,
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii, For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling
along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of walking
along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18, 4, 6, 040.A,
The criteria for Tree Removal Permit approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.7.040.13
as follows:
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear
public safety hazard (i, e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger
of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot
reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree
in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant
to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the
permit.
2, Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted
if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made
to conform through the imposition of conditions,
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to
applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 184 and Physical and
Environmental Constraints in part 18, 10,
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow
of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks,
C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant
F
an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone.
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 6
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would
lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other
provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval
of the permit.
In staff's view, the proposal to renovate the existing home on B Street to yield a 2,063 square foot
unit with attached two-car garage, and the demolition of the rear unit and its replacement with a
new 1,785 square foot second dwelling with attached garage, Exceptions to Street Standards and
Tree Removal Permit has demonstrated compliance with the applicable criteria and merits
approval. Planning Action #2016-01504 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if
any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever,
then Planning Action #2016-01504 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are
attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not
in conformance 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.
3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their September 8, 2016
meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final
approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein. These recommendations included that the applicants provide a mitigation
tree for the Ash to be removed, as proposed by the applicants, and that they consider
planting larger stature trees instead of the Lindens noted in the plans provided.
4) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including
approved addressing; fire apparatus access; fire flow; fire sprinklers for those units
determined by Building and Fire Code to require them based on review of final building
permit plans; and provisions for "Knox Box" key boxes.
5) That the applicants shall receive approval of a Demolition/Relocation Permit prior to the
demolition of the 504 square foot rear unit prior to demolition if deemed necessary by the
Building Official.
6) That prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain any necessary
permits from the Public Works/Engineering Department.
7) 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. Colors and materials shall be
consistent with those described in the application, and very bright or neon
paint colors shall not be used.
PA 92016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 7
I
i
C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be
directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent
proprieties.
d) Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be provided for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These
revised plans shall address: 1) Any recommendations of the Tree !
Commission from their September 8, 2016 meeting where consistent with
applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff
Advisor; 2) Required size- and species-specific planting details and
associated irrigation plans addressing the requirements for programmable
automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with
seasonal modifications to satisfy the Water Conserving Landscaping
Guidelines and Policies; 3) Clear identification of the required eight percent
recreational space including porches, decks, lawns and other areas proposed
to satisfy the open space requirement.
e) Stormwater drainage and grading plans for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments.
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include
the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent
to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes
and catch basins. Any meters, cabinets, or vaults shall be located in areas
least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering
access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be
completed by the applicant at applicant's expense,
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including any required
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must
be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and
Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or
building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas
least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering
the access needs of the Electric Department.
h) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes two bicycle
parking spaces in each of the garages. Where bicycle parking is provided
in garages, hanging racks shall not be used and final interior dimensions of
garages shall be provided to insure adequate space is provided. Inverted u-
racks shall be used for non-garage 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.
i) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies
with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height -6)/(0.445 + Slope)
= Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly
identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from
natural grade.
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 8
I!
j) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways,
parking, and other coverage areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more
than 75 percent as allowed in the R-3 zoning district.
k) 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.
8) That prior to the issuance of a building permit;
a. A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed
according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The
Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees to be removed and
the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected
on and adjacent to the site.
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, and storm water
(less any credits for previously demolished structures) shall be paid.
C. That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for future
street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow with irrigated
street trees, curb, gutter, storm drainage and undergrounding of utilities for North
Mountain Avenue and B Street. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an
owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom
of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or
to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and
resolutions.
d. That the applicants shall dedicate the additional right-of-way along B Street and
North Mountain Avenue to accommodate required city standard frontage
improvements (three to four feet) or provide sufficient public pedestrian access
easements to accommodate these improvements along both frontages.
9) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) All hardscaping, including the relocation and reduction of the North Mountain
Avenue driveway curb cut under permit from the Public Works Department;
landscaping, including required recreational areas, mitigation trees, and street trees
selected from and planted according to the approved street tree list; and the
irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor.
b) All utility service and equipment installations including undergrounding of existing
overhead electric services shall be completed according to Electric, Engineering,
Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and approved by the
Staff Advisor.
C) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 9
i
e) 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 the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure
as required in AMC 18.4.4.040.
g) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
h) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the North
Mountain Avenue and B Street frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and
shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the
Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
i) A replacement tree to mitigate the Ash tree removed shall be planted and irrigated
according to the approved plan.
10) That all garage parking spaces shall remain available for vehicle parking only and shall not
be used for material storage, as required in AMC 18.4.3.110. This limitation shall be
reflected in signage posted and maintained in each garage.
a
October 10, 2016
ill oln , Director Date
Departm t of Community Development
I
PA #2016-01504
1098 B Street/dds
Page 10
I
I
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,
c
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On October 11, 20161 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 #2016-01504, 1098 B Street NOD.
M
Signature of Employee
Documend 1011112016
PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 301 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 600 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 200
ARP ALISSA J BLUE IRIS PROPERTIES LLC BURKE-BOLLIER LLC
416 GUTHRIE ST PO BOX 531 P O BOX 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
I
F
G
PA-2016-01504 391E10 900 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 60002 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 60003
COMMUNITY WORKS INC CRUZ SANDRA CURRER PETER SHERMAN REV P O
900 E MAIN ST 72 N MOUNTAIN AVE BOX 1314
k
MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
G
PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 300 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 7500 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 712
GARFAS KATHLEEN P TRUSTEE ET JACOBSON SEPORA MAYIM JOLKOVSKY DAVID L TRUSTEE ET
1188 TYLER CREEK RD 1031 PAKINGTON ST ,1205 DRAKE DR B
ASHLAND, OR 97520 VICTORIA, BC V8V382 'DAVIS, CA 95616
I
PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 60004 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 100 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 601
RHOADES VERNA SORGEE/RHOADES RNN PROPERTIES LLC RODRIGUEZ ROBERT E LIVING
51 SCENIC DR 2640 E BARNETT RD 61 N MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 701 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 500 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 603
SEIDEMAN JEFFREY M TRUSTEE ET STAUDACHER JACK G ET AL ;TALENT PROPERTIES LLC
1600 E THIRD AVE 2005 88 EMENICK ST 64 N 3RD ST
SAN MATEO, CA 94401 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 501 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 60001 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 60001
WHITEHURST DAVID K WOLF STEPHEN H ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
88 THEO DR PO BOX 152 1424 IVY STREET
TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 60001 PA-2016-01504 391E09AD 60001
DESIGN RESIDENTIAL BRENT THOMPSON
P.O. BOX 8062 P.O. BOX 201
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520
GG'
1'
i
1
1
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
September 8, 2016
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01504
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1098 B Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: RNN Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the
reconstruction of a second dwelling located on the property at 1098 B Street. Also included are
requests for Exception to Street Standards to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb cut
on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curb cut than allowed by current codes
and to not install city standard sidewalks, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 15%2 -inch
Ash tree.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09AD; TAX LOT 9:100
The Tree Commission recommends approving the application as submitted along with specific k
recommendations below:
1. That the applicant considers planting larger stature trees instead of Lindens.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5350 CITY F
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
Ni~wwashland.onus
i
~ E
i
Brent Thompson
P.O. Box 201
Ashland, OR 97520
4 September 2016
Ashland Planning Department and Planning Commission
Mike Faught and Public Works Department Staff
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Planning Action 2016®01504: 1098® 1098 1/2 B St.
