HomeMy WebLinkAboutHersey_229_W_PA-2015-01856
Kenroy Home 93546ORB Oil Rubbed Bronze Ligbtfaar 1 Light Medium Outdoor Dark Sky Wall Lantern - L "'%ngDirect.com 7/21/16, 7:38 AM
(800) 376-3410 Live Civ, Contact Us He I
Dire C i l
What are you shopping for'? ~ Ggrt - 0 1t~nt
I
IS all ~~7~~i,~ i (in
g F~Il:.
Cali 1
or Live Chat for Best Price Low Price Guarantee Free Ground Shipping* No Restocking Fees Rewards Pr
_ _ ograrn I
9
You are: 4 igrjt~
> , ; ; > t 1 > Kenroy Llorne 93546
Kenroy Horne 93546ORB Oil Rubbed Bronze Lightfall 1 Light Medium Outdoor Dark Sky Wall Lantern
Item bci2607694 f 0) -V View the entire'
$79,20 ~
20 ~ ~orrafaare
Originally $110.00, You Save 28%
y ~y] I j
e~.A.ro V ( f
Shipping: C
Finish: Oil Rubbed Bronze lisp os
r
i
i
oa
I i
c
I
r.
http://www.lightingdirect.com/kenroy-home-93546-fightfall-l-lig...opage.com_109494643889&ef_id=VumR2QAAAcvNrgZp:20160721143614:s Page 1 of 4
Kenroy,Home 935460RB Oil Rubbed Bronze Lightfa l_1 Light Medium Outdoor Dark Sky Wall Lantern - Lid,"ingDirect.com 7/21/16, 7:38 AM
i
i
i
i
it
;-q E'.
'!Ik t H id-
Vii.. !
http://www.lightingdirect.com/kenroy-home-93546-lightfall-l-lig...opage.com_109494643889&ef_id=VumR2QAAAcvNrgZp:20160721143614:s Page 2 of 4
3~
p
Y'
9
b
I
I
CITY F
ASHLAND
January 27, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
i
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-2015-01856
Subject Property: 229 W. Hersey St.
Owner/Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC
Description: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family
residential units for the property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are requested for an
Exception to Street Standards to construct a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot bio-swale parkrow where a
six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow planting strip are required, and a Tree Removal Permit to
remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: l
39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT: #9900
The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final
Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified
on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the
effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of
the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals. '
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record
I
C"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
L
~
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
SECTION 18.5.1.060.1
L Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section
18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be
defined as the following.
a. The applicant.
b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to
participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to
the Council.
c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to
error.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.I.1, above, may appeal a Type 11 decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying
the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection.
b. Tinge for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten
days of the date the notice of decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a
reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies
as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time,
and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b,
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of
the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and
materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the
Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed
decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for
purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the
parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the
appeal proceeding.
b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence
on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator
together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to
the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the
following.
i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ff
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
! / N
1[ www.ashland.or.us
I
i
i
I
requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that
reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error.
ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting
party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision.
iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable,
through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and
during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A
requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the
new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This
exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant
evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
iv. Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional
written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the
Council.
5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an
appeal of a Type II decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission.
a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral
argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different,
and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted
oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall
be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written
and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set
forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the
written argument.
b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the
record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to
determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning
Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review
shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may
approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make
findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification
for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to
remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission
decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant
to subsection 18.5.1.060.J.
6. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the
written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall
become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
The public hearing record shall include the following information.
a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 _
-
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
F.
F f
I
I
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the
application that the City mailed or received.
c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials
submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times
when the record before the Planning Commission was open.
e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type
11 applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council
decisions on Type 11 applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals,
pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us L
I
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 26, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-01856, A REQUEST FOR )
SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 11 MULTI-FAMILY )
RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 229 W. HERSEY )
ST. ALSO INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR AN EXCEPTION TO STREET )
STANDARDS TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK AND FIVE-FOOT )
BIO-SWALE PARKROW WHERE A SIX-FOOT SIDEWALK AND SEVEN FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS,
FOOT PARE-ROW PLANTING STRIP ARE REQUIRED, AND A TREE N) AND LUSIOS
REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE THREE TREES GREATER THAN SIX- )
INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (D.B.H.) j
APPLICANT: RW SIGNATURE PROPERTIES LLC j
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #9900 of Map 39 1E 04CC is located at 229 West Hersey Street and is zoned. R-3 (High
Density Multi-Family Residential).
2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family
residential units for the property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are requests
for an Exception to Street Standards to construct a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot bio-swale
parkrow where a six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow planting strip are required, and a Tree
Removal Permit to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height
(d.b.h.). The proposal is outlined in 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.
8. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6
Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity,
urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
PA #2015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 1
i,
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 criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as
follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
L For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
5) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a "Tree that is Not a Hazard" are described in
AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows:
A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority
finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through
the imposition of conditions.
PA #2015-01856
Januaiy 26, 2015
Page 2
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not
limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City
shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone.
4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 8,
2015 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing
of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining
to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends
as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
PA 92015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 3
SECTION 2. CONCLUS®RY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review, Exception to Street
Standards and Tree Removal Permits meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval
described in Chapter 18.5.2.050; for Exception to Street Standards described in Chapter 18.4.6.020.B.1;
and for Tree Removal Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.7.040.B.2.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that,
"The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (par°t 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, ar°chitectur°e, and other applicable standards."
The application materials provided note that the property is 14,997 square feet in area and is zoned R-3
(High Density, Multi-Family Residential), and meets the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the R-
3 zoning district.
The subject properties' underlying zoning is R-3 and within this zone, minimum lot area is based on
what is necessary to achieve the proposed density. In this instance, the base density is 20 dwelling units
per acre, and the 0.344 acre subject property has a base density of 6.88 dwelling units (0.344 acres x 20
du/acre = 6.88 du). The applicants propose to take advantage of the density bonus provisions of the
ordinance and request a 15 percent density bonus for conservation housing and a 10 percent density
bonus for providing additional outdoor recreation space. With a 25 (15 + 10) percent density bonus, the
allowed density for the parcel is 8.6 dwelling units (6.88 du x 1.25 = 8.6 du). Each of the ten units
proposed counts as a 0.75 dwelling units for purposes of density calculations because the units are less
than 500 square feet, and as such the Planning Commission finds that the proposed density is 8.5
dwelling units [(0.75 x 10 d.u. less than 500 square feet) + 1 d.u. = 8.5 du] which complies with the
allowed 8.6 dwelling unit base density. Conditions have been included below to require that the
building permit submittals include demonstrations that the conservation housing and additional
recreation space requirements are satisfied to allow the proposed density bonuses.
The application explains that the main house's front porch is to be setback eight feet from the front
property line, while the structure itself will be setback 15 feet. The main house is to be setback nine feet
from the alley and six feet from the east property line, and the apartment buildings are proposed to meet
the six-foot side yard and ten-foot per story rear yard setbacks for the zone. The applicant further notes
that the proposal is at 62.6 percent lot coverage, which is significantly under the 75 percent coverage
limit within the R-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the
applicable provisions of the underlying zone.
The Planning Commission further finds that the second Site Design Review approval criterion is that,
"The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The application
materials note that the property is not located within any overlay zones.
PA 42015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 4
i
The Planning Commission finds that the third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below." Generally, these Site Development & Design Standards seek, to improve each project's
appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the
streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of
parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are
to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and
attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from
the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages,
and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street.
In terms of parking, each of the ten one-bedroom/less than 500 square foot units requires one space
while the main house requires two spaces, for a total of 12 required parking spaces. The Planning
Commission finds that the application illustrates 12 off-street parking spaces that are to be provided, and
further notes that nine bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in the proposed private garages while
four additional covered bicycle parking spaces are to be provided under the balcony outside the laundry
room. The Commission further finds that the applicants have indicated that the alleys will be improved
as needed to provide a functional back-up area for the garage parking spaces. With regard to concerns
raised in the hearing over parking being accessed off of the alley and increasing traffic impacts to the
alley, the Commission finds that AMC 18.4.2.030.D.1 and 18.4.3.080.C require that where a lot abuts a
rear or side alley, garage openings shall orient to the alley, access shall be taken from the alley, and no
curb cuts are allowed from the street, and that the proposal has been designed to comply with these
requirements. The Commission further finds that alleys are designed to enable low-speed access to the
rear of properties and are not intended to encourage two-way traffic.
During the hearing, the applicants asked that the driveways to each garage be allowed to be constructed
to only an eight-foot width. The Commission finds that no Variance has been requested as a part of the
application, and that if there is space available to meet the nine-foot required width requirement from
AMC 18.4.3.080.D then the driveways should be constructed to meet these standards. Conditions have
been included below to require that the building permit submittals demonstrate that the automobile and
bicycle parking areas meet the area design and dimensional requirements of the code, including a clear
demonstration that required paved back-up areas are to be provided behind each space, and that the
driveways meet the nine-foot minimum width requirement.
In the course of the public hearing, neighbors raised concerns that garages would ultimately be used for
material storage thus redirecting parking impacts to nearby streets. The Commission finds that the
Municipal Code in AMC 18.4.3.110 requires that all parking spaces remain available for vehicle parking
and are not to be used for material storage. With the applicant's agreement during the hearing, a
condition has been included below to reiterate this code requirement, to require that signage be provided
to make clear that the garage parking spaces are not to be used for material storage, and to require that
the applicant's lease agreements with tenants include this requirement as well.
The Planning Commission further finds that the main house will have its primary orientation to Hersey
Street, and will have a large front porch and a direct pedestrian connection to the Hersey Street
PA #2015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 5
sidewalk. No parking is proposed between the building and the street, with all garage and surface
parking placed to the side or rear of the main house and all vehicular access from the alley. The
apartments proposed are more than 20 feet from the street, and have their orientation to the courtyard or
alley, depending on their location. The application notes that the building materials proposed are
compatible with the surrounding area, and are a mix of wood-shingle siding, stucco bases, metal railings
and composite roofing, and generally subdued (not bright or neon) paint colors. The application has
proposed a sidewalk and parkrow planting strip, and street trees are to be provided however the
application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow these to be narrower than
standard and to utilize a bio-swale in place of the standard parkrow planting strip. The Exception
request is discussed in detail under 2.4 below.
The Planning Commission finds that projects subject to Site Design Review require a minimum of eight
percent of the lot be provided in recreation area, and that a density bonus of up to ten percent was
available for additional recreation area provided beyond minimum requirements. The applicants are
requesting this bonus for additional recreation area. AMC 18.4.2.030.H.2 notes that "areas covered by
shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use may not
be counted toward this (recreation area) requirement." The central area of the site includes a dry
stream bed and retention pond basin, as well as areas planted in ajuga, lavender and other ground covers
or shrubs that are not suited to human recreational use could not be counted toward the recreation area
requirement or density bonus. The application clarifies that the proposed recreation space and its
treatment to both satisfy the standard and the requirements for the density bonus, and a revised planting
plan provided as sheet LP-1 details out that the combination of private decks and patios, common deck
area in the courtyard, the porch and deck of the main house and the back yard area of the main house
total 2,926 square feet which exceeds the 2,699 square feet necessary to provide the required recreation
area and additional area for the requested density bonus. The Commission finds that the recreation area
proposed for density bonus is in addition to the minimum required landscaping and recreational
requirements of the ordinance.
During the public hearing, a number of neighbors raised concerns with the likelihood of trash and
recycling bins being left in the already narrow alley on trash collection day. The applicant clarified that
there is a trash and recycling enclosure as required by city design standards, and that he had met with
Recology and been assured they could access the enclosure from the alley in this location. The applicant
emphasized that because the trash and recycling bins will be picked up from the enclosure, there will
never be a need for them to be placed in the alley. The Commission finds that a common refuse and
recycling area is to be provided adjacent to Unit #4 on the west alley, and that it will be placed and
screened to comply with standards.
