HomeMy WebLinkAboutFair_Oaks_601_PA-2016-00617
CITY F
ASHLAND
July 13, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-2016-00617
Subject Property: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue
Owner: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
Applicant: KDA Homes, L.L.C.
Description: A request for Site Design Review approval, Property Line Adjustment and
Modification of Planning Action #2013-01506 for the property located at 601 Fair Oaks Avenue within
the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The original approval allowed for a mixed-use building
with commercial space and parking on the ground floor and residential units on the two upper floors. The
modifications proposed here include changes to the building's exterior design, adjusting a property line,
and adding an exterior elevator. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved density, parking
allocations or landscaping. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain,
Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 04AD TAX LOTS: 700
& 800.
The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final
Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified
on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the
effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of
the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
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
SECTION 18.5.1.060.1
L Appeal of Type II Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section
18.5.1.060.J. A Type 11 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 II decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying
the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection.
b. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten
days of the date the notice of decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a
reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies
as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time,
and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection
I8.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.4.b,
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of
the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and
materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the
Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed
decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for
purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the
parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the
appeal proceeding.
b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence
on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator
together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to
the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the
following.
i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us-'~---
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 Arg anent. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral
argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different,
and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted
oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall
be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written
and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set
forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the
written argument.
b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the
record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to
determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning
Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review
shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may
approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make
findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification
for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to
remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission
decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant
to subsection 18.5.1.060.J.
6. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the
written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall
become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
The public hearing record shall include the following information.
a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ( \
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 `
www.ashland.onus
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the
application that the City mailed or received.
c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials
submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times
when the record before the Planning Commission was open.
e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type
II applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council
decisions on Type II applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals,
pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
i
I
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 i A
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 12, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-00617, A REQUEST FOR )
SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND )
MODIFICATION OF PLANNING ACTION #2013-01506 FOR THE PROPERTIES )
LOCATED AT 601-691 FAIR OAKS AVENUE WITHIN THE NORTH MOUNTAIN )
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA. THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL ALLOWED FOR A)
MIXED USE BUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL SPACE AND PARKING ON THE )
GROUND FLOOR AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE TWO UPPER FLOORS. ) FINDINGS,
THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED HERE INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE ) CONCLUSIONS &
BUILDING'S EXTERIOR DESIGN, ADJUSTING A PROPERTY LINE, AND ) ORDERS
ADDING AN EXTERIOR ELEVATOR. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE )
PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED DENSITY, PARKING ALLOCATIONS OR LAND- )
SCAPING. )
APPLICANT/OWNER: KDA Homes, L.L.C./Ayala Properties, L.L.C. )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots #700 and #800 of Map 39 lE 04AD are located at 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue and are zoned
NM-C (North Mountain Neighborhood Central Overlay).
2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval, Property Line Adjustment and
Modification of Planning Action #2013-01506 for the properties located at 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue
within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The original approval allowed for a mixed-use
building with commercial space and parking on the ground floor and residential units on the two upper
floors. The modifications proposed here include changes to the building's exterior design, adjusting a
property line, and adding an exterior elevator. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved
density, parking allocations or landscaping. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot
area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection
E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 r
Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity,
PA #2016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 1
t k
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.
4) The Supplemental Approval Criteria for North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are detailed
in AMC 18.3.5.030 as follows:
C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other
sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the
following criteria.
1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building
design, and building orientation.
2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the
North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
5) The approval criteria for Property Line Adjustments are detailed in AMC 18.5.3.120.B as
follows:
1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment.
2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or
as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot
standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and
coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable
zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As
applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions
for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource
protection zones).
3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080
Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall
not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment.
PA #2016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 2
6) The approval criteria for Minor Modifications to Planning Actions are detailed in AMC 18.5.6.040 as
follows:
C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon
the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for
the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the
modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial
development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed
parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be
provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance,
administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or
may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the
application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not
apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved
through a Ministerial review.
7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 14, 2016 at
which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing,
the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
c
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
l;
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "Y'
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
PA #2016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 3
is
2.2 The Planning Commission fmds that the proposal for Site Design Review, Property Line Adjustment
and Modification of Planning Action #2013-01506 meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review
approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050, Property Line Adjustments described in AMC 18.5.3.120.B,
Minor Modifications to Planning Actions as described AMC 18.5.6.040, and the Supplemental Approval
Criteria for North Mountain (NM) zoning districts described in AMC 18.3.5.030 with the attached
conditions of approval. The site plan and elevation drawings provided delineate the proposed building
location, design and associated site improvements.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that this application involves two vacant buildable lots located
within the Neighborhood Central Overlay (NM-C) of the North Mountain Neighborhood zoning
district. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area has been located within the Ashland city limits since
the early 1900's. In August of 2013, the Planning Commission approved PA#2013-806, which allowed
for the construction of a grouping of three-story mixed use buildings consisting of four commercial spaces
and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and ten residential units on the second and third floors for the
vacant parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. This application
included a modification of the original Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision approval to adjust the number
of residential units allocated between four subject parcels to allow a total of 40 dwelling units, where only
ten units had previously been proposed, based on the permitted densities within the NM-C district. In
January of 2014, the Planning Commission approved PA #2013-01506, a Modification of Planning Action
#2013-806. The modifications approved were: 1) clarification of the proposal's density allocations,
parking management, and number of ground floor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2)
an increase in the number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3)
modifications to the proposed building design for Tax Lot #700. The current application involves
additional modifications to the building proposed for Tax Lot #700 and changes which will affect a future
building on Tax Lot #800.
The Planning Commission further finds that the amendment or modification of a Type 11 planning action,
such as the Outline Plan approval for a subdivision, where the modification involves changes other thantree j
removal or building envelope adjustment requires a Type II planning action. Because the current request involves
the modification of a building design approved through a Type II application, the modification requires Type II
review with a hearing and decision by the Commission.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that all planning applications within the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan area involving Site Design Review approval are required to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards as well as the standards outlined for
Site Design Review. The North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards provide guidance in areas of
architectural design and character, building setbacks, height, and mixed-uses, and generally seek a
building design which reflects the importance of the central public spaces and present a traditional
storefront streetscape. The design standards for the district seek the architectural character of commercial
buildings to reflect their importance as a focus of the North Mountain Neighborhood. Rather than taking
on a residential appearance, buildings are to emulate a traditional storefront appearance with a simple,
flexible form and a strong architectural identity. The design standards call for the use of arcades, awnings,
i
PA #2016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 4
I
I
r
r
t
bays, and balconies extended over walkways to form a continuous covered sidewalk corridor, and seek a
"Transitional Architectural Design" so that buildings initially developed for residential use are designed
and constructed in a way that allows a simple transition to commercial use, for example, through
appropriate floor-to-ceiling heights and location of HVAC and other building systems. I
The Planning Commission finds that the application materials provided explain that the modifications
proposed are necessary for two reasons: first, to accommodate the revised elevator location, and second, I
to reflect interior modifications made to the floor plans which were essentially flipped front to back so
that more of the units fronted on Fair Oaks Court with view of Mt. Ashland, rather than the nearby freeway.
The application asserts that the architectural style of the building remains consistent with the original
approval as a "Main Street" style building, and is consistent with the North Mountain Design Standards.
The application goes on to explain that the design attempts to create a traditional storefront appearance c.
similar to that found in downtown Ashland. They suggest that the design achieves this without an overly
contrived appearance. They note that the volumes reflect a zero lot-line design with strong vertical
elements at the edges, with the facade broken into various volumes of roughly 22 feet wide, combined
with the varying use of different building materials, window types, roof heights and colors between the
vertical volumes. The application suggests that the building reflects not only the underlying mixed-use
zoning but also a mixture of traditional storefronts compatible with the context of the neighborhood. The
design shows a continuous group of distinct coverings along the buildings' storefronts to provide shelter
to pedestrians in a traditional storefront manner to respond to the design standards for "continuous covered
walks" while also respecting vertical elements in the building facades. Two additional balconies - one per
floor - have also been added to the Fair Oaks facade to reflect the shifted floor plans, and the applicants
suggest that the incorporation of balconies into the design is important for high density housing livability
where residents can have a small outdoor area for dining or other leisure activities.