To the Planning Department and Planning Commission
I have owned the adjacent properties at 1094 and 1096 B Street since 1986, and for
10 years until 1999 owned the subject property at 1098 and 1098 1/2 B Street.
I have no objection to the proposal to add or rework the property to improve or
remove and rebuild the second unit which originally was a converted garage. I believe a
driveway should be allowed on Mountain St closer to the corner than usual because there
is, special circumstance here that is not common elsewhere. It is that the City Corporation
yard is on the same corner meaning that where there might normally be parking on B St,
the parking has been restricted. I believe this is due to the size of vehicles coming and
going from the yard. The street width on B is 30". The right of way is 50`leaving 20' for
adjustments and sidewalks on both sides of the street..
Actually it would be best for the neighborhood if the large City vehicles came and
left from the Mountain Street entrance next to the railroad tracks. A change of the main
City access driveway would lessen the dust and noise for the nearby dwelling units. Also
parking could more easily be restored in front of 1098 B. Parking was allowed when I
bought the property in 1989. There was never a public hearing to remove the parking.
The curb was painted yellow supposedly on a temporary basis when the fire department
temporarily relocated to that yard while Fire Station #I was rebuilt. Please see picture
from 2001. I coped with the change, but I do believe parking should be restored
In the rear of the property at 1098 B St is a 12 foot easement which I placed in
1999 in order to restore the alley on my side that was unwisely vacated by a former
owner of 81 N. Mountain St and other neighbors. The removal of that alley in 1980
reduced access options for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians of the four units we bought
and reduced the options for 81 North Mountain St. and two properties on Emerick St.
Parking was restored in front of 1094 B St except for 18' but it has not been
restored in front of 1096 B Street as I believe it should. If B St at 30' is deemed too
narrow to restore parking in front of 1096 B St, I am prepared to install sidewalks in
front of 1094 and 1096 B street at my expense if I can also have the option of B Street
being widened slightly so that engineering is comfortable with parking in front of 1096 B
Street as well as 1094 B Street. This would enable the easier construction of an under
f:
500 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit behind 1096 B St which lies on a separate tax lot from
1094 B St.
If the applicants of this project attempted and succeeded in arranging the same for
1098 B St, that would assist them in satisfying parking requirements for their project. I
believe even with corner setbacks one space would be available in front of 1098 B St.
I obtained two bids over the years to construct sidewalks in front of 1094 and 1096
B St, but other projects I took on interfered. Also, I hadn't fully thought out a plan
regarding how to handle the reality of the large vehicles coming and going from the
corporation yard. Now, if City vehicles cannot use the entrance on Mountain Ave and if
B St is not deemed wide enough for parking, it seems best to slightly widen it while
installing a sidewalk in front of 1094, 1096 and 1098 B St. This offers the properties
more options regarding adding housing while helping with neighborhood pedestrian
traffic. It doesn't matter to me if the sidewalk is slightly on my property and not fully in
the 50' right of way.
I am not in favor of deleting the requirement for sidewalks at 1098 B St., and if I
must request a public hearing to voice this, I hereby do so.
If this letter is not coherent enough, please call me. Thank you.
$est re a4-r /6L C'
7 Bu k BoYlier I, C
by Brent Thompson
541 488-0407
I
E--
- 'A
mac `
i
C r~~ i1 TWA KIM Q?"
~ Y_`f f ar I S
I J .11 y `Fd~T`x x ~Y ~s'I
- - MAP;
{;k -
t
I , ohR 9 Owe oa 0732
7-1
~i
kk •-5
.d
~r Ev_ ' ! a 1 - _ _
11 f ~ J 1 1 - .
I ~ t
4,' Z
I
i
C V- Y OF
Planning Department, 51 Winbuni UVay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 E
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or,us TTY; 1-800-735-2900
i
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2016-01504
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1098 B Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: RNN Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the re-construction of a second dwelling located on
the property at 1098 B Street. Also included are requests for Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard
sidewalks, to allow the retention of an existing driveway curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent
curb cut than allowed by current codes, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 15'/2 -inch Ash tree.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S
MAP: 39 1E 09AD; TAX LOT #:100
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 29, 2016
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: September 12, 2016
B ST PA V2016-01504
1098 B STREET
SUBJECT PROPERTY
i Q
z
- z
- - L, O -
-1 I E z
z
V✓ E
s
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice
is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period
and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice'
of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must I
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.
Wcomm-de0planning\Planning Actions\Noticing Polder\Mtailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01504.docx
i
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
r
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.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.8.1
Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all'
of the following circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle
cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty,
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.6
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or
property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit,
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets
all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone,
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
r
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FoldeAlviailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01504.docx
i';
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On August 29, 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 #2016-01504, 1098 B Street.
Signature Employee
E
I;
i
I
G:Icomm-devlplanninglTemplates\TEMPLATE_Affidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Nofice.dotx 812912016
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 100 rA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 201 r 2016-01504 391 E09AD 300
RNN PROPERTIES LLC BURKE-BOLLIER LLC GARFAS KATHLEEN P TRUSTEE ET AL
2640 E BARNETT RD E-431 P 0 BOX 201 1188 TYLER CREEK RD
MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 301 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 500 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 501
ARP ALISSA J STAUDACHER JACK G ET AL WHITEHURST DAVID K
416 GUTHRIE ST 88 EMENICK ST 88 THEO DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97540
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 600 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 601 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 603
BLUE IRIS PROPERTIES LLC RODRIGUEZ ROBERT E LIVING TRUST TALENT PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 531 61 N MOUNTAIN AVE 64 N 3RD ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 701 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 712 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 7500
SEIDEMAN JEFFREY M TRUSTEE ET AL JOLKOVSKY DAVID L JACOBSON SEPORA MAYIM
1600 E THIRD AVE 2005 1205 DRAKE DR B 1031 PAKINGTON ST
SAN MATEO, CA 94401 DAVIS, CA 95616 VICTORIA, BC V8V382
i
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60001 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60002 PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60003
WOLF STEPHEN H CRUZ SANDRA CURRIER PETER SHERMAN REV TRUST
PO BOX 152 72 N MOUNTAIN AVE 596 FAIRVIEW ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01504 391 E09AD 60004 PA-2016-01504 391 E10 900 PA-2016-01504
RHOADES VERNA SORGEE/RHOADES COMMUNITY WORKS INC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT j
51 SCENIC DR 900 E MAIN ST 1424 S. IVY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-2016-01504 1098 & 1098 B Street
JOHN TURMAN 8/29/2016 NOC
PO BOX 8062 19
G;
two
f
:"t j
s
i;
21,00
j
2400
j
361
i
Ll
N
:Ua }
7600
23" 7 SO
SM 601
60004 I
Elfin, XA ST 3 64901
r~~ Tat 6
a" U "l
64] n gu
ZZQ a~ X12 M2
- a {kl 70.3
X14}1 U DO 167 701
T41d1~
I ~.05 705. j
1600 1.600 1401 140
130 1._ 110
?loll
-E IAA I N:aT
l
1098) [i S[f ee
FINN IN llropertie,~, 11C
l
ROGUE PLANNING 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
August 5, 2016
Site Review to Replace Second Unit
Subject Property
Address: 1098 and 1098 % B Street
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 23BA; Tax Lot 201
Property Owner: RNN Properties, LLC
Richard and Nisha Jackson
2640 E Barnett E-431
Medford, OR 97504
Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning and Development Services
Amy Gunter
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
Building Designer: Design Residential
John Turman
PO BOX 8062
Medford, OR 97501
Landscape Designer: Jane Hardgrove
httnjL anehardgrovelandscapedesign.com/
Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density, Multi-Family Residential
Zoning: R-3
Lot Data:
Lot Area: .157 / 6,865 sf
Existing lot coverage:
Allowed lot coverage: 5,148.75 sf AM 5 2016
Page 1 of 11
RnGNE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLE
Proposed lot coverage: 4,128 sf
Open space required: 548 sf (8 percent)
Open spaces provided: 1,715 sf
Project Proposal:
Site Design Review approval to allow for the reconstruction of a second dwelling unit located on the
property located at 1098 % B Street. The application includes a request for an exception to street
standards to retain the existing curb cut on North Mountain Avenue that is closer to the adjacent curbcut
than allowed by current codes. The application includes a Tree removal permit for the removal of a 15.5-
inch Ash tree.