The application further notes that a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan will be provided with the
building permit submittals to address the city's landscaping and irrigation standards and the Earth
Advantage requirements.
The Commission further finds that the application notes that all trees on the subject property are to be
removed, including two multi-trunked elms and a seven-inch d.b.h. pine tree, and that the six existing
trees on the adjacent property to the east are already protected by a six-foot fence. Those tree removals
PA #2015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 6
i
which are subject to Tree Removal Permit requirements are discussed in detail under 2.5 below.
The Planning Commission finds that the fourth criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The
proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate
capacity of 00) facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and
throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property."
The application notes that adequate public facilities are available and will be provided to the subject
property, including:
® Water: There is a 12-inch water main in West Hersey Street, and six-inch water mains in each
of the alleys. The application explains that nine new apartments are to be served by a common
water meter off of the alley near the south property line, while the main house and its attached
unit will be served by an existing 3/4-inch meter adjacent to Hersey Street. The water main in the
southern alley serves an existing fire hydrant, and the applicant notes that there is also a hydrant
on the northwest side of the alley that intersects Hersey Street. The application states that the
apartments will likely have fire sprinklers installed subject to the final requirements of the Fire
Department, and the applicants are in continuing discussion with the Fire Marshal to address
sprinkler requirements.
® Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in the alley to the west of the subject
property.
® Electric: The applicants have been working with the Electric Department to create an Electric
Service Plan for the property, and the application notes that underground electric service is
available in the alley to the south of the subject property, and that two transformers are to be
placed by the applicant to serve the proposed development.
® Urban Storm Drainage: A ten-inch storm sewer line in the alley to the west of the property
feeds into a 12-inch storm sewer line in Hersey Street.
® Paved Access: The application notes that West Hersey Street, an Avenue, has paving with a bike
lane, curbs, and gutters in place along the subject property's frontage, with sidewalks and a
parkrow planting strip to be installed with the current proposal. An existing, unused curb cut
along Hersey Street is proposed for removal as part of the current application. An Exception to
Street Standards (discussed in 2.4 below) is requested to allow the sidewalk and parkrow to be
narrower than required, and to allow a bio-swale to be used in lieu of a standard parkrow
planting strip.
The Commission finds that Hersey Street is classified as an avenue, a higher order street, and is intended
by design to accommodate the level of traffic anticipated with the subject property's high density
residential zoning.
The Commission further finds that Public Works staff has indicated that they have been in contact with
the applicant's civil engineers as they develop final engineering plans for the project, and conditions
PA #2015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 7
i
have been included below to require that the applicant provide final civil plans including utility, electric
service, grading, and drainage for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a request for an Exception to Street
Standards. City standard frontage improvements for an Avenue like West Hersey Street here would
typically require a seven- to eight-foot landscaped parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees and a
six-foot wide sidewalk along the property's full street frontage, with a right-of-way dedication or a
public pedestrian easement required for any portion of these improvements that extend beyond the
existing public right-of-way. In this instance, the application proposes a five-foot sidewalk and a five-
foot bio-swale parkrow to match the existing frontage improvements in place on the property
immediately to the southeast. The application notes that the request is being made to match the existing
improvement due both to limited right-of-way and to public infrastructure in place which limits the area
available for sidewalks and parkrow. The application further explains that the request for a one-foot
narrower sidewalk and two-foot narrower parkrow is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
and that the quality of street improvements and comfort of pedestrians will be enhanced by the resultant
sidewalk across the subject property connecting to the existing improvement to the southeast, and
further suggests that there are low pedestrian volumes along Hersey in this vicinity due to the
inconsistent improvements and this proposal will provide a safe route. The applicant notes that if a Local
Improvement District (LID) were formed to complete sidewalks on the south side of Hersey Street they
believe that the existing right-of-way could readily accommodate continuous improvements of the
dimensions proposed.
The Planning Commission finds that Exceptions to Street Standards require a demonstration that there is
a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the standard due to a unique aspect of the site or its proposed use;
that the facilities and resultant connectivity proposed are equal or superior to those required under the
standards; that the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and that
the exceptions are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Street Standards. The Commission
further finds that there are established trees and some infrastructure elements such as hydrants, power
poles and pedestals along this section of West Hersey Street that would likely complicate sidewalk
installation as they would anywhere. The Commission finds that the key consideration here is that
between the alley to the west of the subject property and the corner of North Laurel Street, there are only
three parcels - the subject property, the property at 227 West Hersey Street which already has a five-foot
sidewalk and five-foot parkrow in place, and the property at 219 West Hersey Street on the corner. The
placement of the existing house at the corner of Laurel and Hersey appears to be less than 15 feet behind
the curb, and the small porch on the Hersey Street side is approximately 13 feet behind the curb. The
Commission finds that the placement of this home on the corner lot is such that full standard sidewalk
and parkrow installation seems unlikely, and the Commission finds that a five-foot sidewalk and five-
foot parkrow which could be accommodated in the existing right-of-way seem the most likely
improvement here. The Commission further finds that the eventual completion of a consistent,
continuous five-foot sidewalk and five-foot parkrow between the alley and the corner seems the best
compromise which would provide equal connectivity while being the minimum exception necessary
here.
PA 92015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 8
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that there are three trees on the property over six inches in
diameter: two multi-stemmed elm trees (one 15-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and the other
approximately six-inches d.b.h.) on the east property line, and a seven-inch d.b.h. pine tree. All of the
trees on the subject property are proposed for removal.
The application notes that the larger elm is unsightly and does not appear to be in good health, and that
both elms appear to have been seedling starts from a larger tree that was previously removed. Neither
has been maintained, and all three trees are in areas proposed for construction in developing the site
according to the Site Development and Design Standards.
The applicant suggests that removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, and will not
have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200
feet of the subject property, explaining that there are a significant number of conifers and deciduous
trees within 200 feet of the subject property, and that the property to the east which would have the most
potential for impact has 12 deciduous trees in their yard. The applicant further emphasizes that more
than 20 new trees are proposed to be planted throughout the subject property, and explains that while no
conifers are proposed for mitigation due to the nature of the proposed multi-family development the
number of deciduous trees proposed is nonetheless more than double the required mitigation ratio. The
applicant concludes that there was no environmental benefit provided by the three trees which will not
be achieved with the proposed mitigation trees. A tree inventory and assessment of the trees' conditions
has been provided, along with photos of the trees. The larger elm is noted as having three trunks, as
being in poor health and leaning with white rot and decay pockets evident, while the smaller pine is
noted as being in poor health and of small diameter.
The applicant also notes that there are six trees on the adjacent property to the east which are within 15
feet of the property line, but which are protected by the existing six-foot fence, and as such the
applicants propose that no additional tree protection fencing be required.
The Planning Commission finds that the Ashland Tree Commission reviewed the proposal at its
December 2015 meeting and recommended approval of the request as submitted. The Planning
Commission further finds that the application meets the criteria for approval of a Tree Removal Permit
for the removal of a "Tree That is Not a Hazard" as detailed in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2. and as such merits
approval, subject to the conditions below.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is for ten small, energy-efficient units with
generous site amenities and covered, secure parking and storage, laundry facilities and a large common
open space. As noted by the applicant, these units are of a desirable size for singles and some couples,
and the proposed main house will make a positive contribution to the West Hersey streetscape. The
Commission finds that the project should be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and the city.
SECTION 3. DECISION
PA #2015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 9
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Site Design Review, Variance, an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal
Permit for the property located at 229 West Hersey Street is supported by evidence contained within the
whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action 42015-01856. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-01856 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as
part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance
with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be
submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their December 3, 2015
meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval
of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified
herein.
4) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including
approved addressing; fire apparatus access; fire flow; fire sprinklers for those units determined
by Building and Fire Code to require them based on review of final building permit plans; and
provisions for "Knox Box" key boxes.
5) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to any required public and
private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements,
and fire apparatus access easements.
b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those
described in the application, and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used.
C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the
property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties.
d) Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of
the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address:
1) Any recommendations of the Tree Commission from their December 3, 2015 meeting
where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the
Staff Advisor; 2) Required size and species-specific planting details and associated
irrigation plans addressing the requirements for programmable automatic timer
controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications to satisfy
the Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies.
C) Stonnwater drainage and grading plans for the review and approval of the Engineering,
Building and Planning Departments.
PA #2015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 10
i
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering,
Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any
necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including
the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and
clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire
Department Connections shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and
pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or
upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at applicant's expense.
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other
necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric,
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition,
excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in
areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the
access needs of the Electric Department.
h) That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of a five-foot width
parkrow with irrigated street trees, five-foot sidewalk, and pedestrian scale street lighting
on the property's fall West Hersey Street frontage for the review of the Planning and
Public Works/Engineering Departments. These plans shall detail the removal of the
existing curb-cut and relocation or removal of the existing phone pedestal near the alley
from the sidewalk corridor so that
stthe reet sidewalk frontage applicant future.
shall
necessary to accommodate these gee improvements,
dedicate additional right-of-way or provide public pedestrian access easements. Any
necessary easements or right-of-way dedications shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Planning and Public Works/'Engineering Departments.
i) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes nine bicycle parking spaces in
the garages and four covered bicycle parking spaces outside of the laundry area. If
bicycle parking is provided i gan gds. Inverted u--racks1shall be used fognon shall be
provided to insure adequate space
bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and
rack standards in 18.4.3.070.1 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The
building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage
requirements are met.
j) Demonstration that all parking spaces provided meet the dimensional requirements of the
Parking Area Design Requirements in AMC 18.4.3.080.13, and that the full required
paved back-up area is provided behind each space. Standard parking spaces are required
to be a minimum of nine-feet wide by 18-feet deep and compact spaces are required to be
a minimum of eight feet by 16 feet, and a 22-foot clear back-up area must be provided
behind each space. Up to 50 percent of parking spaces may be compact. Driveways
provided are required to be a minimum of nine-feet in width per AMC 18.4.3.080.D. All
dimensional requirements will be site-verified prior to occupancy approval.
lc) Demonstrations that the conservation housing and additional recreation space
requirements are satisfied to meet the requirements for the requested density bonuses.
PA 42015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 11
1) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar
Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height -6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar
Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow
producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
m) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and other
coverage areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 75 percent as allowed in
the R-3 zoning district.
n) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak
rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection
system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or
through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy
BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit
submittals.
6) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including
excavation or the storage of materials:
a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed
according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The
Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees to be removed and the
installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and
adjacent to the site.
b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and
connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit,
and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation
(less any credits for previously demolished structures) shall be paid.
7) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) All hardscaping, landscaping including required recreational areas and mitigation trees,
and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor.
b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric,
Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor.
c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent residential proprieties.
e) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk,
parkrow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet of fiontage, and street
lighting shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in
accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. The
existing curb cut on West Hersey Street shall be removed and vehicular access to the
proposed development shall be from the alleys.
PA #2015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 12
I
c
ti
i
f) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the
Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size
than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in
AMC 18.4.4.040.
g) The applicant shall provide evidence of Earth Advantage certifications necessary to
satisfy the requirements for the conservation housing density bonus requested.
h) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
8) That all garage parking spaces shall remain available for vehicle parking only and shall not be
used for material storage, as required in AMC 18.4.3.110. This limitation shall be reflected in
signage posted in each garage and in the applicant's lease agreements.
v' Janu 26 2016
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA 92015-01856
January 26, 2015
Page 13
I
i
PA-2015-01856 391E04CC 10100 PA-2015-01856 E04CC 9900 PA-2015-01856 391 E05DA 502
H ESTER
'-DAOLE MICHAEL RW SIGNATURE PROPERTIES
247 N LAUREL ST 111 COOLIDGE ST 279 HERSEY ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-01856 PA-2016-01856 PA-2016-01856
LUCA MOSCHINI JUDY CANGIAMILLA ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
259 N LAUREL 247 N LAUREL 1424 S IVY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-2016-01856 SQLA INC 229 W HERSEY
LINDEMANN DESIGN LLC SAMUEL KIM 1/27/2016 NOD
550 W NEVADA 380 N PALM, STE B 8
ASHLAND, OR 97520 BREA, CA 92821
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 January 27, 2016 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #2015-01856, 229 W Hersey.
l-)4uactA-
Signature of Employee
Document31/27/2016
Brian DeBoer, Property Owner/Commented on his family's history and personal ties with this location, and stated his intent is
to build a home that fits well in this special location, Mr. DeBoer stated this site has some challenges but they have worked
hard to create a proposal that is worthy of this space, He stated the landscaping will be very park-centric and they are going to
use 4-6" caliber trees to repopulate the site. He noted they have spoken with many of the neighbors and received a positive
response, and asked for the Planning Commission's support of this project.