The application goes on to note that all of the ground floor spaces proposed here are intended for
commercial use, but as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan have been designed in such a
way that they can function as residential units with a transitional architectural design that allows for
relatively easy adaptation to commercial use. The applicants recognize that it is likely that the ground
floor spaces will have temporary residential uses in place initially.
The Commission finds that the intent of the neighborhood design standards was to create a neighborhood
scale pedestrian streetscape with strong individual storefront identities and buildings of sizes, forms,
massing and architectural elements at the pedestrian scale typical of older buildings similar to those found
downtown along the plaza. The Commission further finds that while the proposed modifications are
generally in keeping with the previous design, as the design continues to evolve, some of the defining
elements of the strong individual storefront characters are being softened as the more defined bases along
each individual volume have been replaced with stone veneer wainscoting along only two of the volumes,
and the use of the balconies in lieu of other pedestrian coverage on the west side provides minimal benefit
in protecting pedestrians from the elements. The Commission finds that the design needs some minor
adjustment to better address the standards and their underlying intent, and a condition has accordingly
been added to require creating a stronger identity for individual storefronts with stronger pedestrian
coverings of a depth sufficient to provide protection from the elements, providing a distinct base on each
PA 42016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 5
f
Y.
i
space, and providing a clearer distinction between the ground and upper floors.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants propose to adjust the location of the building
on Tax Lot #700's elevator so that it can be shared by a future building on Tax Lot #800, the adjacent lot j
immediately to the west. The elevator will sit along what is now a shared property line, be constructed
with the building proposed here and later connected to the building on Tax Lot #800 when it is constructed.
The application explains that the shared elevator will reduce construction costs and homeowner
association maintenance expenses. The elevator is to be recessed and will sit roughly 50 feet back from
the building's front fagade, and the application notes that it will have limited visual impact to the
streetscape or building design. The application explains that the elevator is to be primarily of glass to
allow for interior natural light and exterior aesthetics, and a small storage area for residents is proposed to
be building behind the elevator, on the ground floor and screened from view by the elevator shaft. The
applicants indicate that this design allows for slightly more storage, but also for windows and natural light
into the building's interior. With the reconfiguration of the storage space within the ground floor garage
area, the applicants also illustrate that two additional parking spaces can be gained over the previous
configuration. When the building on Tax Lot #700 is finished, the elevator shaft will be treated with like
building materials to blend with the building until the adjoining building is constructed on Tax Lot #800.
The Planning Commission finds that AMC 18.3.5.100.13.3 & 13.4 call for buildings to be built to the front
and side property lines, and a side yard setback is only to be considered where the building is adjacent to
a residential zone or a pedestrian accessway connects to a rear parking area, in which case it shall only
occur at mid-block between two buildings. The previously approved Site Plan included a mid-block
pedestrian connection between the buildings to provide a walkway from the rear parking to the Fair Oaks
pedestrian corridor. The Commission finds that the elevator placement here is in keeping both with the
standard and the originally approved design, as the recess created between the two buildings at mid-block
provides a pedestrian connection from the streetscape to the parking garage and to the elevator for access
to the upper-floor residential units.
The Commission further finds that in discussing the proposal with other City departments, staff noted that 4
the Electric Department has indicated that the elevator will require a new three-phase electrical service,
and a condition that this requirement be incorporated into the final electrical service plan has been included
below.
i
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal includes the removal of the property line between Tax
Lots #700 and #800 where the elevator is proposed. The Commission finds that Building Codes will generally not
allow construction over a property line or openings at a property line, and the dissolution of the property line as
proposed will allow the elevator to comply with Building Codes and to have operable windows on both buildings
in this area. The application explains that the dissolution of lot lines is typically an administrative action with the
Jackson County Surveying Department, and is noted here for informational purposes. A condition has been
recommended below to require that the property line be dissolved and evidence provided to the Building Division
to demonstrate compliance with Building Codes requirements as proposed by the applicants.
PA #2016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 6
i
i
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the intent of the neighborhood design standards was to create
a neighborhood scale pedestrian streetscape with strong individual storefront identities and buildings of
sizes, forms, massing and architectural elements at the pedestrian scale typical of older buildings similar
to those found downtown along the plaza. The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the building
exterior, addition of the elevator to ultimately be shared with the adjacent lot, and dissolution of the
property are generally straightforward and in keeping with the previously approved design.
The Commission further finds that as the design has evolved through a number of modifications, some of
the defining elements of the individual storefront characters are being softened a bit. The more defined
bases along each individual volume have been replaced with stone veneer wainscoting along only two of
the volumes, and the use of the shallow awnings and balconies in lieu of other pedestrian coverage on the
west side seems to provide minimal benefit in protecting pedestrians from the elements. The Commission
finds that these elements need some minor adjustments to better address the standards and their underlying
intent, and a condition has accordingly been added to require creating a stronger identity for individual
storefronts with stronger pedestrian coverings of a depth to provide protection from the elements,
providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clearer distinction between the ground and upper
floors.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Site Design Review approval, Property Line Adjustment and Modification of Planning
Action #2013-01506, including changing the building's exterior design, adjusting a property line, and
adding an exterior elevator, for the properties located at 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue is supported by
evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action 42016-00617. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-00617 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall be conditions of
approval unless otherwise modified herein, including that When the building on Tax Lot #700 is
finished, the elevator shaft will be treated with like building materials to blend with the building
until the adjoining building is constructed on Tax Lot 4800.
2) That all applicable conditions of the previous Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review (PA-
2013-00806 and PA-2013-01506) approvals shall remain in effect unless otherwise modified herein.
3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site
Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
PA #2016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 7
I
i
4) That the Electric Service Plan submitted with the building permit application shall include the
three-phase electrical service necessary to serve the proposed elevator as required by the Electric
Department.
5) That the property line shall be dissolved as proposed by the applicants and evidence provided to the
Building Division to demonstrate compliance with Building Code requirements.
6) That the building permit submittals shall include revised elevations which demonstrate a stronger
identity for individual storefronts by providing stronger pedestrian coverings of a depth sufficient
to provide protection from the elements; providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a
clear distinction between the ground and upper floors.
A , ~ July 12 2016
Planning 0 ssion Approval Date
PA #2016-00617
July 12, 2016
Page 8
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,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On July 13, 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 #2016-00617, 601-691 Fair Oaks.
G'
Signature of Employee
DocumenO 7/13/2016
E
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 5900 PA-2016-00617 PA-2016-00617
KDA HOMES LLC AYALA PROPERTIES LLC OREGON ARCHITECTURE
604 FAIR OAKS CT 604 FAIR OAKS CT 221 W 10TH STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501
c
PA-2016-00617
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 601 Fair Oaks
CONSULTANTS 7/13/16 NOD
PO BOX 1724 4
MEDFORD, OR 97501
I'
/
F
C
F
E
I
i
I
i
i!
I
i
i
f
Public Testimony
Eric Hamilton/1273 lowa/Voiced concern that the development is proceeding piecemeal and stated his two main
issues are the future development to the north and the playground. Mr. Hamilton stated a potential two or three story
development would create privacy issues, obstruct views, and cause a depreciation in property value; and he asked
the developer to consider retaining the existing playground space on the church property as greenspace.
Rick Harris/190 Oak St, #1/Spoke in favor of the modifications and adopting the findings this evening so the project k
can move forward. Mr. Harris stated the church is being downsized and moved to the corner, and the future
development proposals will come before the Planning Commission for review when that time comes. He noted this is
the largest piece of undeveloped R-3 land in the city and downsizing the church as using the land as identified in the
comprehensive plan is the best use of the property.
Mary Scott/1274 Iowa/Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the written comments from Ms. Scott. (See Exhibit #2)
I
Applicant's Rebuttal
Ray Kistler/No rebuttal was given. Mr. Kistler noted the new driveway will align with the alley across the street.
i
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Brown/Pearce m/s to approve PA-2016.00230. DISCUSSION: Brown commented that the
applicants have sufficiently addressed the conditions. Pearce cited the public input on potential developments and
clarified this is a standalone application and when future proposals come forward those will be appropriately noticed
and reviewed. Norton voiced his support that the play area was moved and is now totally on the church property. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion
passed 7.0.
Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00230,188 Garfield St.