Site Background and Description:
The subject property is at the southwest corner of the STREET
intersection of B Street and Mountain Avenue. The '-7 7
existing parcel is made up of two lots that were / 25' 25' 1 25' 25' 25' 25' 5" j u
consolidated in order to permit the construction of the 6
°e
front residence, 1098 B Street, in 1940. The lots are Lot / 20 1 j
65 and 66 in Block 3 of the Eureka Addition. In the 1950s j 0.24 Ac 10~ e
0.1E Ac
the small unit at 1098 % B Street was constructed. 1 f~ 2d1 M
F
Along the south property line, a public alley was vacated 0.16 Ac ( c
and 7.5 feet was deeded to the subject property. The CS~ 510 1 / C
1 c
adjacent properties to the west, Tax Lot #200 and 201,
601 61 62 63 64 65 166 / e
have a 12-foot ingress/egress easement also adjacent to 4 --18 1 -
the south property line. - -
Cz r) r) 1 T ~175.00i 7.5~ /
W 5 01
Page 2 of 11
ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
The subject property is 6,865 square feet in area and is
zoned High-Density Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The "B" STREET
I
adjacent properties to the south and west are zoned R-3
and the properties to the north, across B Street and to the
T
east across North Mountain Avenue are zoned
frt-TT13 FN ~ I
Mh9 ~I'?1''5 Sg KS
Employment (E-1). y e
0 y 1 t W1
The property slopes gently from the south to the north at .a
approximately four percent. The property is occupied by a
672 square foot single story residence that faces B Street ORCH
and a small, 504 square foot second residential unit.
H~USE s1B --I UJ
UJ
According to the Jackson County Assessors Office, the 6721
square foot residence was constructed in 1949 and the 504
square foot unit in 1951. There are two 65 square foot
sheds on the property as well.
There is one 15.5-inch diameter at breast height (DBH),
m ~ m
triple stemmed, Ash tree near the east property line. This
tree is proposed for removal. There are two 10-inch DBH U~} {
and one 8.5-inch DBH Italian cypresses directly adjacent to
the residences. There are Photina shrubs and two Photinia
shrubs that have been trained into trees in the front yard !
(B Street). On the adjacent property to the west there are ~x -
five poplar trees. These trees are on the opposite side of jJf I
H to V`p) ~ ri. 49.79 F>l; ( Iii
the six-foot-tall, wooden fence. They will be pruned to
provide access along the property line. Additional tree °n"~
protection fencing is not proposed due to their proximity to the area of construction and due to the
presence of the side yard fencing.
The site is accessed via a 36-foot wide driveway curb cut approach located near the south property line.
The driveway curbcut is approximately 20-feet from the adjacent property's driveway approach, and
approximately 90-feet from the intersection of North Mountain Avenue and B Street.
Both streets are classified as Avenues in the Transportation System Plan. North Mountain Ave. is
improved with curb and gutter. There is approximately ten-feet of right-of-way between the east
property line and the existing curb line. B Street is improved with curb and gutter as well. There is
approximately ten-feet between the north property line and the curb line. There are no sidewalks on
either street along the property frontage nor on the properties to the west on B Street and on the
Mountain Avenue frontage for 165-feet to the south. There is a three-way stop at the intersection.
There is a 6-inch water main in B Street, and an 6-inch water main in North Mountain Avenue. There is
a 10-inch sanitary sewer main in B Street and a 12-inch sanitary sewer main in N. Mountain Avenue. The
property is served by a 10-inch storm sewer main in B Street and a 10-inch storm sewer main in North
Page 3 of 11
i
ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LIE
Mountain Avenue. Electric service to the small unit is from an overhead power pole on North Mountain
Avenue. Unit #1 is serviced by an overhead line on B Street. The existing residence at 1098 % B Street is
serviced overhead by a pole on North Mountain Avenue.
The subject property and the properties to the south and west are zoned High Density Multi-Family
Residential (R-3), the property to the west has a duplex and the property to the south has a detached
single family residence on the site. The properties to the east across North Mountain and across B Street
to the north at zoned Employment (E-1). These lots are occupied by the City of Ashland storage yards
and Public Works and Electric Divisions.
Proposal:
The proposal is to allow the replacement of the small unit, Unit #2, with a 2,230 square foot, two story
with attached garage multi-family residential unit. The existing 504 square foot residence that fronts on
North Mountain Avenue has a pending demolition permit application. Unit #2 is proposed to be oriented
toward North Mountain Avenue with a covered front porch area. The deck of the porch will extend into
the setback on North Mountain as allowed for structures that are less than 30-inches above grade. The
two units will be connected along the garage walls and the closets of the second floor bedrooms above.
The rear wall of Unit #1 is proposed to be removed to facilitate the addition of an attached garage,
laundry room and office / bedroom space, there will also be a second story added to Unit #1.
Parking, Access, Circulation:
Each residence is proposed to have a two vehicle garage accessed from the existing curbcut on N.
Mountain Avenue. The existing driveway curb cut is approximately 25-feet wide. It is proposed to be
reduced in width to 12-feet. The current lot configuration has historically had only on-street parking and
on-site parking that encroached into the public right-of-way for North Mountain Avenue. The proposal
eliminates the non-conforming parking and provides conforming parking spaces in the garages,
adequate back-up and turn-around, the parking is located to the side of the primary street frontage, is
recessed behind the facades facing North Mountain Avenue, and the garages provide adequate space
for two bicycle parking spaces within each garage.