Laurie Sager, Landscape Arch itectlCommented on trees 13 and 15 and stated after consulting with their arborist, who is the
same professional hired by the city to remove the trees on the ice rink property, he determined that the trunk of tree 15 is too
close to the retaining wall and voiced concern that the roots stabilizing the tree would be severed by the construction. Ms.
Sager noted tree 13 is a Big Leaf Maple and hopes the commission will agree that this is not the right tree for this location. She
noted their proposal went before the Tree Commission and they unanimously approved the application.
Public Testimony
Connie Lynn/74 Granite/Stated her property is kitty-corner from the applicant's and expressed concern with soil stability and
going too far into the slope. Ms. Lynn commented on the character of the area and suggested if the house was scaled down it
would better match the rest of the park setting and they would not have to push as far into the slope.
Michael Daolel247 N Laurel/Stated this is a ridiculous place for a residence and the structure will change the flavor of the
area. Mr. Daole stated any building that goes into this space should keep with the theme of public and service buildings.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Delgado stated the Historic Commission reviewed this project and felt it was appropriate and would fit well in this location.
He stated this site has been underutilized for decades and reminded the commission that this property is zoned residential.
Regarding the stability of the slope, he stated this is of utmost importance to them and they are confident that the structure and
retaining wall have been properly designed and engineering.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015-02038, including the removal of trees 13 and 15.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins commented that the architect did a good job and the house blends well with the
hillside. Commissioner Brown thanked the applicants for the level of engineering data submitted and stated this property has
been an eyesore for a long time. He stated the new trees will restore the tree environment as believes the house will fit well.
Commissioner Thompson voiced appreciation for the extensive information provided by the applicant and stated this provided
assurance that the slopes will be dealt with appropriately and the stability of the site will be improved. She added the design
blends residential and commercial elements and reflects what is going on around it. Commissioner Miller advocated for tree 13
to be retained and stated she is disappointed with the building's design. She stated she would have preferred something that
reflected the Skidmore Historic District. Commissioner Pearce stated this is a nice looking building and it is placed well on the
site. Commissioner Mindlin stated they are limited in what they have under their consideration, and stated this is a well-
designed and conscientiously planned project. Commission Norton commented that the landscaping will grow and expand and
will reflect the park across the street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin, Norton, Pearce,
Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar joined the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01856
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 229 W. Hersey St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: RW Signature Properties LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family residential units for the
property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are requested for an Exception to Street Standards to
construct a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot bio-swale parkrow where a six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow
planting strip are required, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter
Ashland Planning Commission
December 8, 2015
Page 3 of 5
1
at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:
R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 04CC; TAX LOT: #9900.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin declared site visits. No ex parte contact was
reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the application to construct 11 multifamily residential units, which includes an
exception to the Street Standards to construct a 5 ft. sidewalk and 5 ft. bioswale, and a Tree Removal permit to remove three
trees greater than 6 in, d.b.h. Mr. Severson reviewed the project's density, site plan, elevation drawings, and planting plan. He
explained the project has significantly less lot coverage and significantly more open space than required, and noted each unit
will have its own garage space and private patio. He noted the staff report raises the question of whether an arborist report
should be required for the tree removals; however, the Tree Commission did review the application and recommended
approval as submitted. Regarding the sidewalk and parkrow, Mr. Severson stated staff is supportive of approving the
exception and stated they are recommending approval of the application with the conditions as outlined.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked to comment on the Tree Commission's review of the proposal. Mr. Severson stated he was not present for
that meeting, but stated the commissioners did conduct site visits and did not feel it was necessary to preserve the identified
trees. Staff was asked about the alley dimensions and backup space, and Mr. Severson clarified there is a recommended
condition of approval that would address this. The condition requires the applicants to demonstrate the alley meets the
requirements with their building permit application.
Applicant's Presentation
Randy Wallace, Property Owner/Stated he won a Historic Preservation Award for his last multifamily project on Coolidge
Street and he would like to improve on that project and create another development. Mr. Wallace stated he has spoken with
many of the neighbors and by enlarge they were very optimistic. He explained this type of housing is lacking in Ashland and
this project will address a demonstrated need. He stated the proposal fits the zoning and the tenants will have very nice units
with wood flooring, balconies, views, and open space. Mr. Wallace stated this development will provide more rentals and
believes this is a special project that will benefit the city.
Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development/Explained the proposal is for a 2-story residence with an attached unit, and
9 one-bedroom units at the rear of the property. She stated there is a shortage of studio and one-bedroom units in Ashland
and this project will fill an identified need. Ms. Gunter reviewed the surrounding properties and stated there is a bed &
breakfast to the east and multifamily housing directly to the west, south, kitty-corner, and across the street. She commented on
the tree removals and stated the two Elm trees are in very poor condition, and tree #6 is rising out of the ground. She stated
they are all very unhealthy and noted they will be replacing these trees and planting additional trees as well. Regarding the
density bonus, Ms. Gunter stated they could have chosen to build fewer, significantly larger structures, but this would fill an
already met need in the city. Regarding the exception to the Street Standards, she stated the exception is merited due to the
site conditions, and she requested the commission allow 8 ft. driveway widths off the alley which would allow for greenspace
and planting strips in between each access way.
Mr. Wallace commented on the alley and clarified they will be having a boundary survey done, but based on his
measurements there is adequate width to meet the requirement. He noted they are providing significantly more open space
than required and believes the layout and orientation will provide a passive area that is very beautiful. Mr. Wallace noted
Condition 7(g) and asked that this be amended to only require Earth Advantage.
Public Testimony
Jeannie Azzoparchi/279 W Hersey/Stated she does not oppose the project or having more rentals in the neighborhood, but
expressed concern with traffic. She stated not many people go the posted speed limit and the traffic has gotten progressively
worse and more dangerous. Ms. Azzoparchi stated this proposal will add more traffic to the area and requested speedbumps
be installed on Hersey.
Ashland Planning Commission
December B, 2015
Page 4 of 5
i
Michael Daole1247 N Laurel/Expressed concern with the extreme concentration of traffic at this location. He stated the
tenants will likely use the garages for storage and questioned where the cars will park. He stated the alley width is not
appropriate for the intensity that comes in and out, and noted the issues that occur on garbage/recycling pick-up day.
Luca Moschini1259 N Laurel/Stated he fully agrees with the two prior speakers and stated the alley is too small for the traffic
that the housing brings in. He stated the proposed buildings are too large for the area and at maximum, 4-5 units should go
there. Mr. Moschini agreed that the garbage and recycling bins are an issue and stated this area is not designed to
accommodate this many people on this sized lot.
Judy Cangiamilla/247 N Laurel/Agreed with the prior speakers and voiced concern with the alley width and traffic congestion.
She stated two cars cannot pass each other in the alley and one vehicle has to reverse out to make room. She stated she is
supportive of the property being developed but stated this is too many units for the site.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked whether they considered a condition to require vehicle parking in the garages. Mr. Severson stated the code
already states that garages are to provide the required parking and cannot be used for storage, however this could be
reiterated in a condition of approval. Regarding the recycling and garage bin issue, Mr. Severson stated this project will have
an enclosed recycling and trash area. Mr. Severson also commented on Hersey Street and clarified this is a higher order street
intended to accommodate these traffic levels and no traffic study was required. When asked if the commission should consider
alley improvements to accommodate two way traffic, Mr. Molnar stated it is not advisable to encourage two-way traffic on the
city's alleyways. He added this has been the long-standing position of the Public Works Department.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Wallace clarified the garbage and recycle bins will never sit out in the alley. He noted they have met with Recology and
believe they have addressed any potential trash issues. Ms. Gunter commented on the alley and noted the city requires
developments to take access off the alley if there is one. She noted they are aware that on street parking can be problematic in
Ashland, which is why they have a garage for each unit on the site. She added they have no concerns with a condition that
requires the garages to be used for parking.
Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s approve PA-2015-01856 with an added condition that states the garages shall not
be used for storage. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Mindlin noted the applicant's requests to remove the Energy Star
requirement and to grant a reduction in the garage driveway widths. Mr, Severson clarified the Energy Star bonus is not
needed and the applicants meet the density bonus requirements without it. Mr. Brown stated he is sticking with staffs
recommendation to keep the driveways at 9 ft. and stated if there is enough space to accommodate the city standard they
should do so. Commissioner Dawkins stated he is sympathetic to the speeding issue raised, however it is not within their
purview to require speedbumps. He added he is appreciative that the applicants are proposing the types of housing units
Ashland really needs. Commissioner Thompson stated her main concern was the alley, but noted this area is zoned R3 and it
is required that properties be designed to take access of the alleyway. Commissioner Miller recommended traffic calming
measures be installed before anymore density goes into this area. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her support for the motion
and stated this project meets a clear housing need. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Thompson, Brown, Norton, Pearce,
Dawkins, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioner Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
December 8, 2015
Page 5 of 5
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name '
(please print)
Address (no P.O. Box) r~ A j Phone Email
i {
Tonight's Meeting Date 'Zo
j Regular-, Meeting
Agenda item number OW OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Conunission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and duringpublic forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly folloiv the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespec fur, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please, print) -
Address (no P.O. l3os)
t i. t
Phone Inail 101
i
Tonight's Meeting Date t e'er ;-t (
f
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city ineetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Conunissior7 generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directious of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders hill be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or ernp!oyees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name _Z_`Z--o Ct_A1; cu
(please print) }
Address no P.O. Box
Phone tt Y P Email I L rLIi L. ~f' r/`-)yk-C 5 Wei And, vv
Tonight's Meeting Date -Co?
Regular Meeting
~ E
Agenda item number' OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Lam requires that all cio} meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
allvays require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission genet-ally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forrmr on non-agenda items unless time
constraints lirrrit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the morn.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please print),
Address (no P.O. Box) %
Phone Email i '
Tonight's Meeting Date ` 11 1'
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number :i OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Lain requires that all cio} meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
ahvays require that the public be permitted to speak The Ashland Planning Coimnission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit pitblic testitiiony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order- of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follorn the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior° or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders mill be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
ITY OF
Planning Department, 51 Winb`a., VVay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
-LAND
PLANNING ACTION: 2015-01856
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 229 W. Hersey
OWNER/AP PLICANT: RIN Signature Properties LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family residential units
for the property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are requested for an Exception to
Street Standards to construct a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot bio-swale parkrow where a six-foot
sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow planting strip are required, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three
trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39
lE 04CC; TAX LOT: #9900
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
_ f
C
+ ~1 PA 442015-01888
j229 W. HERSEY ST
SUBJECT PROPERTY
/ SST
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 I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building
and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
B, Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except
as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to
the subject property,
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or
unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact
adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the
exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or
better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.4.6.020.6,1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street
Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist.
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the
site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable.
L For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with
vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency
crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d, The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.13
B. Tree Removal Permit.
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or
can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions,
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure
persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot
reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7,050. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.10.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance,
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing PolderVviailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-01856.docx
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On November 23, 2015 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #2015-01856, 229 W. Hersey.