Mr. Severson clarified the findings reference language from both the original application but also the proposed (now
approved) modifications,
i
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the findings for PA-2016.00230. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 7.0.
C. PLANNING ACTION PA-2016-00617
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601.691 Fair Oaks Avenue
OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
APPLICANT: KDA Homes, L.L.C.
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval, Property Line Adjustment and Modification of
Planning Action #2013-01506 for the property located at 601 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan area. The original approval allowed for a mixed-use building with commercial space
and parking on the ground floor and residential units on the two upper floors. The modifications
proposed here include changes to the building's exterior design, adjusting a property line, and adding
an exterior elevator. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved density, parking allocations
or landscaping. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central
Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700 & 800.
i
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Norton conducted a site visit. Commissioner Thompson was approached by a citizen who wanted to
discuss this project but she referred them to staff.
Ashland Planning Commission
June 14, 2016
Page 5 of 7
i
i
I
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a brief history of the property and displayed the vicinity map, site plan,
elevations, and floor plans for the site. He explained the proposed modifications would:
® Change the building's exterior design
® Dissolve a property line
® Add an exterior elevator that would serve tax lots #700 and #800
Mr. Severson clarified no changes are proposed to the previously approved density, parking allocations, or
landscaping; and stated staff is supportive of the application as submitted.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox and Mark McKechnie/Mr. Knox stated the changes are due to a new architect for the project and
explained they realized most of the units in the original plan would face Interstate 5 and they would like to change this
so they face Mt. Ashland instead. Mr. Knox stated he is excited to be a part of this project, which will consist of a
community center, diverse housing, affordable housing, and a design similar to the plaza without the intensity. He
added they have no issues with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Mr. McKechnie commented that
they have worked hard on this project and there will be small-scale shops on the ground floor and residential units up
above. He added it will look like four separate buildings built at slightly different times and by different architects.
Mr. McKechnie clarified the recessed area between the buildings will serve as a light corridor to provide sunlight to
the middle windows. He also commented on the corner unit and noted the importance for a building this size to have
an anchor on the end.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2016.00617. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown,
Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7.0.
D. PLANNING ACTION PA-2016-00847
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 252-256 B Street
OWNERS: Maura & Kathleen Van Heuit
APPLICANT: Jerome White of Kistler + Small + White Architects
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to allow a
remodel and 1,664 square feet of additions to the three-unit building located at 252.256 B Street. A
Conditional Use Permit is required because the proposal exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in
a Historic District by 13.6 percent. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Site
Design and Use Standards' Historic District Design Standards (18.4.2.050.B.12) which directs that
"Additions on the primary facade or on any elevation that is visually prominent from a public right-of-
way, and additions that obscure or destroy character defining features" are to be avoided. The proposal
will remove the existing decorative gable and rake details on the front street-facing facade and reapply
them to a second-story gable on the proposed addition. The gable will be raised approximately eight feet
to accommodate the second story. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BA; TAX LOTS: 5700.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Mindlin, Norton, Pearce, Dawkins, and Thompson declared site visits. No ex parte contact was
reported,
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the proposal to remodel the existing three-unit structure and add 1,664
sq.ft. He reviewed the site plan, landscape plan, solar access, elevations, and floor plans. He also noted the Historic
Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval but asked for the new siding to match the existing
siding and for the windows to have three inches of frame between one another. Mr. Severson stated given that the
Ashland Planning Commission
June 14, 2016
Page 6 of 7
i
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF PORT
June 14, 2016
PLANNING ACTION: 2016-00617
E
APPLICANT: KDA Homes, L.L.C.
OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
LOCATION: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue
(Map 39 lE 04AD, Tax Lot #'s: 700 and 800)
G:
ZONE DESIGNATION: NM - C, North Mountain
Neighborhood Central Overlay
is
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Neighborhood
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
(See also htr,1 _ _ashland.or.us/SIBt: fiIesfAMC Ch-pt 18 cutTent.-odf
13.16 Street Trees
18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District
18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design
18.4.3 Parking, Access & Circulation
18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening
18.4.6 Public Facilities
18.5.2 Site Design Review
18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments
18.5,6 Modifications to Approved Planning Actions k'
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: May 1, 2016
REQUEST: The current application is a request for Site Design Review approval, Property Line
Adjustment and Modification of Planning Action #2013-01506 for the property located at 601 Fair
Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The original approval allowed
for a mixed-use building with commercial space and parking on the ground floor and residential
units on the two upper floors. The modifications proposed here include changes to the building's
exterior design, adjusting a property line, and adding an exterior elevator. No changes are proposed
to the previously-approved density, parking allocations or landscaping.
1. Relevant Facts
Planning Action 2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: KDA Homes, LLC Page 1 of 9
c
i
i
T) Background - History of Application
This application involves two vacant buildable lots located within the
Neighborhood Central Overlay (NM-C) of the North Mountain Neighborhood
zoning district. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area has been located within
the Ashland city limits since the early 1900's.
In January of 2014, the Planning Commission approved PA #2013-01506, a
Modification of Planning Action #2013-806. The modifications approved were: 1)
clarification of the proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number
of ground floor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2) an increase in
the number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3)
modifications to the proposed building design for Tax Lot #700.
In August of 2013, the Planning Commission approved PA#2013-806, which
allowed for the construction of a grouping of three-story mixed use buildings
consisting of four commercial spaces and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and
ten residential units on the second and third floors for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot
#700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. This application
included a modification of the original Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision approval
to adjust the number of residential units allocated between the four subject parcels to
allow a total of 40 dwelling units, where only ten units had previously been proposed,
based on the permitted densities within the NM-C district.
In July of 2005, the Planning Commission granted Site review approval as
PA#2005-696 for four mixed-use buildings comprised of ten commercial and ten
residential condominium units on the subject properties in the "Village Center" area of
the Meadowbrook Park Subdivision. Lots were created and streets dedicated with
recordation of the plat for this project. The bulk of the public infrastructure for
the Meadowbrook Park Estates Phase II project, including curbs, gutters, paving,
some sidewalks, street trees, and utility infrastructure was constructed shortly
thereafter, and some houses were constructed before the developers sold the remaining
parcels and the economy declined.
In January of 2004, the Planning Commission granted Final Plan approval of
PA#2003-158, an 81-lot Performance Standards subdivision located within the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan area west of the North Mountain Avenue, east of Bear
Creek channel and south of the unimproved section of Nevada, including the subject
parcels under consideration here. That approval included 79 residential units within
the residential zones, and an additional 13 residential units and 11 commercial spaces
in the NM-C portion of the project. This Final Plan approval was granted two 12-month
administrative extensions with PA#2005-99 and PA#2006-264.
In May 2003, the Planning Commission granted Outline Plan approval ofPA#2002-151,
an 81-lot Performance Standards subdivision for the 16 acres located along the west
side of North Mountain Avenue, east of the Bear Creek channel and south of the
unimproved section of Nevada, including the subject parcels under consideration here.
Planning Action #2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: KDA Homes, LLC Page 2 of 9
I
This application also included Major Amendments to the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan, including realignment/reconfiguration of certain streets and
modifications of the required yard areas.
i
In May of 1997, the City Council adopted the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan as
Ordinance #2800, which included a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
amendment and a new chapter in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) -
Chapter 18.30, North Mountain Neighborhood. With the Unified Land Use
Ordinance updates in 2015, the North Mountain Neighborhood District became
Chapter 18.3.5 and was moved to Part 18.3 "Special Districts and Overlay
Zones". Chapter 18.3.5 lays the framework andprovides applicable design standards
for development proposals within the NM zoning districts.
There are no other planning actions of record for this property.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Site Description
The subject property as well as the area surrounding the site is located in the
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area, and is included in the North Mountain
Neighborhood (NM) zoning district. The NM zoning district is divided into seven
secondary zoning districts or "overlays". The subject properties involved here are
zoned NM -C (Neighborhood Central Overlay). The Neighborhood Central Overlay
represents the commercial and civic center of the plan area.
The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and implementing NM zoning district
regulations identify required transportation facilities, common areas and individual
sub-zones. In addition, all development proposals within the NM Plan area are
required to adhere to the North Mountain Neighborhood Design standards, as well as
other applicable ordinance provisions such as Local Street Standards, General
Regulations and Site Design and Use Standards.