Trees and Landscaping:
The Italian Cypress are landscape shrubbery will be removed. Additionally, the Photinia shrubs along the
B Street and North Mountain Avenue frontages are within the vision clearance triangle and violate the
fence height regulations. The Photinia shrubs in the front yard of the residence has the beginning stages
of Phytophora rot (the leaves are turning grey). Although these shrubs have grown to the sizes of trees,
they are specifically exempted from the definition of a tree in the ALUO. There is one 15.5-inch DBH Ash
tree on the site that will be removed.
The proposed landscape plan uses a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and ground
covers. Including plants that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure, and water availability. The
presence of utilities and drainage conditions was also considered in the planning of the landscaping.
JJr 01 5 11W Page 4 of 11
i
ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are
provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Calibri font and the applicant's responses
are in Times New Roman font.
CRITERIA from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria:
Ashland Municipal Code 18.5.2.050
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 subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multiple Family Residential. The parcel is 6,865 square feet and
complies minimama lot area and rrainimama lot dimensions in the R-3 zone.
The proposal is to "reconstruct" the second unit that will be demolished. The existing residence will be added onto
and the units will be joined by two, two-vehicle garages. Above the garage area of the residences are the closets
for the bedrooms that will be attached at afire wall that continues up fi°om the garages.
The majority of the existing residence's (Unit #I) fagade along B Street will be completely retained The frontporch
will be reconstructed in the same location and dimensions as the existing, the treatment and materials will be altered
during reconstruction. New siding, windows, doors will be added to the residence. At the rear of the existing
residence, the footprint is proposed to be enlarged and connected to the proposed attached garage. A second floor
above is proposed
The proposed dwelling and the modifications to the front residence are traditional materials and styling. There are
varying roof forms and heights to break up the mass of the structure. There are numerous windows and doors to
allow for ample natural light into the units.
The solar setback standards are met with the development because B Street is the northern property line for the
purposes of determining the solar setback. B Street has a 60 foot wide right-of-tivay. The second story addition will
not cast a shadow beyond the width of the right-of-way.
Density: The proposed density complies with the allowed density standards found in AMC 18.2.5.080.
Allowed Density 18.2.5.080: 6,865 square feet = lots greater than 6,500 square feet are allowed t1410 units
Proposed Density: two units
Lot Coverage: Proposed impervious areas including building footprints, patios, pathways, driveways, decks are
4,128 square feet. The maxinnnn coverage is the zone is 75 percent the proposed lot coverage of 60 percent, is less
than the maximum of 75 percent in the zone.
Parking: Foam parking spaces are required for the development of the property. Two, two vehicle garages accessed
from the reduced width driveway from Mountain Avenue are proposed
Four bicycle parking spaces are required The bicycle parking spaces are provided for within the garages along
the rear wall.
All(" 05 ?016
Page 5 of 11
t
I.
ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Energy Usage: All of the units within the proposed development will be constructed to the most current standards
of the State of Oregon Building Standards for residential construction. The units will be high performance, using
the best practices and innovative construction technologies to gain efficiencies in design, energy systerrrs, and
materials for increased energy efficiency, superior indoor air quality, lower water usage and responsible use of
natural resources.
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
There are no applicable overlay zones for the subjectproperty.
C. Site Development and Design Standards.
The proposed site development complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards ofpart 18.4,
except as provided by subsection E, below.
The proposed parking is within the residential dwellings. The layout and design does not provide for vulnerable
areas that are not visible from the units and open space. The trash / recycle areas are directly adjacent to each unit
and will be screened in accordance with the screening standards. The cans will not be visible from the public right-
of-way. Low level landscape lighting for the paths will be provided throughout the open space.
Each unit will have a shrouded yard light thatprovides down-lighting and security for the unit but will not directly
illuminate adjacent properties. Fences that comply with the fence ordinance are shown along the propert)~ lines, a
fence permit will be obtained prior to construction of the fence. No plant materials are proposed that prevent
surveillance of the open space or the semi private patios and balconies.
More than eightpercent of the site is available as open spaces for the use of the residents. There is 301 square feet
of deck, patio and porch provided for Unit #1 and 218 square feet of deck and porch area provided for Unit 92.
The 519 square feet of porches, patios, and decks account for only a portion of the 548 square foot required 8
percent open space. This does not include the private yard areas adjacent to the structures, including those areas,
there is nearly 1,190 square feet of open space provided on the site.
Building Orientation.
Building Orientation to Street. Dwelling units shall have their primary orientation toward a street. Where
residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, they shall have a primary entrance opening toward the
street and connected to the right-of-way via an approved walkway.
Unit #1 has its primary orientation towards B Street this orientation will not be affected by the construction of Unit
#2. Proposed Unit #2 is oriented toivards N. Mountain Avenue. A recessed front entry, a covered front porch and a
less than 30-inch above grade deck will extend beyond the covered front porch to provide an enhanced sense of
entry.
A walk way is proposed to connect each residence to the public right-of-way.
Limitation on Parking between Primary Entrance and Street. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not
allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or on one or both
sides.
No parking is proposed between the building and the street. The garages are recessed behind the street facing
fagade on North Mountain Avenue.
b u I
Page 6 of 11
t
ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Build-to Line. Where a new building is proposed in a zone that requires a build-to line or maximum front setback
yard, except as otherwise required for clear vision at intersections, the building shall comply with the build-to line
standard.
The existing front building is setback from the front property line the approximately 18 feet, 8-inches. This setback
is not proposed to be altered.
Garages. Alleys and Shared Drives. Where a lot abuts a rear or side alley, or a shared driveway, including flag
drives, the garage or carport opening(s) for that dwelling shall orient to the alley or shared drive, as applicable,
and not a street.
Vehicular access to the site is via the existing driveway curb cut. The existing non-conforming curb cut will be
reduced in width from 36 feet to 12 feet. The curb cut is 90 feet from the property corners at the intersection of B
Street and North Mountain Avenue. North Mountain Avenue is an Avenue and curb cuts are required to be 50 feet
from the intersection.
Curb cuts on Avenues require 75 feet of separation betiveen driveway curb cuts. The proposal will increase the
separation from 20 feet to 42 feet, closer to the standards.
The alley at the rear of the property was vacated in the 1980s. There are no shared driveways on the property.
Setback for Garage Opening Facing Street. The minimum setback for a garage (or carport) opening facing a street
is 20 feet. This provision does not apply to alleys.
The garages are setback fi°orn North Mountain Avenue more than 22 feet to provide adequate back-up and turn
around area on the site.
Building Materials. Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very
bright primary or neon-type paint colors, which attract attention to the building or use, are unacceptable.
The building materials are compatible with the surrounding area. The materials are typical building materials such
as hardi plank siding with wood shingle elements in the eaves. Fiberglass windows and composite shingles. The
exactpaint colors have not been selected but they will not be brightprimary or neon colors.
Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that
portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E.