Si ature of Employee
Documend 11/2312015
i
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CB 2304 NA-2015-01856 391 E04CB 2401 PA-2015-01856 391 E05DA 502
ALBERTSON ROSS TRUSTEE ET ALEXANDER DAVID TRUSTEE 279 OERSDDI ST JEANNE HESTER
79 SCENIC DR 27 DEVONSHIRE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 NOVATO, CA 94947 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PHILIP P-2015-01856 391
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 9500 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 9300
TRUSTEE ET AL
BATES LORRAINE ET AL BERRYHILL SUSAN CIMILLER 255 N LAUREL ST
259 N LAUREL ST 129 S LAUREL ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01856 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 10500 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 10300
CEC ENGINEERING CHIANG CHRISTIE ET AL COLLINGS DAVID L
PO BOX 1724 230 VAN NESS AVE 13236 E EVANS CREEK RD
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROGUE RIVER, OR 97537
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 10100 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CB 2328 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 80001
DAOLE MICHAEL DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE EVANS GREGORY R
247 N LAUREL ST 725 ROYAL AVE 4942 CORONADO AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 SAN DIEGO, CA 92107
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 10000 PA-2015-01856 391 E05DD 9100 PA-2015-01856 391 E05DA 500
FAIIA WILLIAM M TRUSTEE HOFER DENNIS/DEBORAH IN GALLS JEFFREY LSE/KRISTA A
261 HERSEY ST W 132 SUSAN LANE 24645 PESCADERO RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CARMEL, CA 93923
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 70002 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 70001 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 10600
'JOYCE LAURA K ' KRUMSICK TRAVIS J LAURSEN ERIC TRUSTEE ET AL
~
222 VAN NESS ST 220 VAN NESS ST 46 UNION ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 80003 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 9600 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 80002
LEIGH ERICA ET AL LETOURNEAU MIACHAEL W MILLER M JOHN (TOD)
410 NORVELL ST TRUSTEE ET AL 252 VAN NESS AVE
EL CERRITO, CA 94530 257 N LAUREL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 9400 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CB 2403 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 10200
PEIL THOMAS HANSEN TRUSTEE ET PISTOLE BRYAN/JESSICA C POFRANEY LEN TRUSTEE
AL 220 W HERSEY ST 2
335 GARFIELD ASHLAND, OR 97520 MORAGA, CA 94556
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01856 391 E05DA 501 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 9200 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 80004
ROBERT LOMBARDI ROBINS ALAN/JAN HARRELL ROGERS
SAN GA PAIGE
EL DAL
PO BOX 1396 219 W HERSEY ST
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 FAIRFAX, CA 94930
PA-2015-01856 391 E05DD 9200 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 9900 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 70004
ROGERS WANDA ENID RW SIGNATURE PROPERTIES SAIN TGERMAIN DOROTHY JEAN
276 VAN NESS AVE 111 COOLIDGE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 M4622 EDFOR K OR 970501 RD
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 10400 rA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 70003 rA-2015-01856 391 E04CC 9800
SCHIFFMAN FAMILY TRUST ET SISKIYOU SACRED SPACES SMITH LEO MICHAEL TRUSTEE
1530 EASTSHORE DR PO BOX 1485 227 W HERSEY ST
ALAMEDA, CA 94501 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01856 391 E04CB 2402 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CB 2400 PA-2015-01856 391 E04CB 2301
SMITH LUCRETIA STOKES WALTER WEINBERG JASON/TARA
230 HERSEY ST W 242 W HERSEY ST 1171 VILLAGE SQUARE DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
Rogue Planning ev Services 229 W. Hersey
1424 S.Ivy Street 11/23/2015 NOC
Medford, O 97501
i
j
i
i
i
4
MJI1
MOT
~L
901 A U oil d1_1
3102 J-31 $
312 318 Ali 311
I
JL~ 3m 2M I Uis J
.
113 Ma 2 30
L ! 0C 2 TO --D. 22U 111 Z323 2M IL
EAU 2316 2jud 2E Op
351,
E . 'I l.i H
2?w 2M
Mki
WOU
Toad' = -
17 rUND'
PRO aual
Mg- 2 11,10 D
9 6T J' ssaw
Z
SSW
j. 93ZKI
3'~S 1
9,100 WNWI
jai
1 102 d'0U
J Ci~ _
3 10303
401 1
00
710 D 10
-s
CI L~ z0a
a
ado
0 lieu,
may:] J L1
~za
2H -J
b x°
MOD
1 271J 3 3 ~ll 0_ 3
7 .q pry $
a°
I Illil ~J,.Y. 7J' li W !J
1290D 3OUG
I] Li Situ
pup M
2SOG
c 22A. D
YY~ ` ~ o
1,3133 ,L. lL
D°isbab
i
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
December 8, 2015
PLANNING ACTION: #2015-01856
OWNER/APPLICANT: RW Signature Properties LLC
LOCATION: 229 W. Hersey St.
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 30, 2015
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 29, 2016
ORDINANCE REFERENCE (see http://www.ashland.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use
code on-line):
18.2.2 Base Zones & Allowed Uses
18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones
18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design
18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation
18.4.5 Tree Preservation & Protection
18.4.6 Public Facilities
18.4.6.020 Exception to Street Standards
18.5.2 Site Design Review
18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits
REQUEST: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family
residential units for the property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are
requested for an Exception to Street Standards to construct a five-foot sidewalk and five-
foot bio-swale parkrow where a six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow planting strip
are required, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees greater than six-inches in
diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).
1. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
A demolition permit (BD 99706081) was issued in 1997 to allow the demolition of a 1,116
square foot residence, a 288 square foot garage and a 480 square foot barn.
There are no other land use actions of record for this property.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff ReporLdds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 1 of 13
I
I
t
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The Site
The subject property is a vacant parcel located on the south side of West Hersey Street
between North Main Street and Laurel Street. The property is rectangular in shape, with
75 feet of frontage along West Hersey Street, a depth of approximately 200 feet, and a
total area of approximately 15,000 square feet. The property fronts on alleys along its
west and south property lines.
West Hersey Street is classified as an Avenue in this vicinity under Ashland's
Transportation System Plan (TSP). Hersey Street is paved with curbs and gutters in
place, but lacks sidewalks or park row planting strips along the subject property's
frontage. The alleys along the property's west and south frontages are both paved to
varying widths.
The application notes that the site has no significant natural features, and has a slope of
approximately four percent to the north. The applicant further explains that there are two
multi-stemmed elm trees (one 15-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and the
other approximately six-inches d.b.h.) on the east property line, and that there are a
seven-inch d.b.h, pine tree and three smaller stature trees (less than six-inches d.b.h.) near
the west and south property lines. All of the trees on the subject property are proposed
for removal. The applicant also notes that there are six trees on the adjacent property to
the east.
The property and those in the immediate vicinity are zoned R-3, High Density Multi-
Family Residential.
The Proposal
The application requests Site Design Review approval to construct 1 t multi-family
residential units. These units include a two-story 1,850 square foot single-family
residence with a 440 square foot attached garage and a small 480 square foot unit above,
all fronting on Hersey Street, and nine 480 square foot one bedroom apartments in two
buildings behind the main house. The units along the north-south alley are proposed as a
two-story structure with the apartments above over-sized garages, while the units along
the east-west alley at the rear of the property are proposed as two single-story units and
two two-story units. The apartments are proposed adjacent to both alleys, with a
common open space behind the main house on the southeastern portion of the property.
All of the units are proposed to have semi-private balcony or patio space adjacent to the
common courtyard, and all of the units are to comply with Earth Advantage OO and
Energy Start requirements in order to qualify for a requested density bonus.
The applicant has also requested Exception to Street Standards. City standard frontage
improvements for an Avenue would typically require a seven- to eight-foot landscaped
parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees and a six-foot wide sidewalk along the
property's full street frontage, with a right-of-way dedication or a public pedestrian
easement required for any portion of these improvements that extend beyond the existing
public right-of-way. In this instance, the application proposes a five-foot sidewalk and a
five-foot bio-swale parkrow.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; RW Signature Properties LLC Page 2 of 13
1
A Tree Removal Permit is also requested to allow the removal of the three trees greater
than six-inches d.b.h.
t
II. Project Impact
As explained more fully above, the application consists of Site Design Review, an
Exception to Street Standards and Tree Removal Permit approval requests. Applications
involving residential Site Design Review for a total building area in excess of 10,000
square feet of gross floor area trigger "Type II" application procedures and require a
decision by the Planning Commission through a public hearing. The applicable criteria
for each required approval are addressed below.
A. Site Design Review Proposal
Underlying Zone Requirements
The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with
all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not
limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area,
lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards." The application materials provided note that the property is 14,997 square
feet in area and is R-3 zoned, and meets the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the
R-3 zoning district.
The subject properties' underlying zoning is R-3 (High Density Multi-Family
Residential) and within this zone, minimum lot area is based on what is necessary to
achieve the proposed density. In this instance, the base density is 20 dwelling units per
acre, and the 0.344 acre subject property has a base density of 6.88 dwelling units (0.344
acres x 20 du/acre = 6.88 du). The applicants propose to take advantage of the density
bonus provisions of the ordinance and request a 15 percent density bonus for
conservation housing and a 10 percent density bonus for providing additional outdoor
recreation space. With a 25 percent density bonus, the allowed density for the parcel is
8.6 dwelling units (6.88 du x 1.25 = 8.6 du). Each of the ten units proposed counts as a
0.75 dwelling units for purposes of density calculations because the units are less than
500 square feet, and as such the proposed density is 8.5 dwelling units [(0.75 x 10 d.u.
less than 500 square feet) + 1 d.u. = 8.5 du]. Conditions have been recommended below
to require that the building permit submittals include demonstrations that the
conservation housing and additional recreation space requirements are satisfied to allow
the proposed density bonuses.
The application explains that the main house's front porch is to be setback eight feet from
the front property line, while the structure itself will be setback 15 feet. The main house
is to be setback nine feet from the alley and six feet from the east property line, and the
apartment buildings are proposed to meet the six-foot side yard and ten-foot per story rear
yard setbacks for the zone.
The applicant further notes that the proposal is at 62.6 percent lot coverage, which is
significantly under the 75 percent coverage limit within the R-3 zoning district.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; RW Signature Properties LLC Page 3 of 13
i
Overlay Zone Requirements
The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with
applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The application materials note that
the property is not located within any overlay zones.
Site Development and Design Standards
The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below." Generally, these Site Development & Design Standards seek to improve each
project's appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed
buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen
the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse
impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to
the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances
oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the
public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties'
frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between
buildings and the street.
In terms of parking, each of the ten one-bedroom/less than 500 square foot units requires
one space while the main house requires two spaces, for a total of 12 required parking
spaces. The application illustrates 12 off-street parking spaces that are to be provided,
and further notes that nine bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in the proposed
private garages while four additional covered bicycle parking spaces are to be provided
under the balcony outside the laundry room. Conditions have been recommended below
to require that the building permit submittals demonstrate that the automobile and bicycle
parking areas meet the area design and dimensional requirements of the code, including a
clear demonstration that required paved back-up areas are to be provided behind each
space, and that the driveways meet the nine-foot minimum width requirement of AMC
18.4.3.080.D.
Basic Site Review
The application explains that the main house will have its primary orientation to Hersey
Street, and will have a large front porch and a direct pedestrian connection to the Hersey
Street sidewalk. No parking is proposed between the building and the street, with all
garage and surface parking placed to the side or rear of the main house and all vehicular
access from the alley. The apartments proposed are more than 20 feet from the street,
and have their orientation to the courtyard or alley, depending on their location. The
application notes that the building materials proposed are compatible with the
surrounding area, and are a mix of wood-shingle siding, stucco bases, metal railings and
composite roofing, and generally subdued (not bright or neon) paint colors. The
application has proposed a sidewalk and parkrow planting strip, and street trees are to be
provided however the application includes a request for an Exception to allow these to be
narrower than standard and to utilize a bio-swale in place of the standard parkrow
planting strip. The Exception request is discussed in detail under "B" below.