The areas proposed for construction are currently vacant and free of any existing
structures. A row of existing Siberian Elm trees located immediately to the north
of the proposed buildings on Tax Lot #700 was approved for removal with PA#2013-
806, and no other significant natural features are situated in the immediate area.
Current Proposal
The current application is a request for Site Design Review approval, Property Line
Adjustment and Modification of Planning Action #2013-01506 for the property
located at 601 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan
area. The original approval allowed for a mixed-use building with commercial
space and parking on the ground floor and residential units on the two upper floors.
The modifications proposed here include changes to the building's exterior design,
adjusting a property line, and adding an exterior elevator which would ultimately
Planning Action 2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: KDA Homes, LLC Page 3 of 9
f
c
t
serve both tax lots #700 and #800. No changes are proposed to the previously-
approved densio, parking allocations or landscaping.
K Project Impact
Procedurally speaking, the amendment or modification of a Type II planning action (such as
the Outline Plan approval for a subdivision) where the modification involves changes other
than tree removal or building envelope adjustment requires a Type If planning action. Because the
current request involves the modification of a building design approved through a Type II
application, the modification requires Type II review and is accordingly being brought to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing and decision. The application includes written
findings which respond to the approval criteria for the modification of the approved Site
Design Review and the Property Line Adjustment.
Proposed Modifications to Tax Lot #700 Building Design
I
All planning applications within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area involving Site
Design Review approval are required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable North
Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards as well as the standards outlined for Site Design
Review. The North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards provide guidance in areas of
architectural design and character, building setbacks, height, and mixed-uses, and generally
seek a building design which reflects the importance of the central public spaces and present
a traditional storefront streetscape. In terms of some specific design standards:
o Architectural Character. Design standards for the district seek the architectural
character of commercial buildings to reflect their importance as a focus of the North
Mountain Neighborhood. Rather than taking on a residential appearance, buildings
are to emulate a traditional storefront appearance with a simple, flexible form and a
strong architectural identity.
o Continuous Covered Walk: Design standards also call for the use of arcades,
awnings, bays, and balconies extended over walkways to form a continuous covered
sidewalk corridor.
o Transitional Architectural Design: Design standards for the district call for a
"Transitional Architectural Design" so that buildings initially developed for
residential use are designed and constructed in a way that allows a simple transition
to commercial use, for example, through appropriate floor-to-ceiling heights and
location of HVAC and other building systems.
The application materials provided explain that the modifications proposed are necessary for
two reasons: first, to accommodate the revised elevator location, and second, to reflect
interior modifications made to the floor plans which were essentially flipped front to back
so that more of the units fronted on Fair Oaks Court with view of Mt. Ashland (rather than
the nearby interstate). The application asserts that the architectural style of the building
remains consistent with the original approval as a "Main Street" style building, and is
consistent with the North Mountain Design Standards. The application goes on to explain
that in their opinion, the design attempts to create a traditional storefront appearance similar
to that found in downtown Ashland. They suggest that the design achieves this without an
Planning Action #2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: KDA Homes, LLC Page 4 of 9
i
I
overly contrived appearance. They note that the volumes reflect a zero lot-line design with
strong vertical elements at the edges, with the fagade broken into various volumes of roughly
22 feet wide, combined with the varying use of different building materials, window types,
roof heights and colors between the vertical volumes. The application suggests that the
building reflects not only the underlying mixed-use zoning but also a mixture of traditional
storefronts compatible with the context of the neighborhood. The design shows a continuous
r
group of distinct coverings along the buildings' storefronts to provide shelter to pedestrians
in a traditional storefront manner to respond to the design standards for "continuous covered
walks" while also respecting vertical elements in the building facades. Two additional
balconies (one per floor) have also been added to the Fair Oaks fagade to reflect the shifted
floor plans, and the applicants suggest that the incorporation of balconies into the design is
important for high density housing livability where residents can have a small outdoor area
for dining or other leisure activities.
The application goes on to note that all of the ground floor spaces proposed here are intended
for commercial use, but as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan have been
designed in such a way that they can function as residential units with a transitional
architectural design that allows for relatively easy adaptation to commercial use. The
applicants recognize that it is likely that the ground floor spaces will have temporary
residential uses in place initially.
In staff's view, the intent of the neighborhood design standards was to create a neighborhood
scale pedestrian streetscape with strong individual storefront identities and buildings of sizes,
forms, massing and architectural elements at the pedestrian scale typical of older buildings
similar to those found downtown along the plaza.
Staff believes that while the proposed modifications are generally in keeping with the
previous design, as the design continues to evolve, some of the defining elements of the
strong individual storefront characters are being softened. The more defined bases along
each individual volume have been replaced with stone veneer wainscoting along only two of
the volumes, and the use of the balconies in lieu of other pedestrian coverage on the west
side seems to provide minimal benefit in protecting pedestrians from the elements. Staff
believes that the design needs relatively minor adjustment to better address the standards and
their underlying intent, and a condition has accordingly been recommended below to require
creating a stronger identity for individual storefronts with stronger pedestrian coverings of a
depth to provide protection from the elements, providing a distinct base on each space, and
providing a clear distinction between the ground and upper floors.
Proposed Elevator Installation
The applicants propose to adjust the location of the building on Tax Lot #700's elevator so
that it can be shared by a future building on Tax Lot #800, the adjacent lot immediately to
the west. The elevator will sit along the shared property line, constructed with the proposed
building and later connected the building on Tax Lot #800 when it is constructed. The
application explains that the shared elevator will reduce construction costs and homeowner
association maintenance expenses.
Planning Action 2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: KDA Homes, LLC Page 5 of 9
i
The elevator is to be recessed and will sit roughly 50 feet back from the building's front @EE
fagade, and the application notes that it will have limited visual impact to the streetscape or
building design. The application explains that the elevator is to be primarily of glass to allow
for interior natural light and exterior aesthetics, and a small storage area for residents is
proposed to be building behind the elevator, on the ground floor and screened from view by
the elevator shaft. The applicants indicate that this design allows for slightly more storage,
but also for windows and natural light into the building's interior. With the reconfiguration
of the storage space within the ground floor garage area, the applicants also illustrate that
two additional parking spaces can be gained over the previous configuration.
i`
When the building on Tax Lot #700 is finished, the elevator shaft will be treated with like
building materials to blend with the building until the adjoining building is constructed on
Tax Lot #800.
AMC 18.3.5.100.13.3 & 13.4 call for buildings to be built to the front and side property lines,
and a side yard setback is only to be considered where the building is adjacent to a residential
zone or a pedestrian accessway connects to a rear parking area, in which case it shall only
occur at mid-block between two buildings. The previously approved Site Plan included a i;
mid-block pedestrian connection between the buildings to provide a walkway from the rear
parking to the Fair Oaks pedestrian corridor. In staff's view, the elevator placement here is
in keeping both with the standard and the originally approved design; the recess created
between the two buildings at mid-block provides a pedestrian connection from the
streetscape to the parking garage and to the elevator for access to the upper-floor residential
units.
1
c
In discussing the proposal with other City departments, the Electric Department has noted
that the elevator will require a three-phase electrical service. A condition that this
requirement be incorporated into the final electrical service plan has been recommended
below.
Proposed Property Line Dissolution
The proposal includes the removal of the property line between Tax Lots #700 and #800 where the
elevator is proposed. Building Codes will generally not allow construction over a property line or
openings at a property line, and the dissolution of the property line as proposed will allow the elevator
to comply with Building Codes and to have operable windows on both buildings in this area. The
application explains that the dissolution of lot lines is typically an administrative action with the
Jackson County Surveying Department, and is noted here for informational purposes. A condition
has been recommended below to require that the property line be dissolved and evidence provided to
the Building Division to demonstrate compliance with Building Codes requirements as proposed by
the applicants.
IR 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,
Planning Action #2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: KDA Homes, LLC Page 6 of 9
t
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.
The Supplemental Approval Criteria for North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are
detailed in AMC 18.3.5.030 as follows:
C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by
other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet
all of the following criteria.
1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements
of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation,
building design, and building orientation.
2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided
in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
The approval criteria for Minor Modifications to Planning Actions are detailed in
AMC 18.5.6.040 as follows:
C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only
upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria
used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited
to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial
development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the
proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc.
Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1.
Planning Action 2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant; KDA Homes, LLC Page 7 of 9
r
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance,
administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification
and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the {
application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do
not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was
approved through a Ministerial review.
The approval criteria for Property Line Adjustments are detailed in AMC G
18.5.3.120.8 as follows:
1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment.
2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter
18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform
to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions,
setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards
of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property
line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free
of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35
percent slope, water resource protection zones).
3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section
18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access
standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
In staff's view, the intent of the neighborhood design standards was to create a neighborhood
scale pedestrian streetscape with strong individual storefront identities and buildings of sizes,
forms, massing and architectural elements at the pedestrian scale typical of older buildings
similar to those found downtown along the plaza. For staff, the proposed changes to the
building exterior, addition of the elevator to ultimately be shared with the adjacent lot, and
dissolution of the property are relatively straightforward and generally in keeping with the
previously approved design.
As the design has evolved through a number of modifications, staff believes that some of the
defining elements of the individual storefront characters are being softened. The more
defined bases along each individual volume have been replaced with stone veneer
wainscoting along only two of the volumes, and the use of the shallow awnings and balconies
in lieu of other pedestrian coverage on the west side seems to provide minimal benefit in
protecting pedestrians from the elements. Staff believes that these elements need some
relatively minor adjustments to better address the standards and their underlying intent, and
a condition has accordingly been recommended below to require creating a stronger identity
for individual storefronts with stronger pedestrian coverings of a depth to provide protection
from the elements, providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clear distinction
between the ground and upper floors.
Staff is generally supportive of the request, and recommends approval with the conditions
detailed below:
Planning Action #2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant: KDA Homes, LLC Page 8 of 9
i
i
i
Y
1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including that
When the building on Tax Lot #700 is finished, the elevator shaft will be
treated with like building materials to blend with the building until the
adjoining building is constructed on Tax Lot #800.
2) That all applicable conditions of the previous Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site
Design Review (PA-2013-00806 and PA-2013-01506) approvals shall remain in
effect unless otherwise modified herein.
3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial
conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans
submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved
as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval
shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
4) That the Electric Service Plan submitted with the building permit application
shall include the three-phase electrical service necessary to serve the
proposed elevator as required by the Electric Department.
5) That the property line shall be dissolved as proposed by the applicants and evidence
provided to the Building Division to demonstrate compliance with Building Code
requirements.
6) That the building permit submittals shall include revised elevations which
demonstrate a stronger identity for individual storefronts by providing
stronger pedestrian coverings of a depth sufficient to provide protection from
the elements; providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clear
distinction between the ground and upper floors.
Planning Action 2016-00617 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds
Applicant; KDA Homes, LLC Page 9 of 9
I~
I
1
r-I
I
r
z
LU
_ 1 RI ,a 1
vz~
- r I0. t
- - _ -
9P
I r4 ~ r N /
I is ~ - r. m tt m ~ ~ ~ I I ~ u
B ~ ~ ~ Kl i, 1. i i C~ f
a
T -
07
r
! J c Q QI 11n-i
. ~.~3 sI a I
- - I m
®6-
- - - - - - - - - -
v
m U$
LAY-
N
r -
I
I
I
i
I
I j
L ~
1
1
l O
f
~I
I
I
i
fi-
k
k -
k U
k
k ~
k
I
I
I
1
L- I-A . . . .
f~- LU n
1, 3
d ~
Oil
N
td1 ~
UI
+ II ~ ~ tl7
UI ~u
U
1 IL
r
r- "1
R
C
r
C
L
C
L
11
d
Z
t71
1-
i
I
1
I
I -
I cri
1 -Q
I
I
L
I U Z
Q
1
1 ~
I } 0
J
I fl
I ~
Z~
fl
J~
C
~F
3
{
:31
iV J
~ J
~ I
J z
J d
J fL
f ~
if
Or
LL C
4 fl
q a .
77
7 Ir ~ yyy ' I ,
.t . pk..' 1 . t.., -
~8 il• 7~~ I i It I.F l"4
tI
f' p
t'~Ylgn..g ~ia
'II +J+S`~il} atM+N~.... 4 x ~ 5 ~
1~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .69~tvGlr rn..,~~r~, d rc am . >^'"`r!a*`v.:hrm ~
t I A
n I 51 ~r~..
y - K
a ~ 7 1` Inca .IS ,
sr"r + 3 ro
t -rrc A y 1
~ 4 1 ~ ~ ~ ~s~rrr;v- ip>~taA+rx~urxrynn `~`y
a
7dYdr9,&ADttG
Iy~' . f 'fi.w5 b ~ '4 kJ'°'~ ra uµuµ~~ .5.5qq~~ ~ ~ y .z~wv_ ~ww9 -
1 r ~ • +Ir~-.'.C. M rr ~Ye't4 p ' ~Y ~u~
N '~~Mh!SUIiH's4a 1Pµ,'. ' 64Y;Y,ntfba`,r2w; v
3, ..........ti.~.. ' pxse,at,~an•nsAwa'.et, >Lxv> rds t,~ FjjL
~ - ~ { ~ ate.
j a
f ~ dt t~ ~ ..x x 'E ' M
It t 1t s~r i= 5avvmr~,x6x:~ ' ""mwl ? 1
py q
S si ^^4 t ~ IdmU t~ .
ppq{ ~j L ~p~~~kY~~l Sw f
4 F D 4k t r T, n ~n e t 5
Imo
I#g rN i~ 4. .f .i,~ItllePol~wrsm, ~ ~ ,n
Nh p.. n I'
s~ rn rte` s, 1 f:4 4L
na e 5 3P-' n~ mwrm+er+e,dw.,-
utryaµ~yyy YMM+NAYnIey.~TaeVwW+YYa.+fml aw w,
t ~ ~ ~ ~a''`~.b~~, ~ in~Y 'n, `fi'r ~ '•4
1
{ $1yy9 ~ ~ 88 1 4 . 4. 'ar:.
((y${y s
k . 5
• x~ n„+.-..v-,. - .~.a.M~~y.y.F .iXC'Cw~ _ 1 4~v,'md t'~u+'~u.r"~ a ,..........wa,...m,_.w.+ - ,i,~ °ry"~' ~y.. ~ J1'' .
' ~ i'~T ~I ~ Y tc•~ ~ 14R~~ ~~l}},, ~ ~
~~!t?%.t .zu}-. •~:..w., u.r. mrtq!rp ._T.t^^I „~.a~,.,.v..~.. ~.a' Fn:.:swkiaf4f-s ,~,.,x,. ,
f n7
.
; -
yx~~ ° yr@
A
d
:a,~w„wlmnxa~vsxa.ww~n.~p,~ ~µw.igmpm~z
n,«~e~•.,wr..n~exmn i~
E d
, ftt
a E,
I
E
F 1 ~ w
1. [ ,a,w4+wr~w'w ] e.' .raw. aI it ~ ~ t nx+~......,..,....
,
•
`
b K
UT G 6' Ew
h d ~ rt ti .
7 .
I -
Planning Department, 51 Winb'u, Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www,ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAI
i
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00617
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue
OWNER: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
APPLICANT: KDA Homes, L.L.C.
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval, Property Line Adjustment and Modification of
Planning Action #2013.01506 for the property located at 601 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan area. The original approval allowed for a mixed-use building with commercial space and
parking on the ground floor and residential units on the two upper floors. The modifications proposed here include
changes to the building's exterior design, adjusting a property line, and adding an exterior elevator. No changes
are proposed to the previously-approved density, parking allocations or landscaping. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04AD
TAX LOTS: 700 & 600.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
PA #2016.00617
601-691 FAIR OAKS,
- i SUBJECT PROPERTIES
U
( ~TAXLOT9800 iTAXLOT#700
601.611-621-631 FAIR OAKS AV ' 651-661-671-681.691 FAIR OAKS AV
0_ ~Q
FAIR OAKS AV J
O
Z
n
w~E
5
E7
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 FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00617.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.
NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD
18.3.5.030
C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall
also meet all of the following criteria.
1, The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density,
transportation, building design, and building orientation.
2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
MINOR MODIFICATIONS
18.5.6.040
C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are
met.