Two, srrrall stature street trees are proposed on B Street. The tree on B Street will be lower in stature due to the
presence of the overhead powerline. Five street trees are proposed for the N. Mountain Avenue f ontage. The North h
Mountain Avenue trees will be larger stature. The street trees will be 1. S inch caliper, eight feet tall and planted in
I'
accordance with AMC 18.4.4.030. No trees will be planted within 25 feet of the intersection and no street trees will 4
be planted within 10 feet of the driveway.
Landscaping and Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided
pursuant to chapter 18.4.4.
Al II`
Page 7 of 11
ROGUE PLANNING ii DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Area for a trash and recycle container is proposed adjacent to each unit. The trash can area will be screened to
prevent view of the cans fi°oin the public street.
1
c
18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening
The final landscaping plan and the irrigation plan that will be submitted with the building permits complies with
the Irrigation and Water Conserving Landscaping requirements of the City ofAshland The conceptual landscaping
plan submitted with the application has been designed so that plant coverage of 90 percent within five years of i
planting is met. Two-inches of mulch will be provided in all non-turf areas after planting. Tuf areas are limited in
order to comply with the Water Conserving Landscaping requirements. The proposed landscaping has been
designed for crime prevention and defensible space to allow for natural surveillance. While providing screening of
the residences fi^oin the busy streets.
Though not shown on the conceptual landscape plan, the property owner is amiable to instllaing a five-foot
decomposed granite path within the public right-of-way to provide a somewhat level even terrain, walkable
inaterial in place of the current varied topography.
All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and replaced by the property owner.
Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal
18.4.5.030 Tree Protection: The trees along the west property line on the adjacent neighbor's property are
protected by a six-foot tall, solid panel fence. No additional tree protection is proposed
18.5.7 Tree Removal:
B. Tree Removal Permit.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land
Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design
Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
There is one 15.5-inch DBHAsh tree on the property that is proposed for removal. There are other shrubs that have
grown to tree sizes, but they are not subject to the tree ordinance.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,
protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
The removal of the trees will not have impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of suface waters, and protection of
adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The property to the east that would be the most impacted has a row ofpoplar
trees of their own on their side of the fence.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species
diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when
alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property
to be used, as permitted in the zone.
There are a significant number of deciduous and confer trees within 200 feet of the property. The removal of the
Ash tree will not have a negative impact on the densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity. Ash trees are typically
not a desirable tree to have in close proximity to structures due to their propensity for limb failure.
AW `5 2016
Page 8 of 11
i
t
ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of
structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives
continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
The proposal complies with residential densities. There are hvo units on the property; and there will continue to be
two units on the property. The removal of the tree facilitates the construction of Unit #2.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section
18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
A replacement tree will be planted and maintainedper the specifications of the Recommended Street Tree Guide.
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.
Adequate city facilities exist to service the new units.
Water: There is an existing six-inch water main in B Street. There is also a six-inch main in North Mountain Avenue.
There are existing water meters adjacent to North Mountain. These will be retained. There is afire hydrant at the
intersection of the two streets.
Sanitary Sewer: There is a ten-inch sanitary sewer° line in the B Street and a hvelve-inch line on North Mountain
Avenue. In discussion with the Wastewater Department Super visor, there are no capacity issues with the public
sanitary sewer lines. The structures currently share a four-inch line. Unit #1 will retain this line and Unit#2 will
have its own connection to North Mountain Avenue.
Electrical. Unit #2 is serviced by an overhead power line and pole on North Mountain Avenue. This pole will be
removed The new ser vice for Unit #2 will come from the overhead pole on B Street. Unit #1 already gets overhead
power from this pole. The new services will be undergroznded from the pole to the units and into a ha'o pack meter
located on the west side of Unit #1.
Storms Sewer: There is a 10-inch Storrn sewer main in B Street and a ten-inch main in North Mountain Avenue. In
consultation with the Street Division, there are no capacity issues with the city's facilities.
B Street is an Avenue. It is paved with curb, gutter and bike lane along the frontage of the property which provides
paved access to the development. North Mountain Avenue is also an Avenue and is paved with curb, gutter and bike
lane along the frontage of the 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.
No exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards are proposed
I
i_
i
U U 5 2016,
Page 9 of 11
t
ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Multiple-Family Rental Unit Conversion to For-Purchase Units j
18.2.3.200
C. Conversion of existing multiple-family dwelling rental units into for-purchase units, including the
demolition of existing multiple-family dwelling rental units, is subject to the following.
1. Existing multiple-family dwelling structures may be converted from rental units to for-purchase
housing, where all or only a portion of the structure is converted, as set forth in Table
18.2.3.200.C.1, provided the existing structure meets the following regulations of the applicable
zone: permitted density, yard requirements, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, outdoor
recreation space, maximum permitted floor area, waste enclosures, parking, and bike storage.
Table 18.23.200.0.1: Conversion of Multiple-Family Rental Units to For-Purchase s
Units I
Number of Affordable Affordable
Dwelling Units on Market Rate Ownership Market Rate Rentals
Tax Lot Ownership (per Sec, Rentals (per Sec.
18.2,5.050) _ 18.2.5,050)
2-4 iul)0% 0% 011%
5-12 75% 0% 25"5 0%
13-24 50% 0% 50% O:o
25-08 '5""' 0 % 75% o".6
4g+ 0 % 0% 100".~ 0%
No affordable housing units are proposed because the primary residence (Unit #1) and the proposed, new Unit #2,
14411 comply with the R-3 zoning provisions for permitted densto} and the zoning code regulations regarding yard
requirements, maxinnan height, maximum lot coverage, outdoor recreation space, maximum permitted floor area,
waste enclosures, parking, and bike storage.
Public Facilities
18.4.6.020
B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject
to chapter 18.5.5 Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.6.040 Street Design
Standards are subject to 18.4.6.020.8.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards, below.
1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the
standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are
found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
18.4.6.040.B. Applicabiliol. The following standards apply to all street improvements, including new streets,
alleys and pathways, and the extension or widening of existing streets. The street connectivity and
design standards are part of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and are approval standards that will
be used in land use decisions and for street construction projects.
No new streets, alleys, patInvays or extension of or widening of existing street are prosed. The site is occupied by
t1vo, residential units. One is being removed in order to construct a larger, energy efficient unit that complies with
setbacks, lot coverages, densio) , parking, landscaping and screening standards. The majority of the fagade of Unit
91 is being retained so it is not subject to review.
A reduced width curb cut is proposed to bring the site closer to conformance with the driveway spacing standards
but sidewalks and park row do not currently exist. The re-construction of Unit 42 is not considered an intensification
of use of the site and requiring sidewalk and park row improvements ivould be disproportionate to the site
redevelopment. The existing driveway is approximately 20 feet from the drivetivay to the south. The standards call
foil
Page 10 of 11
i
ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
The location of the public infrastructure at the intersection of the two streets, particularly the fire hydrant, would
require relocation at a high cost to the property owner. Installing street improvements that comply with the
standards for sidewalk and park row width including curb return at the intersection are cost prohibitive when
G
considering an intensification of the site is not proposed.
i
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
No changes to the connectivity of the existing transportation facilities are proposed There are public sidewalks on
the north side of B Street, and the east side of North Mountain Avenue.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
Not applicable
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
There is an existing six-foot wide bicycle lane along the North Mountain Street frontage of the
property.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
Though sidewalk installation is not proposed at this time, when sidewalks are installed, the
increased separation between the driveway to the subject property and the property) to the south
will improve the pedestrian environment.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
When considering that an intensification in the use of the site is not proposed, the exception is the rrrinimum
necessary to alleviate the financial and proportional implications of street improvements.