In initially reviewing the application, staff noted that projects subject to Site Design
Review require that a minimum of eight percent of the lot be provided in recreation area,
and that a density bonus of up to ten percent was available for additional recreation area
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 4 of 13
provided beyond this minimum requirement. The applicants are requesting this bonus for
additional recreation area. AMC 18.4.2.030.H.2 notes that "areas covered by shrubs,
bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use
may not be counted toward this (recreation area) requirement." Staff noted that the
areas shown as open space include a dry stream bed and retention pond basin, and areas
planted in ajuga, lavender and other ground covers or shrubs that are not suited to human
recreational use could not be counted toward the recreation area requirement or density
bonus, and asked that the applicant clarify the proposed recreation space and its treatment
to both satisfy the standard and the requirements for the density bonus. The applicants
have clarified the open space proposed to address these requirements, and a revised
planting plan provided as sheet LP-1 details out that the combination of private decks and
patios, common deck area in the courtyard, the porch and deck of the main house and the
back yard area of the main house total 2,926 square feet which exceeds the 2,699 square
feet necessary to provide the required recreation area and additional area for the
requested density bonus.
A common refuse area is to be provided adjacent to Unit #4 on the west alley, and the
application notes that it will be screened according to standards. The application further
notes that a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan will be provided with the building permit
submittals to address the city's landscaping and irrigation standards and the Earth
Advantage requirements.
The application notes that all trees on the subject property are to be removed including
two multi-trunked elms and a seven-inch d.b.h. pine tree, and that the six existing trees on
the adjacent property to the east are already protected by a six-foot fence.
Public Facilities
The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal
complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that
adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer; electricity, urban storm drainage,
paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to the subject property."
The application notes that adequate public facilities are available and will be provided to
the subject property, including:
® Water: There is a 12-inch water main in West Hersey Street, and six-inch water
mains in each of the alleys. The application explains that nine new apartments are
to be served by a common water meter off of the alley near the south property
line, while the main house and its attached unit will be served by an existing 3/4-
inch meter adjacent to Hersey Street. The applicants are in continuing discussion
with the Fire Marshal. The main in the southern alley serves an existing fire
hydrant, and the applicant notes that there is a hydrant on the northwest side of the
alley that intersects Hersey Street. The application states that the apartments will
likely have fire sprinklers installed subject to the final requirements of the Fire
Department.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 5 of 13
I
® Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in the alley to the west
of the subject property.
® Electric: The applicants have been working with the Electric Department to
create an Electric Service Plan for the property, and the application notes that
underground electric service is available in the alley to the south of the subject
property, and that two transformers are to be placed to serve the proposed
development.
® Urban Storm Drainage: A ten-inch storm sewer line in the alley to the west of
the property feeds into a 12-inch storm sewer line in Hersey Street.
® Paved Access: The application notes that West Hersey Street, an Avenue, has
paving with a bike lane, curbs, and gutters in place along the subject property's
frontage, with sidewalks and a parkrow planting strip to be installed with the
current proposal. An existing, unused curb cut along Hersey Street is proposed
for removal as part of the current application. An Exception to Street Standards is
requested to allow the sidewalk and parkrow to be narrower than required, and to
allow a bio-swale to be used in lieu of a standard parkrow planting strip. This
Exception is discussed fully below.
Public Works staff has indicated that they have been in contact with the applicant's civil
engineers as they develop final engineering plans for the project. Conditions have been
recommended below to require that the applicants provide final civil plans including
utility, electric service, grading, and drainage for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
B. Exception to Street Standards
I
The applicant includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards. City standard
frontage improvements for an Avenue like West Hersey Street here typically require a
seven- to eight-foot landscaped parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees and a
six-foot wide sidewalk along the property's full street frontage, with a right-of-way
dedication or a public pedestrian easement required for any portion of these
improvements that extend beyond the existing public right-of-way. In this instance, the
application proposes a five-foot sidewalk and a five-foot bio-swale parkrow to match the
existing frontage improvements in place on the property immediately to the southeast.
The application notes that the request is being made to match the existing improvement
due both to limited right-of-way and to public infrastructure in place which limits the area
available for sidewalks and parkrow. The application further explains that the request
for a one-foot narrower sidewalk and two-foot narrower parkrow is the minimum
necessary to alleviate the difficulty and that the quality of street improvements and
comfort of pedestrians will be enhanced by the resultant sidewalk across the subject
property connecting to the existing improvement to the southeast, and further suggests
that there are low pedestrian volumes along Hersey in this vicinity due to the inconsistent
improvements and this proposal will provide a safe route. The applicant notes that if an
LID were formed to complete sidewalks on the south side of Hersey Street they believe
that the existing right-of-way could accommodate continuous improvements of the
dimensions proposed.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 6 of 13
Exceptions to Street Standards require a demonstration that there is a demonstrable
difficulty in meeting the standard due to a unique aspect of the site or its proposed use;
that the facilities and resultant connectivity proposed are equal or superior to those
required under the standards; that the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to
alleviate the difficulty; and that the exceptions are consistent with the purpose and intent
of the Street Standards.
In staff's assessment, it appears that there are established trees and some infrastructure
elements such as hydrants, power poles and pedestals that would likely complicate
sidewalk installation as they would anywhere. For staff, the key consideration is that
between the alley to the west of the subject property and the corner of North Laurel
Street, there are only three parcels - the subject property, the property at 227 West
Hersey Street which already has a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot parkrow in place, and
the property at 219 West Hersey Street on the corner. The placement of the existing
house at the corner of Laurel and Hersey appears to be less than 15 feet behind the curb,
and the small porch on the Hersey Street side is approximately 13 feet behind the curb.
The placement of this home is such that full standard sidewalk and parkrow installation
seems unlikely, and in staff's view a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot parkrow which
could be accommodated in the existing right-of-way seem the most likely improvement
here. The eventual completion of a consistent, continuous five-foot sidewalk and five-
foot parkrow between the alley and the corner seems the best compromise which would
provide equal connectivity while being the minimum exception necessary here.
C. Tree Removal Permit
The applicant explains that there are three trees on the property over six inches in
diameter: two multi-stemmed elm trees (one 15-inches in diameter at breast height
(d.b.h.) and the other approximately six-inches d.b.h.) on the east property line, and a
seven-inch d.b.h. pine tree. All of the trees on the subject property are proposed for
removal.
The application notes that the larger elm is unsightly and does not appear to be in good
health, and that both elms appear to have been seedling starts from a larger tree that was
previously removed. Neither has been maintained, and all three trees are in areas
proposed for construction in developing the site according to the Site Development and
Design Standards.
The applicant suggests that removal of the trees will not have a significant negative
impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks, and will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property, explaining
that there are a significant number of conifers and deciduous trees within 200 feet of the j'
subject property, and that the property to the east which would have the most potential for E'
impact has 12 deciduous trees in their yard.
c
i
The applicant emphasizes that more than 20 new trees are proposed to be planted
throughout the subject property, further explaining that while no conifers are proposed
for mitigation due to the nature of the proposed multi-family development the number of
l'
deciduous trees proposed is nonetheless more than double the required mitigation ratio.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 7 of 13
i
The applicant concludes that there was no environmental benefit provided by the three
trees which will not be achieved with the proposed mitigation trees.
i
The applicant also notes that there are six trees on the adjacent property to the east which
are protected by the existing six-foot fence, and no additional tree protection fencing is
proposed.
A tree inventory and assessment of the trees' conditions has been provided, along with
photos of the trees, although these do not appear to have been prepared by an arborist.
The larger elm is noted as having three trunks, as being in poor health and leaning with
white rot and decay pockets evident, while the smaller pine is noted as being in poor
health and of small diameter. For staff, without assessment by an arborist it is difficult to
determine whether the health of the elms merits removal, or if they could be treated to
remediate their condition in order to retain them on site. The Tree Commission has not
yet reviewed the application as this report is being prepared; a condition of approval has
been recommended below to require that the recommendations of the Tree Commission
be made conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with
final approval of the Staff Advisor. Dependent upon the Tree Commission's
recommendation, the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether they believe a
an arborist's report is necessary to make a determination regarding removal of the elms;
if so, the Commission could opt to continue the application until an arborist's report is
provided.
III. Procedural - Reguired Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050 as follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying
zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,
density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18,4.6 Public
Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve
exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the 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
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 8 of 13
i
Site Development and Design Standards.
The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as
follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering
the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling
along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18.4.6.040.A.
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a "Tree That is Not a Hazard" are
described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows:
A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions.
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not
limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall
grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone.
4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs
that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
the other provisions of this ordinance.
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 9 of 13
i
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The applicant concludes that the proposal is for ten small, energy-efficient units with generous
site amenities and covered, secure parking and storage, laundry facilities and a large common
open space and suggests that the units proposed are of a desirable size for singles and some
couples, that the proposed main house will make a positive contribution to the West Hersey
streetscape, and that the project should be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and the city.
Staff concurs with the applicant, and is generally very supportive of the request.
For staff, the key issues with the proposal are in insuring that the open space is treated in such a
way to accommodate recreational use; that the Exception to Street Standards is merited; and that
the proposed tree removals are carefully considered. We believe that the application has clearly
detailed the treatment of the open space to more than satisfy the standards. In addition, the
location of the existing house at the corner of Laurel and Hersey Streets is likely to constrict
future sidewalk installation to the point that the requested Exception would likely provide for a
continuous, consistent sidewalk installation between the alley adjacent to the property and the
corner of Laurel Street.
With regard to the requested removal of the elm trees near the east property line, the application
suggests that these trees are in poor health and need to be removed, however for staff it is unclear
absent an arborist report whether or not they might be able to be treated to remediate their
condition and preserved on site. After reviewing the Tree Commission's recommendations, the
Planning Commission may wish to consider whether a continuation is necessary to allow the
applicants to provide an arborist's report more fully assessing these trees.
Should the Commission determine that no arborist's report is needed and approve the request,
staff would recommends the following conditions be attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise specifically modified herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with
those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building
permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an
application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their December
3, 2015 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards
and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval
unless otherwise specifically modified herein.
4) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed,
including approved addressing; fire apparatus access; fire flow; fire sprinklers for
those units determined by Building and Fire Code to require them based on
review of final building permit plans; and provisions for "Knox Box" key boxes.
5) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to any
required public and private utility easements, mutual access easements,
public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 10 of 13
review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be
consistent with those described in the application, and very bright or neon
paint colors shall not be used.
C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be
directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent
proprieties.
d) Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be provided for the review
and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals.
These revised plans shall address: 1) Any recommendations of the Tree
Commission from their December 3, 2015 meeting where consistent with
applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff
Advisor; 2) Required size- and species-specific planting details and
associated irrigation plans addressing the requirements for programmable
automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with
seasonal modifications to satisfy the Water Conserving Landscaping
Guidelines and Policies.
e) Stormwater drainage and grading plans for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Building and Planning Departments.
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall
include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in
and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and
meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire
Department Connections shall be located in areas least visible from
streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs.
Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the
applicant at applicant's expense.