1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited
to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the
proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major
Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval
do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review.
PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
18.5.3,120.B
The Staff Advisor shall approve or deny a request for a property line adjustment in writing based on all of the following criteria.
1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment.
2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels
conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not
conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots
and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water
resource protection zones).
3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the
access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment.
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-00617.docs
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 6/1/16 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 #2016-00617, 601 Fair Oaks.
I
i
Signature of Employee
I
i
I
i
i
~I
DocumentM 5/31/2016
i
I
I
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 1300 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44017 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 204
ALI SHAHID AMERICAN DREAM HOMES LLC ET AL ASHLAND ASSISTED LIVING LLC
50 LOWE RD 132 W MAIN ST 202 1701 S SUTRO TERR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 CARSON CITY, NV 89706
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 700 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 1100 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 2200 I
AYALA PROPERTIES LLC BELEN CAIXA TRUST ET AL BISHOP RONALD DE VERE TRUSTEE
132 W MAIN ST 202 19451 BELLETERRE DR 975 CAMELOT DR
MEDFORD, OR 97501 REDDING, CA 96003 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 77005 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44015 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44002 I
BOND CAROLYN E BRANDT FAMILY TRUST ET AL BURTON BOBBY L SEP IRA ET AL
220 FOURTH ST 5 634 FAIR OAKS CT 2305-C ASHLAND ST 504
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
i
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 2100 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 208 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 77003
COLONDRES FERNANDO L ET AL CRANE NORMAN T TRUSTEE ET AL CUMMING MARY K
969 CAMELOT DR 855 STONY POINT 930 N MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 400 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 206 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44008
DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE ET AL DURAND SARAH MOTT TRUSTEE FISHBURN WENDY TRUSTEE ET AL
VILLAGE APARTMENTS 863 STONY POINT 335 STONERIDGE AVE
725 ROYAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 5800 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44006 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44011
GAGNEJA ARVINDER PAL SINGH ET AL GOODMAN BARBARA N REV TRUST HAHN LAURA K/SCOTT T
562 FAIR OAKS AVE 6248 HIGHLAND AVE 11041 ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 RICHMOND, CA 94805 EUREKA, CA 95501
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 1200 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44012 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44001
HANSEN MICHAEL S ET AL HEAP KATHLEEN HOUSE RICHARD M TRUSTEE ET AL
563 PLUM RIDGE CT 951 CAMELOT DR 622 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 900 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44007 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 2300
HUMPHREY GINGER M JENSEN LESLIE W JOHNS LIVING TRUST ET AL
593 PLUM RIDGE CT 628 FAIR OAKS CT 979 CAMELOT DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 77001 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44029 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44013
JOHNSON BRYCE TRUSTEE ET AL JONES DAVID SCOTT MD PC401 K PSP JONES DAVID SCOTT MD TRUSTEE ET
910 N MOUNTAIN AVE FBO KATH DANA JOHNSON AL
ASHLAND, OR 97520 595 N MAIN ST 2 2000 TAMARACK PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
I
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44019 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44027 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 77002
JULIAN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM JULIAN SQUARE HOLDINGS LLC KATZ BLANCHE TRUSTEE ET AL
OWNERS A 2498 HERITAGE WAY 920 N MOUNTAIN AVE
2498 MEDFORD, HERITAGE
OR SOCIA AGE WAY 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520
ED [
E
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 5900 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 2000 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 6100
KDA HOMES LLC KURTH FAMILY LIVING TRUST ET AL LASH STEPHANIE
604 FAIR OAKS CT 965 CAMELOT DR 925 PLUM RIDGE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 1500 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 300 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44005
LISSBERGER SCOTT TRUSTEE ET AL MARR THOMAS W MAY RICHARD L JR
PO BOX 7 955 N MOUNTAIN AVE 1206 LINDA AVE
SANTA ROSA, CA 95402 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 1800 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 207 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 77004
MEADOWBROOK TOWNHOMES LLC MULARZ THEODORE L TRUST ET AL PEDERSEN KARIN E
132 W MAIN ST 201A 859 STONY POINT 905 SKYLARK PL
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44014 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 500 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 1900
PETERS MARGARET A RINEFORT JUSTIN D/SHANNON M SAGE JEAN
646 FAIR OAKS CT 42 JENSEN 6615 SHEPHERD WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 WEED, CA 96094
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44016 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 1000 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 5700
SIEGEL PAUL W TRUSTEE ET AL SNIDER MARK E/PETERSEN-SNIDER SPAUN JOHN M
1733 HOFFMAN ST KEELY A 552 FAIR OAKS AVE
WOODLAND, CA 95776 583 PLUM RIDGE CT ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 5600 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44026 PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44004
SPOONER RAYMOND M/PAMELA TETZ DENNIS ET AL WAY ANTHONY E TRUSTEE ET AL
780 VIVIAN DR PO BOX 819 624 FAIR OAKS CT
LIVERMORE, CA 94550 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00617 391 E04AD 44009 PA-2016-00617 PA-2016-00617
WOLFSHEIMER SUSANNE AYALA PROPERTIES LLC OREGON ARCHITECTURE
PO BOX 3077 604 FAIR OAKS CT 221 W 10TH STREET
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501
I
PA-2016-00617
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 601 Fair Oaks
CONSULTANTS 6/1/16 NOC
PO BOX 1724 52
MEDFORD, OR 97501
I
i
~~I,~F ~1 J 11 c; tr ~il II :NBC.
~y r~I,
HO F1 i~1~N 7ry~7 ! Sy~7 Uus
E ;y !y
_ lilll il'J~J, G~11L1'J'J '11 ~~r911.Yap
Uaaa~, , p P ~
g > dk ~ ~ X1(14 ~ `
9 RVL
EII 1
41
WX .1 ttg "I
0019
KIM U. n U! a n 9V
flm!
1
I 1 t
I pre a~ 1 ffnM, , Irma 4410 'amix apt; P
auto
,
y ti
-n DF,
d. E~ f - ~ d a' i
taro
r ' 1 p I Ran loch
fork
,
E; TALL,
41114 Ala , ' 1 ON r~
I ' 'a a`~' ~ tkk asi r a~~ E s 4v
't
P
9f~~-, i~ Rp!
a o. 13a-3.F'
fmr
*D OZ, GRP
' top
lid 1- a p
t
,61
tO Own
ourI
` C
Me
r
"NORTH MOUNTAIN SQUARE"
SITE VIE PERMIT MODIFICATION
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
(PLA11 ~l i~I1 ~G A CTION2 01.3- 01506)
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND
FOR
KDA HOMES
604 FAIR OAKS COURT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
APRIL 1", 2016 q
1 Page
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
PROJECT NAME: "North Mountain Square"
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT
Ayala Properties, LLC Oregon Architecture
604 Fair Oaks Court 221 W. lOt" Street
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, OR 97501
LAND USE PLANNING: ENGINEER:
KDA Homes, LLC Construction Engineering Consultants
604 Fair Oaks Court P.O. Box 1724
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501
PROJECT ZONING: As illustrated in the inserted Zoning Map (below), the property is zoned North
Mountain (NM) with a Neighborhood Central Overlay (NM-C). The subject property is regulated by
Chapter 18.30.30 of the Ashland Municipal Code as well as Section VII of the Site Design & Use
Standards, the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
North Mountain Zoning Ma
J~ ~ ~f' car== -
rcrd€~p~~~~v ~
Subject
Property
(mixed-use)
,r tAis, and`' F-Air,
Julian Square
(not a part)
I
Mountain
II~~
~ „sly r Meadows %t, MEADOws U-4 Retirement
Community
_Ak
r (not a part)
Legends
~ ~N"fHE t
NM-C 4 - -
NM-G - -
Bear Creek
D NM-MF Floodplain
NM-R 15 _
r_
NM-R 17.5 0 0.125 0.25 Wes " -
APR 0 1~ .
2~1)a~C
PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a Site Review Permit Modification (Planning
Action 2013-01506) to modify the building's exterior design, add an exterior elevator and adjust a
property lot line. No changes are proposed to amend the previously approved density, parking allocations
or landscaping. The subject property is part of a master planned community known as the North Mountain
Neighborhood. Within the master planned neighborhood, a Planned Unit Development community was
created called the Meadowbrook II Subdivision and within the subdivision is Meadowbrook Square, the
subdivision's commercial area (see insert below).