The spacing between the tivo curb cuts which is currently well below the standards, will not fully comply but will
improve with the separation, going from approximately 20 feet to 42 feet of separation.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
The purpose and intent contains standards for street connectivity and design as well as cross sections for street
improvements including installation of new streets and improvements to existing streets. No modifications to the
existing street are proposed and the property owner finds that the re-construction of Unit #2 creates no special
quantifiable burdens to require sidewalk installation.
The increased width behveen the driveways is consistent with the purposed and Intent of the Street Standards.
Conclusion:
The applicant finds that all of the applicable City of Ashland requirements have been met or can be met through the
imposition of conditions of approval.
Attachments:
1) SURVEY
2) SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
3) LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS UG 05 V~'
4) UTILITY EMAILS
Page 11 of 11
t
I,
i
i
a
a ~
al PKIN
~cq~x'.a~w"~~d' ?mow-
" ' - - - it
UV 05 201r
I
I
j
I
r
is
A. On-Street Parking Credit, Credit for on-street parking spaces may reduce the required off-street
perking spaces up to 50 percent, as follovis.
1. Credit. One off-street parking space credit for one on-street parking space meeting the
standards of subsections 2-4, below, See Figure 13.4.3.063.A.1.
R) l!ei PaH<ing D lgon ai Pat*ing
r -t
I I I
~ I I t,
INor'a -~I
Comer 1c:c;i. f ni{} Subject lot
of a C
FE 11 (n)
No ParIking,.
20" 22' witkn 20,
of a CCITT-=r
Note: Curb space roust be conti8uous to the
Tot cuntamirg Lhe use that reAuires the parking,
Figure 18,4.3.060.A.1
On-Street Parking Credit
AU Q 2011)
t
i
f
}
STREET
H
AUG Q Fi'~
OWU UrtU mt OH OMU
PPOLE
TEL 0 PPOLE
PED
FH ti-
y..
TEL
~.1 E 7 PED
OORCH
HOUSE
J' W w
z!.
Q ci PPOLE
Ids w fx
rr Or-
HED w I w
J HOUSE{ a
s ~
LLI
wm 4t3
X x . O
N V„
}
0
ICO (PUE RETAINED)
'74.64
275.'00
TEL
PED
CID
I
"B" STREET 5.00
AatllINYS „Ol) s H
--x.99 ~ '
(Nltladwaols.oN
w w w w w w w
(3NI1 a31tlM „9) I - I
I
Cr- T-
SnCI
PPOLE nHO I nH0 nHO nHO nHO TEL PPOL
0
PED
~ I PH ~ I I
L
m 89°52'21"W rn 49.83 50 „0-,SZ 0 j D 3 I 2
TEL ! W O
PED
~Ir w I I v I I
o 'A'LL I w ~K Q ~ Q I I ' I
IL co oa z
,.I LLI W I' I N I I I
O~ n
0 iI =
i .zl j/
z „o-ol I I I
O i
/o o m wr1; o
J ~ II ; ~ m I I z
o I I• I I >
wi
pa I Q
i i GR
PPOL
°r° o o / r ❑ $ mil ° (TO BE R ED) I Z
~ I ~ ~ ..i. ~ j~~i.: ❑ z it y I ~
v n / / / I i I ~ ore
wymoa / /iDF- I / I I z
o~ww~Q I ~ I I L
NV W /U / 1 ? I
0 0 O
• I
Q~%, zstezz I°yo
iii/ - 1
/ ❑ 2C I ' rw
~ O
-3
6' ~y N
I I~ IU)
-0 9/16' m .
m
LL
Y~/ W r0 'N O)
8i
//f jiff .o-,s i I CJ
z II z
,
4
W~~ 14~' I ~ I I ~ O
_ _ 49.79 (so)
H ,4)
w Z VACATED ALLEY (30N2=1 HOIH.9B) (3ON3d HJI N
I
PER DOC. 80-18455, ORJCO
(PUE RETAINED)--------------------
_
I
PED 3
wv AV 0% U
r;.
1 -MOB1Wf
'J B]CO II,B-316f
]600. III00 Zlt6"' 2,M '3100.
]000 R13~.. t060
-Z a
14
d Tk `\7
x e
~I z I \ ~\jL~ -may o z~. ~k ~
g~
a
r
\\II\\ ~ II' ~
A
v I ~~J~ z n Q 2 1
I
1
I 1
,T IJ, yR. cT -CY
c F~ i t ~ I I I i --1 I
~G
s
21
7ZI
-T H'Aji
72
~Hl
~1 tom. ~ I
Lu~ U-1
>Ov
0 cm
II
I z §
I p
> o
~ W N > X
NI ^ co
xl _ _ _ LL
o> < W
-------I Q W 0
DZ
Z~ <
I x ~-tLQ
C7 _
N I _1 ZX 3»0
I I-N 0- LL fnZ
0~(t0~0
F- -i
o C)X I W I~ (n
LL HQo Of
"v ui I LL (D Q LL
p~ I I mZ C.0 3: W
Cl) < U)
9z ~M~ZOZ
I rnri) Z W W
I
o. I ~~p
L- UJ X W Q
_I PANTRY
Z - I
S
Z irw
D Z VW X °I x
Z 4 l)
° O _ I II N '~~j GQi
W it ~ a X qW II LL "
w O m 90
X o p X 3 II
Z II
4
0
0
o w Q o
N q
x
to
U
q N
na.
w
m
rn
n
z
Z ,
Ir
a
w rWrn
m V
Z Q s
Y X
m 0
a Ir
w lC\l
------------------------JCD
m kr
io
in <
of w v
° o
W Of
Wq >0.0 °s-,s = X § H 4 00-
C) u u~ ~ E W V r 0~
W
0 > 0
J Q
DS J
.o-r•.o-s
o
.e-z•.s,z iv
x
N
N
W O M = hN
O~ --u I o ' 00
p W O U
W
0
U
> W §
N l1J
O
x
,r rn N
Z ~Zx,gt f 11
~ x Z
td x.0-£ ~0 LL
N „0 ,8 O >
U) LL s m W LL
U
N rz J m N
x n r
H x LL 4
a
O
® N
O
M
.s-z .s,z
cr)
*k
s O` O~ 4
m m
.o-.9 o-,9
- - -
&.9 o-s
ce)
2
4 O O 4
p p
m m U
O >
O-1
til, _ V- F-
Q x N LL
r ;i- a ZWU;
CL
.,o-,s a U)
p 00
§ J_ X 0)
2;0
Q ~
LL 2
wom
0') w 07, w
U) q ~ U x q
Qp~ ww-
4 NMOO W V O p
a U
N
4
. .Z
W
~
x
X `_v'v a m
N °
0
w
- U
h
a~
mQ
xz
m.