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including any
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must
be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and
Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or
building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in
areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
h) That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of a
five-foot width parkrow with irrigated street trees, five-foot sidewalk, and
pedestrian scale street lighting on the property's full West Hersey Street
frontage for the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering
Departments. These plans shall detail the removal of the existing curb-cut
and relocation or removal of the existing phone pedestal near the alley
from the sidewalk corridor so that the sidewalk can be continued in the
future. If necessary to accommodate these street frontage improvements,
the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way or provide public
pedestrian access easements. Any necessary easements or right-of-way
dedications shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning
and Public Works/'Engineering Departments.
i) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes nine bicycle
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff ReportAds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 11 of 13
parking spaces in the garages and four covered bicycle parking spaces
outside of the laundry area. If bicycle parking is provided in garages,
final interior dimensions of garages shall be provided to insure adequate
space needs. Inverted a-racks shall be used for non-garage bicycle
parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with
design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.1 prior to the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that
the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met.
j) Demonstration that all parking spaces provided meet the dimensional
requirements of the Parking Area Design Requirements in AMC
18.4.3.080.13, and that the full required paved back-up area is provided
behind each space. Standard parking spaces are required to be a minimum
of nine-feet wide by 18-feet deep and compact spaces are required to be a
minimum of eight feet by 16 feet, and a 22-foot clear back-up area must
be provided behind each space. Up to 50 percent of parking spaces may
be compact. Driveways provided are required to be a minimum of nine-
feet in width per AMC 18.4.3.080.D. All dimensional requirements will
be site-verified prior to occupancy approval.
k) Demonstrations that the conservation housing and additional recreation
space requirements are satisfied to meet the requirements for the requested
density bonuses.
1) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction
complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula [(Height -
6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross
section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s)
and the height(s) from natural grade.
m) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways,
parking, and other coverage areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no
more than 75 percent as allowed in the R-3 zoning district.
n) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated
with peals rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City
storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public
storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in
accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site
collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
6) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work
including excavation or the storage of materials:
a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures
installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff
Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the
trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the
trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the site.
b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including
permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical
services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water,
sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for
previously demolished structures) shall be paid.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 12 of 13
7) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy:
a) All handscaping, landscaping including required recreational areas and
mitigation trees, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to
the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed
according to Electric, Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments'
specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
C) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
e) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the
sidewalk, parkrow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet
of frontage, and street lighting shall be installed under permit from the
Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. The existing curb cut on
West Hersey Street shall be removed and vehicular access to the proposed
development shall be from the alleys.
f) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in
accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to
recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be
included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040.
g) The applicant shall provide evidence of Earth Advantage and Energy Star
Certifications necessary to satisfy the requirements for the conservation
housing density bonus requested.
h) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan,
inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.
Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; RW Signature Properties LLC Page 13 of 13
SITE SIGN "VIEW PERMIT
F THE
CONSTRUCTION ELEVEN DWELLING UNIT'S
229 WEST H Y STREET
39 1E C#9900
1.7
i
r Y, r
c
a
Property Owner: RW Signature Properties
111 Coolidge Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Land Use Planner: Rogue Planning and Development Services, LLC
1424 S Ivy Street
Medford, OR 97501
Building Designer: Lindemann Design LLC
550 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Engineer: CEC Engineering
Mark Kamaranth ~P
rt"'
d
Landscape Design: SQLA INC.
380 N Palm, Suite B
Brea, CA 92821
Samuel Kim
1
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
.
Subject Property
Address: 229 W Hersey Street
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09CC; 9900
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential
Zoning: R-3
Lot Area: .34 / 14,997.95 sf
Request:
The request is to construct a multiple family development of eleven total units at 229 W Hersey Sheet.
Exception to Street Standards is requested to not meet the current sidewalk standards and to match the
existing sidewalk pattern. Additionally, the request includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees
that are greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height.
Property Background:
The subject property is on the south side of West Hersey Street at the intersection of north / south running
alley that continues southwest and intersects with Van Ness at Skidmore Street. There is an east / west
alley at the south end of the property. The West Hersey frontage to the north of the property is 75 feet
wide. The lot extends to the rear property line 199.96 feet to the south. The site slopes approximately four
percent to the north. The site is currently vacant of structures.
A demolition permit was approved by the City of Ashland in May 1997 which permitted the removal of a
1,116 square foot (sf ) single family home, a 288 sf garage and a 480 sf barn. A total of 1,884 sf of
impervious area were removed from the property.
The site is largely devoid of natural features. There are two multi-stem elm trees (15.2 inches DBH & -6-
inches DBH) on the east property line, a seven-inch DBH pine and three smaller stature (less than six-
inches in DBH) near the south and west property lines. On the adjacent property to the east there are six
trees.
w~^ F = C
411
ti
l1 r 1~ ~ ~ >ki~5~J
b r~ _
2
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
Site Development and Desi
Detailed proposal:
A two-story residence with small attached unit is proposed facing Hersey Street. This "primary residence"
will be approximately 1,850 sf residence with 440 sf garage and a 480 sf unit above. To the rear of the
residence, nine 480 sf one-bedroom units are proposed. The units are adjacent to the two alleys with a
common area on the southeast side of the property behind the front residences. The units along the north /
south alley are proposed as two story structures above oversized, 10' X 22' single vehicle garages. The
units adjacent to the east / west alley at the rear of the property are proposed as two single story units and
two, two story units. The all of the units are proposed to have semi-private ground floor patio space or
balconies adjacent to the courtyard.
The, balcony's and patio areas serve as private outdoor space in addition to the "public" courtyard area.
The large open space will have a dry river bed and the capability for stormwater detention. Around the
detention area will be a large deck and walking paths. The open space proposed is a large, inviting,
useable professionally landscaped courtyard area. A pathway system through the development will be
provided in order to provide a safe walking routes to the public sidewalk that will be extended along the
frontage of the property.
The proposed development will also comply with the Earth Advantage and Energy Star Requirements.
The property owner has been in communication with the Earth Advantage Auditor, Fred Gant and the
building permit submittals will demonstrate compliance.
There are six trees on the east side of the six foot privacy fence on the adjacent parcel to the east. There
are two larger stature elm trees on the subject property adjacent to the south property line, a seven-inch
DBH pine and three smaller stature (less than six-inches in DBH) near the south and west property lines.
All of the trees on the site are proposed for removal. See findings addressing the criteria below.
A five foot wide bio-swale parkrow and five foot sidewalk is proposed along the frontage of the parcel
connecting to the five-foot sidewalk and five-foot parkrow on the adjacent lot to the south. The proposed
sidewalk and bio-swale widths are less than the standards in the zone and an Exception to the Sheet
standards has been requested. Findings addressing the applicable criteria are below.
Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria:
Ashland IVidnicipal Code 155.2.0S0'
A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlyln :fit`; n~
(part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and
floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable .
standards.
The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multiple Family Residential. The parcel is 0rl e, .
feet (.34 ac) and meets minimum lot area and minimum lot dimensions in the R-3 zone.
The proposal is to have a total of 11 residential dwelling units. The first unit is a single family residential
style home with large inviting front porch and side loading garage accessible from the alley at the front
of the property. Above the garage area of this residence is the first of the ten smaller dwellings. The unit
above the garage will be accessed via a stair well accessed behind the residence near the alley. The
3
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
residence front porch is setback eight feet from the front property line. The facade of the residence is
setback 1 S feet from the front property line. The residence will have a front walkway extending down to
the public sidewalk adjacent to West Hersey Street and a bridge that crosses the bioswale (may be
standard - awaiting total Earth Advantage / Energy Start points determination) parkrow between the
public sidewalk and the street. This residence is setback from the alley side yard (west) nine feet. The
opposite side yard setback (east) is six feet. Both side yard setbacks comply with the minimum in the zone.
Behind this structure are the proposed multi family apartment units. They consist of two separate
buildings. The building directly behind the front structure is proposed as a two story structure with four
units above. Below the units are oversized single vehicle garages. Unit #4, the southernmost unit in
building has the community laundry facilities and the trash / recycle enclosure below as well. This
structure is setback six feet from the west side yard setback. The rear building consists of five units. Two
of the units at the southwest corner of the property at the intersection of the two alleys are single story
units with six-foot west side yard and ten foot rear (south) yard setbacks. The three remaining units are
setback 20 foot from the rear property line and six feet from the east side yard. As proposed, all of the
buildings comply with setbacks.
The proposed dwellings are a mixture of modern materials (stucco, metal and concrete) with classic
craftsman styling. Due to the topography of the site the units step down from the south alley to the north.
There are varying roof forms, pitches and heights to break up the mass of the structures. There are
numerous windows to allow for ample natural light into the units. The porch railings are proposed to be
wire (possibly hog paneling) to allow for visual openness to increase natural light and reduce the mass of
all the railing.
The solar setback standards are met with the development because West Hersey Street is the northern
property line for the purposes of determining the solar setback. West Hersey Street has a 60 foot wide
right-of-way. The units will not cast a shadow beyond the width of the right-of-way.
Density: The proposed density complies with the allowed density standards found in AMC 18.2.5.080.
The proposed project also is requesting two density bonus' one for Conservation housing and one for
increased outdoor recreation space above the minimum eight percent required by the code.
Allowed Density 18.2.5.080: .34 X 20 = 6.8 units
Proposed Density:
Conservation Housing - max 1501o: 6.8 X .15 = 1.08
The units are proposed to comply with Earth Advantage and Energy Star Requirements for new
construction.
Outdoor Recreation - max 10%: 7.82 X .10 = .782
The required eight percent outdoor recreation space for a 14,997 square foot parcel is 1,199.76 square
feet. The proposed outdoor recreation space for the property is a combination of semi-private patios and
balconies and the larger openspace with the decking, table and chairs, community BBQ and s'3,937 square feet or 26 percent of the site. In excess of the required 18 percent to
comply with tlc,: ~J,-,i i!
bonus standards.
Total allowable density = 8.60
Units less than 500 = .75 of a unit; .75 X 10 = 7.5 + I = 8.5 total density proposed i Turn the
8.6 dwelling unit allowed.
4
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
Lot Coverage: Proposed impervious areas including building footprints, patios, pathways, driveways,
decks is 9,386 SF of the 14,997 sf lot for a total lot coverage of 62.6 percent, this is less than the
maximum of 75 percent in the zone.
Parking: Thirteen parking spaces are required for the property. A two vehicle garage is proposed for the
primary residence, one compact space near the garage and directly adjacent to the walkway and stair
access to the unit above the primary residence is proposed. Seven spaces are provided in the ground floor
garages below units 1, 2, 3, and 4. Below and at the rear of the building along the southernmost alley, at
the southeast corner, additional parking spaces are provided. There is an ADA accessible garage below
Unit #7 providing the parking for the ADA adaptable Unit #8 (ground floor). Behind the portion of the
garage that serves as the van off-loading zone an additional surface parking space is provided that is
partially covered by the private balcony for Unit V. One on-street parking credit is requested for the unit
above the primary residence.
Thirteen bicycle parking spaces are required. Nine of the spaces are provided for within the oversized
garages. Two U-shaped bicycle racks will be placed below the private balcony area near the laundry
facility to accommodate the remaining four bicycle parking spaces.
Energy Usage: All of the units within the proposed development will be constructed to the Earth
Advantage and Energy Star Standards. A detailed analysis of the actual energy consumption has not been
determined but due to the high energy efficiency standards of the two programs the units will require
substantially less energy to operate than typical construction. The units will be high performance, using
the best practices and innovative construction technologies to gain efficiencies in design, energy systems,
and materials for increased energy efficiency, superior indoor air quality, lower water usage and
responsible use of natural resources.
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
There are no applicable overlay zones for the subject property.
C. Site Development and Design Standards.
The proposed site development complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of
part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
The proposed parking is directly below or adjacent to the residential dwellings. There are short travel
distances from the parking spaces to the entrances of the dwellings. The surface parking sp>~ c q1:e
visible from the windows of the units and open space areas. The layout and design does nor provide for•
vulnerable areas that are not visible from the units and openspace. The laundry facility area and trash /
recycle area open toward a unit and are visible from multiple units. Low level landscape lighting for the
paths will be provided throughout the open space. Each unit will have a shrouded yardlr Tht, that pr oxides4
down-lighting and security for the unit but will not directly illuminate adjacent p"ropen r, . 'Mere is d
screening hedge proposed along the east property line along the existing six foot fence as a buffer. No
plant materials are proposed that prevent surveillance of the open space or the semi-private patios and
balconies.
5
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
Building Orientation.
Building Orientation to Street. Dwelling units shall have their primary orientation toward a street.
Where residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, they shall have a primary entrance
opening toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via an approved walkway.