North Mountain Central Overla Area - Meadowbrook Square
S
I
Frr~ure Lgsca
L.xist~n Common Building Building
Parkin
"Octagon'' ~ g Site Site
TL1500~uildinr
I Tax Lot 800 'Fix Lot 700 ~
4
11 -
Under
consh•uctin~t I
II
13Liilding Central
SILC ~II'e. !
Tax Lot
5000
t
~t Julian Square
CI b,1111~ (not a part of subdivision) .
PROJECT HISTORY: In August of 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Type II land use
action in accordance with AMC 18.108.050 (Planning Action #2013-00806) approving a total of 40
residential units for the subject lots (tax lots 700, 800, 1500 and 5900) and allocated parking. The
Planning Commission's decision also included approval of a Site Review Permit for the construction of a
new three-story mixed-use building on Tax Lot 700. The approval also included a Tree Removal Permit
to remove seven Siberian Elm trees located along the north property line.
In December of 2014, a Type I land use action for an 18-month extension was administratively approved.
The primary reason for the extension related to the applicant's re-evaluation of the commercial core's
development where it was eventually concluded the planned mixed-use building on Tax Lot 5900, now
under construction, should be constructed first due to its smaller size in order to evaluate the temperature
of the real estate market for mixed-use housing in the North Mountain Neighborhood.
MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNING ACTION 2013-00806: The applicants have evaluated the
proposed development and hereby seek three relatively straight-forward modifications as follows:
. 01 16
3 Page
1) Elevator Modification: The applicants propose to adjust the location of the building's elevator so that
it can be shared with a future building on Lot #71 (Tax Lot 800), directly west of Lot #70. The elevator
will sit along the shared property line, constructed with the proposed building and later adjoined to the
future building on Lot #71. The inclusion of the elevator will help reduce construction costs and
homeowner maintenance expenses.
The elevator will be recessed roughly 50' from the building(s) front facade with limited visual impact to
the building or streetscape. However, the elevator is intended to be primarily glass for interior natural
light and exterior aesthetic value, particularly in the evenings. It should also be noted that behind the
elevator, on the ground floor only and screened by the elevator shaft, will be a small storage area for the
residents of the facility. The design allows for slightly more storage, but also allows for windows and
natural light into the building's interior.
During the time the proposed building is finished and the future building on Lot #71 is pending
construction, the elevator shaft will be treated with like-kind building materials to blend in with the
building. Also, due to the slightly sloped nature of the two properties, the project Architects generated
preliminary modeling of the future building on Lot #71 as it relates to the proposed building's elevator
and determined the elevator will accommodate both buildings so that they both lay at their respective
street and sidewalk elevations.
2) Exterior Elevation Modifications: A modification of the building's approved design is necessary for
two reasons. First, the revised elevator location as described above, and second, to reflect interior
modifications made to the floor plans which were essentially "flipped" from front to back so that more of
the units fronted Fair Oaks Court with views of Mt. Ashland and less onto the 1-5 Freeway. The
architectural style of the building remains consistent with its original approval as a "main street" building
facade, consistent with the North Mountain Design Standards.
Architectural Character: As described in the City's North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards,
"the architectural character of the commercial buildings should reflect their importance as a focus of the
North Mountain Neighborhood.. Rather than taking on a residential appearance, these buildings should
emulate a traditional storefront appearance. " In the applicant's opinion, the proposal attempts to create a
traditional storefront appearance similar to that found in Downtown Ashland. The applicants have gone
through various design modifications in an attempt to accomplish this vision and feel the proposed design
meets the standard without an overly contrived appearance which can be unattractive if not executed
correctly. To this end, the volumes reflect a zero lot-line design with strong vertical elements at edges to
further distinguish a traditional "main street" appearance. In addition, because the facade is broken into
various volumes averaging roughly 22 feet wide, combined with the varying use of different building
materials, window types, roof heights and colors between the vertical volumes, the building reflects not
only the underlying mixed-use zoning designation, but also a mixture of traditional storefronts compatible
to the context of the neighborhood.
Continuous Covered Walk: The intent of this standard is to provide shelter over walkways and gathering
areas, similar to those found in the downtown area where awnings and marquees are prominently found
over the sidewalk. These components provide relief from inclement weather while pedestrian's window
shop and peruse between storefronts. Traditionally, these shelters will sit between bays and above
windows without crossing over vertical architectural elements and obscuring other forms of the building's
storefront rhythm. A true continuous horizontal covering without breaks as described would be
inappropriate and not the intent of the standard. To this point, the design shows a continuous group of
distinct coverings along the building's storefronts that provide shelter to pedestrians in a traditional
storefront manner while respecting the vertical elements of the building's facade.
4~P ge
Balconies: As noted, one of the reasons the applicants are proposing the modification is the floor plans
were reconfigured to have more units facing the views to Mt. Ashland vs. the I-5 freeway. In doing so,
two additional balconies (one per floor) were added. The incorporation of balconies into the design is
important for high-density housing livability where residents can have a small outdoor area for dining,
and other forms of leisure activity, including people watching, sun bathing, light gardening and pet relief.
Regardless, all of the balconies meet the design standards and no balcony crosses over a property line.
Side Setbacks: The other reason the modifications herein are proposed is due to the opportunity to share
an elevator between the subject building and a future building on Lot #71. The single elevator is a prudent
cost savings for not only the initial construction, but also long-term for the Home Owners Association's
maintenance expenses and keeping residential units affordable. Nevertheless, the elevator was relocated to
the center of the west exterior side, recessed roughly 50' from the front of the building's fagade in an area
that was underutilized. A second benefit of the elevator's proposed location is the ground level behind the
elevator, adjacent to the parking garage, will be utilized as storage area and the area in front of the
elevator a pedestrian access way leading from the public sidewalk to the parking structure and elevator.
The design not only allows for second and third floor natural light, but also additional window
opportunity for the front commercial units.
Transitional Architectural Design: All of the proposed ground floor spaces within this particular building
are intended to be commercial spaces. However, as referenced in the Pre-application comments, the
commercial core area of the North Mountain Master Plan recognized the fact that commercial demand
would take time and that new housing and certain street improvements (such as the connection of the
Nevada Street bridge) would ultimately need to occur before 100% of the commercial spaces would be
occupied. As such, the ground floor units of the commercial core are permissible to be residential as long
as certain components of the space are easily adaptable to commercial codes with the goal of limiting
future owners from being financially burdened with a major tenant improvement or building code upgrade
that converting the space to commercial use once the market demand exists is not cost prohibitive. To this
point, it's highly likely, similar to the mixed-use building currently under construction on Lot #73 across
the street, the future building planned for Lot #71 will have "temporary" residential space on the ground
floor as permitted and anticipated in the master plan.
3) Property Line Adjustment: The removal of the property line between Tax Lots 4700 (Lot #70) and
#800 (Lot #71) where the elevator is proposed. The removal of the property line allows for the elevator to
comply with building codes and retains the ability to have operable windows along this area of both
buildings. Note: The two buildings are intended to be part of a common Condominium Owner's
Association, along with the recently approved building on Lot #73, for the benefit of the Association's
management, maintenance and overhead. Note: Lot Line Adjustments to "remove" a property line are
typically an administrative action with the Jackson County Surveying Department, but is noted herein for
informational purposes.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the applicants contend the proposed design is very similar to the original
application approved by the Planning Commission in August of 2013 (see below insert), but for the minor
tweaks as noted above. The design continues to "form" the edges of the plaza and central green space
creating an "enclosed" neighborhood center as envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Master
Plan.
The applicants' vision for this application is to produce entry level housing designed to accommodate
single couples or single parents with units averaging less than 1,000 square feet consistent with the goals
noted in the City's 2002 and draft 2013 Housing Needs Analysis.
_''JPage
f.
F
a _
4N
y... •
~V
✓Vq
M1
aa. 5
Approved Design - Planning Action 2013-00806
Elevator (recessed from front facade)
h4ETAL
ROONNG
5TUCC0 - NORM HAFZ50- S-cco HOPJZ. HAP.D60ARD
• 5
FA FS 9C AWNG5
E =J
4"! 1
E' 'T6R n
is '
WNC
- 5TON€ VENEER Ws~lu ; ;i7
Proposed Design - April, 2016
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements
and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to the site's zoning, applicable
overlay zones, site development and design regulations as well as the Site Review Criteria listed in the
AMC, Section 18.5.2.050, Supplemental Approval Criteria as listed in the AMC, Section 18.3.5.030 C.
and the Minor Modifications Criteria as listed in the AMC, Section 18.5.6.040.