0
0
0
U
Z
W
m~9 rg
oz
O U f-
7d"y ~e oWa
x :
Z
U
K
m XU
a
g
PA.
!y U~
OM
~oQ3~
x o
ff e 3
a Yz
U Z N
Uu. K~
~O
2
°v I
EEI
w
U'O
E li >-.z
0=
L ~ >WU
I
uu 0
I
0
0 7
' o L
0 g
f LIE]
Ooa -
1111 « x7d
Um
® x
P
I P
0
II
~El❑ J
~ F-1 ❑ i
T O
F O
I 7m=lo
0 ~ 11
2w
II ~~o Q
j U
co
r
III~I~I~~~ Y Z
-a
no _
x
S
U
W
K \
N /
J ~
UJ
Q~'' jWU
O QO W m
a~,~a
i
I~
,
,
,
M,E]
,
,
,
ff~I
,
I z
~l
W
W
U /
W
I w
I
F-
C)
2 1
LLB o r
LI II II ~ I I
I
S
P
I
W
O J
Q
z C)
,
Z
,
,
'O
O
r
I I
r
W
J
w ~.1
7
3 3
ry L
S 111111~~~ J
of
~ Q
-IN I
o
~ pl
J v
z 1>
!a_-
1
V
z
r
_ `v
~-ronx 'STN :alt~sg
11 11S 131O IV IO 1 O3 2110 321 ' N01133S ~
9G~ q 0 or
3N11,k1ddns
V ON1111=1 3N11 NIVIN
Z- d,U'NOINn OAd
3 JIV 3SVS `I3A'd2~J u
123oddns
id onoa •1•d ;10 NOWS s~3I~awads o
f I~I E
(710NV) 3AIVA 1I I
I1=IIII~
10'81NOO 31oW3M -111-
flf=lf
M11M -IOULNOO 1 f =f I 1=.
I f~{ { 1 f f~l f f~
1! f~i f 1-1 !
3®~J HSINId
~JMOO SNIMOO'l
A XOS 3AIVA 0I1SY1d
•S3003 3dV0SQJVH
o1 winojOMMUI Wd 8f IH1o
HOVa O1-13"!l'dWd S3XO8 3A*1VA 138 'S
'83ATdA NO ij3svm
NOLLVIS HIM OVI •Cll S-USINHO 30'v9d 'Z
(XO8 3A`1VA ' 3IS)
Xos Uad S3A'1VA (Z) Wnmmi 71VISNl 6.
:S31ON
•S•1•N .aj~g
HONMI 3NII 11. I. 1 11335 .
HINV3
Nb'310a0 .Z WIN
S21UM 1O~I1NOO
BOV110A M01
bmp, imjds-X S.1.N ;aleoS
d Ol33S
"1"Slb'I OAd
(suol;ogloadS ass-seliawasse 0
pelgwesse-oid AOuo jlap~sulp)
'3did ONIMS 3 isixald Z4
W
CId3H A"dS dn-dOd _ _ k k f=i ! k=k k k- m
.iii ,-~kklklk klk-kkl+kkl~ m
- . ~ . ~ . k k~k ! k k k~k I k.~.k l k~l r
zIov=i8nV 3dVO5®~JYH - .'.--b. ++t+;Y++ yy yiY ty, + +
t + t + + H~ /-l/~vv. y
U~
T IV dO 3Obd wO'cl3.,BE QNV S3003
3d`dOS(RIVH TId ~JO „i. 10 •Niw 9`~Z C
V Id3>138 01 S(3V3H AVI:IdS IIV
:31ON
- a~•®~e~-x -®pw ~ p®®p3 1St®r1~L~~ga
. 3dV3S(38VH 1SVd 'Nlw uZ6 Nm 38.01 S3A33'IS'IIV 'E. .
B Z OAd OV HOS air as 0183A331s "liv 'Z
s3CIV8182H10 H1IM SV3NV 1N3w3Avd Zit gnolH3A
NaciNn SMJIM QNd ONldld d0 NOIJ-V-nVISNl 31dNIaMOOO 6
S31ON
'lvnz)3 CMAO~Iddb
'80 3A3318.OAd -
3MIM-IXVIN _f 1
1 i.l---t 1'1---1 f
`SSAlVA )IOEHO NrV N0 021IViSNI ANO1OV.= 2AVH llb'HS 91VMS 021' IS02A 3HI Nl SOV3H 11`
tr '0 `ZZ'0 NHS NHS Joja'0~1-dW 0£S~:Id-90-S0Nd la unH d31N 0 '(]Na
9L'0 `.L,0'0'66'0 0£ 096 ooU J011810~1-dN 0MNd-90-S08d JalunH l1n= `ZII. `4II _
Wo ' 3 To ' 6 6'0 0£ 89 0006 Jove l-d V! 0£SNd-90-S0Nd jejunH ljn `Zl6 `w
VVdO 3LVd MOId ISd 'C]V°l 31ZZ0N lJ®OVV N0UdINOSSO lO
U e
'N0UVE)INUI MEN (3311V SNI
SH1 CIN`d N0110flUISNO3 MEN SH1 O1021Snrov C3121= N3E8 SVH 1bH1. N0UVE)NUI
ONIISIXE 3HI S21`dO10Nl 1VH1 ONIMVN0 0NOOE8 N0UVOIN3Ul Nb' HI)M X33 O EHl
EOIAOUd MVHS ~1010b'NiNOO SdVOSCINVI 2H1 ` NOM 3H1 =O NOII3ldWOO NOdn 'I, L
'S2XO9 3AivA i N:;ov C3'd EH1 HIM (ISNVI-IV ®NV
30VNE) HSIN1d HIIM HSnld SI 0II EHI IVH1 OS X09 2A-lVA Ilb'ISNI 'CISIVOIQNI
N0I1b'OOl SHI IV 319VI1VAV Sl EOunOS NSIVM N2dONd V MIU2A 'N` Id 3H1
NO ®S1VOI®NI N0L LV3013HI NVEN SAIVA N0UVE) ZNNI OSSOdONd 2 11VISM '0b
'S:7CIS 1NSVMSAVd
0NOA3S tZ6 ON31X3 `I IVHS S3ASEIS 11V 'NOUVO0l I0VX3 c3NIM0HS 1NIVd
HIM (13)i2NVW SWIS 000M V SNisn SBAJSIS MM AINV210 'NV-id NOJIVEANNJ
NBd SV 3dld a2M3S KC)£ NO `0 ,'HOS ~ WIN ES IIVHS S3AMIS NOUVE)INNI -]-IV 'S
1-II:1XOVS 01 NOlNd `IHJII.QNVH saNS 711 dVO 'ONIAVd 2 amn ,
O31V00139 l1VHS EJNldld NI SN2Nni N2H1O NO 5113 `2321 ON 'MNOM ONIAb'd 01
NOINd G:;7 f1SNl 39 IIVHS JNIA'dd uEONn `013 'SSA3SIS '031: OAd 'JNldld 11V 'L
S2IZZ0N JNIIIVISM SNOdE9 S3NI1 HSnld 'HOInIN CIO= JNMOIIV
'3C3VN£9 HSINW HIM NSA9 Ob'3H JO clO1 HIM 9Vgnld S(3VaH 2121DINlNdS lld.I"SS '9
'33NI SHI d0 SSVS EH.I. ROUA A11VICIVU 02.E 1lWN3d
29 11M ONIHONRN I~ lvnNVVq '533211 JNIISIX3 JO ENIld[N(3 NlH11M JNIHONRNl
SNIHOVW ON 'CI310VdWO0 AllbnNVlN 0N`d 8103T90 dNVHS ONV'SNOON JO 238.4
39l`i'dl-IS Ib'Ii:3E1b'I~ IlB~yIO~S 'SSNII Ib'`~IS1~'3 ?~SAC3?13A03 •NIY~I,ON. ~:iNIH N3~I1
All12dO Nd
IN N0d24Ed 01 VMSAS N0UVE)' INN! ONUSIXS 21-11210= 03CI32N Sl IVH1.I.NaNdlf oa
ANv Nivd3d 01 A1na Sa21010`dNIN03 NOLLVE 1 N] 2H139111M 11 'SV3NV
BdVOSONVI JNINIb'AB N 3H1 01=10VUEA03 3131dV403 3C3IA02Nd 711M INRISAS
SHI.LVH1 HOnS N3ISAS N0UVE)18NI :3N11SIX3 21-1101 SIN3w1 rov 2>ivw IIVHS
NO10b2NIN00 N0I1b'JINNI 3HI'SSNn010-1 JN]>INVd 3HI d0 N01331dINOO NOdn 't
'101 ONIANVId
OES0d0Nd.EH1=0 )UINIOIA 3H1 NI SSAIVA 0N'd SGVEH N0UVeI2NNI ONUSIX3 lib`
-Ao lANnl_ V,)[YI P AIAwn!)n(I ('INV k?dn I ~I~/1h§~ "4"A!/S EC 58n 1'~H11 t a~n~ Wins n elc,t,i~a: ~a.a ~ c
rv
{ a
.y ~
.~r sd
'PIP I,
n
r r r
r
n ~ ~ 1
y
i
u~
9 c
fi ~M x
,
OWN H
o ~ ~ err
v ,J
rr,
~r -
r
g.
. rU
i
P
7777
H''''~~~yyq~
E /n . y R t.~ ~up~. I
nom.. _
, in
rn
of r ' r` ^N~