The primary residence on the site has its primary orientation towards West Hersey Street. A large front
porch that extends along the entire residence is proposed. A walk way is proposed to connect the
residence to the public sidewalk. The apartments along the west alley are more than 20 feet from West
Hersey and are generally oriented towards the project open space. The rear buildings single story units
adjacent to the alley intersection are each oriented towards an alley.
Limitation on Parking between Primary Entrance and Street. Automobile circulation or off-street parking
is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or
on one or both sides.
No parking is proposed between the building and the street. All parking is located to the side and rear.
Build-to Line. Where a new building is proposed in a zone that requires a build-to line or maximum front
setback yard, except as otherwise required for clear vision at intersections, the building shall comply
with the build-to line standard.
The front building is setback from the front property line the minimum front yard setback of eight feet to
the porch and 15-feet to the front facade. This is generally in keeping with the build-to line on the
adjacent properties.
Garages. Alleys and Shared Drives. Where a lot abuts a rear or side alley, or a shared driveway, including
flag drives, the garage or carport opening(s) for that dwelling shall orient to the alley or shared drive, as
applicable, and not a street.
Vehicular access to the site is from the alleys and not from the street.
Setback for Garage Opening Facing Street. The minimum setback for a garage (or carport) opening facing
a street is 20 feet. This provision does not apply to alleys.
The garages are setback from the alley the minimum side yard setback of six feet.
Building Materials. Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area.
Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors, which attract attention to the building or use, are
unacceptable.
The building materials are compatible with the surrounding area. The materials are mixture of modern
with classic elements. The units are proposed to have wood shingle style siding, stucco bases, metal
railings and composite shingles. The exact paint colors have not been selected but they Will not be bright
primary or neon colors.
Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage
for that portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E
A bio-swale parkrow is proposed. Street trees that are appropriate for the possible bio-swale parkrow,
overhead power and powerline and other infrastructure separation and setbacks need to be factored into
6
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC 49900 •
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
the design. The specific trees will be shown on the final landscaping plan submitted with the building
permit and irrigation plan.
Landscaping and Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be
provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4.
A common refuse area will be provided in a screened area below Unit #4 adjacent to the west alley
consistent with the City's standards for screening and to meet the needs ofRecology. The space will have
a five foot tall fence to obscure the view into the area from the public right-of-way.
18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening
The proposed landscaping plan and the irrigation plan that will be submitted with the building permits
complies with the Irrigation and Water Conserving Landscaping requirements of the City of Ashland and
the standards to meet Earth Advantage point requirements. The conceptual landscaping plan submitted
with the application has been designed so that plant coverage of 90 percent within five years of planting
is met. The hedge along the east property line will attain 50 percent coverage after two years. Two-inches
of mulch will be provided in all non-turf areas after planting. Turf areas are limited in order to comply
with the Earth Advantage landscaping standards. Raised garden beds are proposed behind the primary
residence for cultivation of vegetables and annual plants.
The landscaping in the Storm Water treatment facilities will be planted with water-tolerant species. The
proposed landscaping has been designed for crime prevention and defensible space to allow for natural
surveillance.
Two street trees will be provided for in the landscape parkrow adjacent to the West Hersey Street
frontage. The trees will be selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide. The street trees will be
two-inch caliper at the time of planting. Two trees are proposed because there is a power pole adjacent to
the alleyway that requires a ten foot separation and the alley itself requires a 25 foot setback for street
trees. The trees will also be lower growing trees due to the large overhead power lines along the frontage
of the parcel.
An evergreen hedge will be used as a vegetative screen in the five-foot buffer between the parking spaces
at the southeast corner of the parcel.
All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and replaced by the property owner.
Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal
18.4.5.030 Tree Protection: The trees along the east property line on the adjacent neighbor's property
are protected by a six-foot tall fence. No additional tree protection is proposed.
18.5.7 Tree Removal: 18.5.7.040 Approval Criteria
8. Tree Removal Permit.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site
Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part
18.3.10.
There are three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) on the property. These
trees are proposed for removal. There are three trees that are less than six-inches in diameter at breast
height and they are not subject to the tree ordinance.
7
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
The three trees proposed for removal are a seven inch DBH pine near the south property line and two
American elm trees. One elm is multi-stemmed with 15-inch DBH below the crotch of the four stems. This
tree is unsightly and does not appear to be in good health. The other Elm is approximately six inch DBH
and is also multi-stemmed.
The elm trees appear to be seedling starts from a larger Elm that was removed at some point in the past
and have never been maintained (see photo of original house). All trees are all in the area of proposed
construction.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
The removal of the three trees will not have impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, and
protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The property to the east that would be the most
impacted has 12 deciduous trees of their own on their side of the fence.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this
criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative
exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
There are a significant number of deciduous and confer trees within 200 feet of the property. The removal
of the three trees will not have a negative impact on the densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans
or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
The proposal complies with residential densities. The three trees have no significant environmental
benefits that will not be achieved in the near future with the proposed replacement trees.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
More than 20 trees are proposed to be planted throughout the project site. Due to the nature of the
development, high-density multi. family, no conifer trees are proposed. But the number of deciduous trees
is more than double the mitigation ratio. The tree shall be planted and maintained per the specifications
of the Recommended Street Tree Guide.
D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities,
and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainag(-,, 1) lived
'access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the
subject property.
Adequate cityfacilities exist to service the new units.
Water. There is an existing twelve inch water main in Hersey Street that serves a six inch main in the
West alley-There is also a six inch main at the South alley feeding the existing fire hydrant. The nine
8
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
apartment units will have a common meter installed at the south property line adjacent to the alley. The
existing 3/ inch meter will be used for the residences at the front of the parcel adjacent to West Hersey
Street.
Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight inch line in the public alley to the west of the site.
Electrical: There is underground power in the south alley. All electrical service on the site will be served
by two electrical transformers installed on the property.
Storm Sewer: There is a ten inch line in the west alley that feeds into a twelve inch line under Hersey
Street.
West Hersey Street is paved with curb, gutter and bike lane along the frontage of the property which
provides paved access to the development. Both alleys are paved providing paved access through the
development. There is an existing curb cut on Hersey Street that will be removed as part of the
development.
Afire hydrant is on the northwest side of the alley that intersects West Hersey Street.
The apartment buildings will likely have Fire Sprinklers installed.
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.
No exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards are proposed.
Exception to Street Standards:
An exception to the Street Standards is requested to match the existing sidewalk pattern on the subject
property as that to the south. There is a five foot parkrow and a five foot sidewalk.
18.4.6.020
B. Exceptions `
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
The request is being made to match the existing sidewalk pattern because there is a lack of p,!hlic right-
of-way. There is also public infrastructure in place that limits the amount of available ar4a jur sidewalks
and parkrow.
9
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the
following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling
along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking
along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
The quality of the street improvements and the comfort of the pedestrians will be enhanced providing a
safe walking route across two properties to the intersection of the alley. There are low pedestrian
volumes observed on this side of Hersey Street due to the inconsistent sidewalk pattern and the proposal
will provide a safe route.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
The exception is the minimum necessary - one foot less of sidewalk and two feet less of parkrow.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18.4.6.040.A.
The request for the exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards which
speak largely to improved roads with curb, gutter, parkrow and sidewalk. Hersey Street in the vicinity
lacks continuous sidewalk on the south side of the street. This will enhance the street for two properties
before pedestrians have to walk in the roadway again. It does appear that a five foot sidewalk and five-
foot parkrow could be accommodated on the majority of the properties on the south side of Hersey Street
if an LID was ever formed. Additionally, there is a continuous sidewalk on the north side of West Hersey
Street.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the applicant fords that the proposed development will be a welcome addition in the
neighborhood and the City of Ashland. The neighbors that have been contacted are in support of the
proposal. The units proposed are a desirable size for individuals and some couples.
There are ten small, energy efficient units combined with the generous site amenities from covered,
secure parking with storage area, laundry facilities, and the large, open and inviting common area which
will provide a unique community for the future tenants.
The property owner is also building their dream home on the site which will contribute to the West
Hersey Street street-scape and provide security and safety to the renters of the new apartments.
The applicant finds that all of the applicable City of Ashland requirements have been met or can be met
through the imposition of conditions of approval.
10
229 WEST HERSEY STREET
391E 09 CC #9900
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
Trees # 1, 2, & 3
A
v
Tree # 4
~ j
j } I
I
i
v~cvv vrplupcI Ly Flullf rwitrrvvcz5t wl lml ,vvnrng tv wutr,cQat.
Tree # 5
N
ELM,
a~i
f,
=f:
1 ry
r
~ k
i
r 7 i~ i,
t - I 't
I, ~ bi
b
r ~ ~ y, ~ 1 E a t cl
Tree #6
ELM
i
1
Tree # 9
ELM
`N-. 1
f~ j
r t
yea ~ ~
f
November 4, 2015
Re: 229 Hersey St home/apartment project
Derek,
The garage access at eight feet wide is the width of the opening into the nine foot wide
parking space. A standard single garage door is eight feet wide? a standard double garage
door is 16 feet wide. Providing eight foot drives allows for the provision of green space
between the garage openings to allow for plantings that will break up the mass of the
horizontal plane along the alley.
We would like to make this case to the Planning Commission. These are not standard
driveways nor are they surface parking spaces which are required to be nine feet wide in
order to accommodate space for vehicle existing and door swing area. We feel this is good
planning and design. There is enough room in the lot coverage allowance for it. If the
Commission requires the driveway to be nine-feet wide, we will pave the frontage along the
garages to accommodate.
Call me if you have any questions.
Regards
Amy
.
U Q'I C_? lll(E _l~L ~`~u ; t_ X11
111 L .iv
I r, _L0 Z-1-
r
..i~L S
sw l,, , 151 M/y7 /1y' 3g~ r 6m Il Yf~
C: sr. SUM"
73
i
~~pp, ppY^
fWYL~.. { ti'..l(~1 L~~~
0
y ~ ~
one • SCE •
L_-' t
a
....po.e..+..sooa.oo.•..owe..o..+o.e..+o•......p..0•+ao+o..oos..o.o•«oo•
,I _ : _ 3 r3 No
E e
Owe p; ` ~r ra c - -
let _a A~ a. t't
® Na d i~orles Chdc Sir -
..m..e....o...so.•.a...o.o.«a.o.o........a.•a+m•o...o....sm...o...•...«.
am WSW
® v
4
O Lb
tl ~ r ~n
1
/~.y I y W
«cvmm - -n5~~ , W
...o...a...♦ro•O..m..•sOss•OO+..s.ooo.....o..oooo.O.M....o.•..8.+•po.•so
7wi k" ma 1=0* =WO 9MD Mn P& s
• .
L 71~ flzht( €~'~t Ct 48
via= am%
S o
94 "W" rA #RM
3l NN fJ b At t tJ
Air=
4 fapoma~ww
« j
.
~ m
ti
BUILDING DIAGRAM AND OUTBUILDINGS
REMARKS 3
v~
• J d a• 1
TYPE QESCRIPTION RLcpL DEP
NO AREA COST gUAL REPL PHYS o,V 7SPAEGIATEO
9 USE POUND P 8A88 LUMP SUM INDE7C COST U8E % ARPLACe
FLOOR ROOF WALLS MISC D1MffiN910NL ADS 9AS TOT °b MOP 0000 % MLNT COST ,
OAA X
"As6 .1 . .1..._ a i
A OETas . T
~VR I YR sU1LT X j/..~ • S pL•~ I
..4_ X.. _..~w.•-_Jr .
X C
I .....x..... _ W ® ,
X
•
x
If
I X
! X
r)
....X
x
.