6 1 P a g e
For claritl) reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in. "outline " form i0th the City's
approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, there are a
number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete.
Section 18.5.2.050 Site Review Permit - Approval Criteria
18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria
An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in
subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application,
impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria.
A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying
zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,
density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
To the applicant's knowledge, all of the applicable provisions of the property's NM-C zone (Chapter
18.3.5), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, zoning density, building height,
maximum floor areas (no unit exceeds 3,500 sq. ft.), lot coverage, building orientation, architecture and
all other applicable standards are being complied with.
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
The proposal complies with all applicable overlay zone requirements, specifically the NM-C (Chapter
18.3.5) zone.
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.
The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of AMC Chapter
18.4. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, no exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards are proposed with this application.
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.
All key facilities are available to service the proposed project. All utilities to service the building were
installed at the time of the subdivision and no major modifications are expected. The applicants have met
with all of the utility departments to verify if there were any capacity issues. The results of the meeting
were that adequate City facilities are available to the subject site.
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
1..,1~Page
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.
To the best of the applicant's knowledge, no exceptions are proposed with this application.
Section 18.3.5.030 C. Supplemental Approval Criteria (North Mountain Neighborhood Distriq
1. That a statement has been provided indicating how the proposed application conforms with the
general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density,
transportation, building design, and building orientation.
The narrative included herein is intended to provide the evidence necessary to express how the proposal
conforms with the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including
density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. Overall, the applicant and design team
believe criterion and design standards have been incorporated into the application or could be easily
incorporated by condition.
2. That the proposed application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the
North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
To the applicant's knowledge all specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain
Neighborhood Design Standards will be complied with. The applicants are not requesting any exceptions
or variances.
Section 18.5.6.040 C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria:
C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the
approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial
project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For
example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design
Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc.
Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1.
Beginning on Page #6 of this document, Findings of Fact has been included that address the original
application's approval criteria, which included a Site Review Permit and a Tree Removal Permit.
However, since the modification is solely based on a modification of the building's design and does not
relate to the Tree Removal Permit as specified in the criterion, no findings have been provided as the
subject tree removal permit remains as permitted.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative
variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or ma,Y'')jeos- h14 to other
ordinance requirements.
8 [Page
As noted, it is the applicants' opinion the request is not a Major Modification nor is modifying the use or
operations of the approved mixed-use building. However, the applicants are aware the Staff Advisor may
determine otherwise and would include additional findings if deemed necessary to ensure the applicable
criteria have been fully responded to.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on
written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required,
where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review.
The applicants are aware the approval authority will approve, deny, or approve with conditions. The
applicants' contend all previous conditions of Planning Action 2013-01506 are adequate and address all
standards, policies and codes of the City.
0 120
9~Page
1 ,1
~a ~ a W
~ _irll
jl~
l _
1
~r
G .
t ;
m,
I~
/Uvv
Fbl-
m N n V L
1
,68'SS Iv
r
I /
O O D O ICI ~
I O O O D /
O /
ANC b y,
J -
N vg
I~ U
K
Q 1
aj ow2 ga of N lu ~
tN~~
I Y
® o W
O -\J
I L ____J W
I- m I 4
O p t\ I C9 I C' o
I O F-1
I w I ~
U rT,
O w W
~ o
I 't a U
N
0 .8 0 99
110- t~
- of
-
J Oj
Q
oUG N
0 a o 0
0 a 0 o h
F•4
U w
O w O
~o O c~ ~ ~ ~ m
J z
c
i
z
J
aW a
Wo m
m
DO
m
2
fn O
O - -7 n0-iZ O O II
i
71
W ~ti7
W
W
mz~ O
W
mod m
Cf)
W u,
_ O
O t~ cn O
' z
W
W W
U-i ~wm O
join
TWO m
0-.Z
41,
+ -.o ..1
N N O '0 S
Q 0 Z Z m ° j
m - Z Z m
S e e g ;o
z z , o„
~ g fi N N
N ~
o O _ _ - S
p c U O ® _ °
Z
CID
b
U
Z N
z N ® U
L
e Z ~ Z _
Z - o mo. ~ m
~ i3 JS =
°w i O = 3 z z N U
~ - o
w
O o m ~O
O e 4 ,
~o O
r Y-WY-~--11
OP O w U
OM
00 m ~~a0 z m
2 Q
N O- ~
® ~ M
UEEE -
OQ
z
=o
0
a N
Z ®
Z F- c~
N ~ N ~ ~ Q m N Z
o 8 0 o Q i z N a
oc C)
ID cD F O n
O W
z 5 ° N Q Q 2
o a g p
m ro ~ ~
z O z N
T1 ~ (V
m j e QOE e
ma
O
N m
s ~ O Q ~ O
CD mO Q
O ~a -m® z
NO i o e N
7i u
° Q Z
Q m o
w w
m _
= N
U N ~ ~
m 1 a Q O'
_ U
m Z °
z m _
e ~
z
z w - ~ ~ m
r
_ I ! m Om m I
g O0 g
~I I III = -'I ~
K
C5 p ~ O O
m
+ + + + ° IGLU,
.O „O-01 „O-Z I a0 'L, II ~ z
m
F
J
- ! = N N N °
I
F
- - a ® ® III
on
w
Z
w
Z
Q
a w
z
m o
~z
w~
a
I~ II WO
;II a
a Z
° z
iEl --t v az zz W W
N °N °3 W
I. I. li'I'Ij O
I ~
0
III IJ ~
I
W
- WQ
- I
I I -
I
I W.. ;
II I
I
I l i~ l I I~ ~ I ~ I I I I E--+ ~ z °
1 GS o u 0
I ~ U ~ ~ N o
r W
cs O Z O Q1 I
Q Z + } ~ + } II 'I iIIII
'0
1E]
45 0
O O p o
d d yd 6
100 1, + +
z 4 y-.~ .P~01 .O-A .0-Z1
-
w O
W
W o~
w~a
11 0 ~
00 °
F~ W ro z '
v~ ti Z ° a °
z ~o aZ<
~K N
F
~N l
O
LL14
t- z I
W
L4 Jill
o~
o
Z E Ll r- 7E
I
Z ~ I I II:~ i III
I
Planning Department ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
c f r x a 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # 00 rA~
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
.t
{
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY /
Street Address?
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 0 `"t" fc Tax Lot(s),, ` - 0 V I T
f~% t ~,N
Zoning a Comp Plan Designation ~1 12 L
APPLICANT
Name Phone 2- 1 E-Mail N
Address tq- a 1~ 5 ✓.ti' City Zip 9
PROPERTY OWNER
X ~oyl a i
Name Phone Zf P7 ~c- -E-Mail
Address b U r2 V~ I~ 1 Cit y `~s~ Zip ~1 Z
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. OTHER G
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground,
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not V the request ' g 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 do s, I am advis eek competent professional advice and assistance.
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the property invol d in equest, I ha read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner. G/,$' 1 62
Property Owner's Si nature (required) Date
[To be completed by City StA
e~ 0
Date Received a M/ Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
Planning Action Type
OVER N
C;\D000ME- I\banksa\LOCAIS-1\remplZoniny Pcnnii Application Fonn.doc
Job Address: 601 FAIR OAKS AVE Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
A C
P Owner's Name: KDA HOMES LLC 0 Phone:
Customer 08481 N State Lic No:
~ T City Lic No:
L MEADOWBROOK BUILDERS LLC
Applicant: 604 FAIR OAKS CT R
Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: (541) 944-1921 1' Address:
N Applied: 04/01/2016 0
T Issued:
Expires: 09/28/2016 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: 391 E04ac400 City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Boundry Line Adjustment
Site Review modification
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
Commercial Site Review (type2) 1,347.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF
1-41
c
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
(180 days). Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
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: $ 1,347.00 $ 1,347.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 1,347.00
Fees Paid: $ 1,347.00
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
C
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF
i
a