- co
O 0.a W r 7F, ,I .1 H I
jA,
~ b ~xA
w
It I
t
£ik,
O ~
.p Q ~ J
a X1..4.7
I
j
00
it
L~
I
it I
i
Il-
i
o I
rn
r
i
0
o m m
CD m
I ~
i
Y
d:
F
t i-
l
a cc `
Ot,
,
C p, Y
~ `~i' ,fir ~s~~~
rl ~l p~ ( i~ d f / it
~il~'~ ~ X94 ~ i
1 ~
r;
a
YFA
I, I fi
• ~ 'v' ~ ~L p~'-' I qtr.
17
L I
f p{~ Ir~K~j 1 ;
• S~ ~l. ~ ~ 9d'
4
i
w `
~ Y
.n~ ~ elf 5
64
t
o" x
F i
~ ,r+ rte'
4"w
"~f°w Cyr _jak.
y. d t Y~' f
f
.l
• ./r a l Ft i
~ `~~`~~vr V y 5! 1
r~
~ It ~ - f.
~ 1 q
ire, 4~ 'r
x
, L
l
G
ZONING MIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
C w r r o F 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE #
-
-ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT t ~ \ -e~V i- c
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES ® NO
Street Address 1098 and 1098 1 /2 B Street
Assessor's Map No, 391 E 09AD Tax Lot(s) 100
Zoning R-3 Comp Plan Designation High Density; Multi-Family Reside l
APPLICANT
Name RNN Properties LLC Phone 541-944-5963 E-Mail rick@rnnproperties.com
Address 2640 E Barnett Road; E-431 City Medford Zip 97504
PROPERTY OWNER
Name RNN Properties LLC Phone 541-944-5963E-Mail rick@rnnproperties.com
Address 2640 E Barnett Road; E-431 City Medford Zip 97504
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER
Title Land Use Planner Name Amy Gunter Phone 541 -951 -4020 E-Mail amygunter.planning@gmail.com
Address 1424 S Ivy Street City Medford Zip 97501
Title Building Designer Name John Turman Phone 541-608-3956 E-Mail John@designresidential.biz
Address PO Box 8062 City Medford zip 97501
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 have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, 1 have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Property Owner's Signature (required) Date
[To be completed by City Stafq
Date Received K.~p Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER
GAcomm-dev\planning\Fomis & IIandoulsgoning Pemiit Application.doc
i
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
c r Y O F 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE #
ASHLAND
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? DYES NO
Street Address 1098 and 1098 1 /2 B Street
Assessor's Map No. 391 E 09AD Tax Lot(s) 100
Zoning R-3 Comp Plan Designation High Density; Multi-Family Residel
APPLICANT
Name RNN Properties LLC Phone 541-944-5963 E-mail rick@rnnproperties.com
Address 2640 E Barnett Road; E-431 City Medford Zip 97504
PROPERTY OWNER
Name RNN Properties LLC Phone 541-944-5963E_Mail rick@rnnproperties.com
Address 2640 E Barnett Road; E-431 Cif, Medford zip 97504
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER
Title Land Use Planner Name Amy Gunter Phone 541-951.4020 E-Mail amygunter,pianning@gmail.com
Address 1424 S Ivy Street City Medford Zip 97501
Title Building Designer Name John Turman Phone 541-608-3956 E -Mail 1ohnCdesignresidential.biz
Address PO Box 8062 City Medford Zip 97501
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 ofthe request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
a) that all structures or improvements are property 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. ff I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance,
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
l~ {U O f!il~ - St lv
Property Owner' Ignature required) Date
fro be completed by cf q Staff]
ii
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER
G:komnt•devtplannidg¢ones & F{andoutsiZoning Pcmtit AppGcation,Joc
r7771 t
Job Address: 1098 B ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
A Owner's Name: RNN PROPERTIES LLC 0 Phone:
P Customer 07482 N State Lic No:
P RNN PROPERTIES LLC T City Lic No:
L Applicant: 270 FIRST ST N R
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C c Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 944-5987 T Address:
N Applied: 08/05/2016 O
T Issued:
R
Expires: 02/0112017 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: 391 E09AD100 City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Site Design Review
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 1,090.00
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 F
E
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days).
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 1,090.00 $ 1,090.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,090.00
Fees Paid: $ 1,090.00
Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0
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 C I T Y F
-As LAN D"