..X.__._
X
X_
._...X._..
e 7
A
• 19ORWATED RhPLACBMIINY COST---DUTAWLDINOs ANO OTNEA IHPAOYfMENT$ (TRANiffh TO VALUE DU)
bAhY~ j
s
f f-f yS 3, r 10
17' Val
a ,
~e_ pp A\
6 ~ p
AVY
c -A
Al '0
Mao
i
00
7
d
zlq
r
1
low
zoo
e ) ~ f /r y,r: f
144 fl-,~
1 r a j 7' a cZ
z ~
o
_ u v
1
C°S ~ N
¢n a_ m a c N "
I
$ ~ o
0
¢n o
m Lu7
ua o
LLI
m co
- ~ co ~
m min cv
i
_ all
_
C3 a,
vii O
o z w
M ~ ~ O
v.r !6 N ~y LL ~
N O ip6
i7I~ 0- 6L M v] N ua ® Z U
_
ir.. ~4 ~
W
AI?~,
Yr`
V ~ _
°i ~ M
~....~n
T r
~
p ~ , 1k _
_
~
1
~ `~4'f ~
~ ,l
Siv \
v a
ii
.
_
i i
m,.
~^z"~"'_
,o ~
- r
~
,r ; t.~,
E
r ra
F
/ - _
~a~
i
-
~y~.
5
i to
O a~4 ~
~ - ~ uAP
r
t
Y
M H
M _ O m
'K,
ypNpqR;~(f~
_ ..ut~Ka d2
IM"
o~
~ r.
'Rp '
T_
- - - co
c~LS v
dLl
LLJ
\ . _ z'
LIJ
to
LAJ t^
F 1
sand
r
~ ' sat ~ _ _
6 I m
a I r Q X
c6y w ° O
~--tea 1 z
I C7 ~ ~ a o
J O
w L z L z
i ssa _ aae j n i_ p
O I r G I co
II_ ~ ~ c w
O 00
00
d
do NDVS
i~ ~!a~ )d01 it I I O
CO I. I
R
a
Ln Lm
7 ~ O
I c~ - 1 2
SS
~ k I =~y ~ I O f~ J i M
J `t w
Q _ i o
_ t "ail- I I N
III -0- f--
I ~~r N z - 1 r
098L-- - '.i I ~ x w - ~p>
I I da _ 1 i _
z'
_ _ fl >
o _
c, = q o 'C7 T >15:0
u
al
1 v ja
- t 01
H > Y
z_
I N 0m II
7 ,v o~ Y g0 ~O c
i
_ L
J:
C9 U
S•a~ ~
a
f- a
~ I
a
u.
to
u
77- 7
- y
®a L.L9
t,
L.Lj
® C 9
rv-_
ry-N
L j- O
® LU
- - -
® Ln
x e Lu
.6
o V
co
- 8®W _
~ N
~I
?a
i J
- C A 1.
A 0 R
' - - Li-
LW
rv-
ye9
- ® W..
L&J
ii
LU
LU
i
.
6 A 8
eae
6.0'8
i
i~
c
LL J
_ 9 a ID
LLJ
rN-
YDS.
ILI,
it I1 < -
II III ~I ,
R BEE
o
0 II Q
I n ~
III en
d
i~lll
III = -
,I WI -
(I~
II - ~
i
II ❑ 6
V)
II
II 8 1
i _
II I
II I
iI ~ I p
- '1
it
a,
FE
FEE
I I
I
I I
II it
I
II - III
FR = II
.11
II - I
'nil
i i
I ~ ® I I 111 =
FR
~o I III I
I r 1 I I~ ~ ~ `o
- <
(13 FH II I IIIIII I
LLJ
I _ ~I11 cn
IL
II
II III
II III
II I~ z
o !I
II III
LLJ
II III - ~ II
II III ~ it
III - II ~
I _ ~~II o
I
(n ~ II n
II I ~ ~
IIII ~ ~ s LLI
I I`~' I U)
III
I I
I I M-1 . 1 1 1 1
I1
- ~I6II
LA El EIA
it
® i °
II I o
- ® I
I I
I id
_ _ ~'il! I I o
I I ~ `I I b ~
II 'III
II
III °
I
II II II
I I
MTMTM
®
10-
I
I, , I I I f
JI o
I ,,,L b
I
I
M
O
N
II ~ ;II
II
II - II
II ° ~i~ LI II 0 ~'~II o
I I ~ ~ I I it I I
I I 'i I I
10
II - II ill
I I
I I ~ ~ I I h 'I I I
_ ~ ~ ~ II ~ II'If
d91J A7J O7T"d 1J3/YS a< LEI I I I V
\ _ _ 2l3LbA1~ZLX3 _ _
_ QS~d X3
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- m-
I- \ Z
lly.
! aZ Do
I
Z) ® p
Z U
~SSNdY -1~ - 0m J
0 \ Z kn
Z
! I ~0 \ 0 >X
-v
W \ W
u~
! Z~
\ \ rn = UO
W
! W 0 \ \ ^1t i ~2 ~U N
TH
- o , lg~e Jo yr~ W
giilt
w ® ! Z ZQ o c
! p Z e2V2e m~
g, -rj
Z N d a' ~m~` a ~tWO W~ a
t w J
~ d Z y?6vU G Z~~ ti~2 2Oy
~998d \ 1,U ®3WLv~i WC~.O Zmm C~
- W a o~ 0z~ 00 O O
LLI
o ?
o Z
05 10
! CL J
\ 00 co
/ a r- _
0
-
u
FU \
LU
CJ 93~ Z F-
! ca\ > \ ® w Q Z z
h \ W w C7 E w z
Z 0 0 U
i ® \ ®z \
;io
t.
.s a'.
- ~'LZt X.3 -
MtZ4~Q -
- - - - -
T
v. a$
J w C7
~Z QJ
® ® Dm
LLI
O
.U Z~ 0U
i >
. W R Q W
W
® N Q J ti
5C LJ
x.. I-z C)
Q) LL.
' LLJ Ed
I `1 ~ QOQWO~
W
O V
Lu z CL>
® z Ed 3
~UO~
l
CL e
y^ ELT- CL Ln
Lu
CL W
-,our--
U
U Z
0 In
71
_ Wn U
- - Z_
Q Z w
co
F Z
• p 0 C7 E Q ti
p; 0 -j >w 'W
Z Z 3: cWi~ W
Q E Lu f Q
u, tJZ Q Q Q
Lu Q
Lu.
_ QQ L ~Q zQ Z
o
W
®
oo ®
LLJ Z zLn~zNz z(~
L z ° m ® u~i O O O O P:0
O O O
IL a
LU E' X ce Or- X
LU CL CL LLI CL CL CL
Q
0
U U U U U U U U
_ o d o m m d o d
_
N
dd _ m a a ¢ a a a a ¢ ¢ a
\ t./ o 0
o' 01 m O on o z ° zw m3 x0w
Q LL! wuw' ¢°1_ew Zz oS4 zw wr C9
9 JQ 0 °w Q moo Q> <UQ 0 02 a? ~F w
co U m ow U xGG ¢s g°l wm a° 4¢
a <`.i.. CO m G-`-ggn zog Za' z~G ~-3 Ga =w u~ W 5i
ut¢ GGG z ® -~a z G 2¢ G
ao om r° U
- 9. r amG xn n~o ~w G
;r
~6 0 a ` o 0 0 0 o O Z
J3~1 Qd m ® m a➢ Q n
W
Oa O \ [ u ID
co
_ \ r' m CJ N N N N W-
e G
' - ^ - m ® ¢ O z
a 5 Y w5
L!! yw Gx G U ¢3
-0" a-0~ S~D-0 _ - Z w w ma ¢I"~ nw zw'~ z Iw w
D pC D a D ID z¢ ¢
4L2 Z J ~ °
n ¢
~t~-sD a'~ _ - z a 0 °
z° o» mw Q ==w
° a
\ U m _
LL,
r
y
r I
a r ID y '`i m N co m m 0) m
i 11
~ t0 C c7 W fn
LIJ
0 3
L
o X - _ TY 0 Z Y
LL Q a O 0. 0
1 ¢ Y G
G Z U m O O Q
aim - D! LU O m Y w a- m
\ Q ¢ W w w
~`i - J ul
Z Z tOii z 7.
a >vv - s - 1 m O 1-- O D - -
Q - Q U a o F> Z z
LL, g
N m
V'S
to!
_ N
v W z
o - o
a
w co
IN ' ID iL V I Q Y m w --z
z S.
to
O
LLI
0 L) 03
° m z "
w O O w t- " O
1 0 n = 3 a m CO 0 + b
m W
oz
`
w -
oam
o w
a
6 0
I w 3
mm z m m
o - _ W- z
~ W
_ pW F9
IL IL z W M
-~m _ Ir
' ID,~o :3 ~U
}_mQ
U ~ JI
p_ w
w
:.wpm
mare - .'m
=ww
aa-M
rt n z
_ J =
MUU
i
W- mod
¢2 - - w¢ - Ir¢
~UU ~ xo 090
- '...I J z I--------
m~ 1
a
=1 0
aiw
O
00 w r
z ~o
Oz 22
C7 r 0_
Z
Y m
-.7Z
LL
Z-
zZC 3w Um
-rLLLu
m W
w
w m
Z V k H
Z
LL
1 W
o ww
zo
jz~¢ z~r wo
8
m
- o
- oo - ..10 Xpw
m¢_
Xo ~m
31 w
>w
<U IHU
b C -:t .az a a~ F.. < U a z >a 2yN~. ac 0 >.0~
(n0 x.;,,?~ Q.xh ~rox az2sS_y zs zh c.< s FF.+^~5x-tG~g ,g
4 zo >,F _ °z~ $F. O as~c E ~^S o e O J
Y.'C Vya do.~ y~3 cS w ~a <~ai ? ~ i h D a j W (Sl~~ J
-.s`m x ~ a ~ y~_.~Fy t.Faszza.., { .t <.-x~f H zha
tm < ;t ..1 x F< x z - R' a c ~ x z _ 5 A z c< ~~5,. S€ > O 0
w -6 ` _
Q J
3 0 ozZ T i( I / y v y r- pao~ c y> y~`G 3~ y w
axt~z" a~z age Q
aQ l~ sR'~Oa G9 c^yi¢a ~y<t ~a ~ UI Q.
56
a_
y a O I I ~-xs, ~ .t ga~
h y l -1J Q
E I , ► ~ _ ~a~y
1 $ 9- f -L S _ 9 S U 9 H I S? AA
uw3,^aary'rts s - - ~ '
r as tt xmrv naow.z,
dds
.W'91 - .7 ss zsxv s ~i -
IT
J - I Al
c L4
(a m
3 N s. N R
u m V Cl ?
+ N " -a J a \ y \ \ ~I J
s '6 m C a N C I~ t y -h _ -
4_ CU
p 0 U 1 Q ow°n,
3 :'a. O O N N O
p 4-1 y O p L Oi
s a E ao w
\
v Q V £ O D 114
? O V n i
-a O 4- ca v O 4 -osvi_ \ \ CC
\ \
E N y~ Y U to ZS ` \ \ ti i
D ~ II
N S n QOj N II a (n O I I\
v O ar x Q a \
1 c dD to
_ 3 o to tn
a~ L \
sang
N1dM34IS U zseL
o ~E O • ~
LL
f aaa `L
0
_ H]NOd c a a0 0
a I- --s m I s
x
~m o
a ` LL
c~ I
'I~~ I Q u z .1 I K m
S58L W 3 N W ® O< °
00
O Ox O
O
771
o
(
o YI-
_ - .U-.S58L Y I go ~Im
I I~ '~aoaol Vd , O
¢ ~O
16n Lu
e ' O
N I ' LO
>s I z I _d 0 W I SSB~
spa v
} o_ w
I O
' Q
W~~ z a ' M
r o 1
G N
¢e=- ¢P6 ~7 a ' O
! Iau a I ' N
w
~ m v a
o a
w z
o
zb ~ ~a ~ OF
O
4 8o in N Z=
R2 u \J
098L R2
6'~ z ~ m I I I a
U ~ ~a
---=0 o
3 FTI g
H
_ ~s I I Z
1 I - z O ama I O
0~-o r I I WY
O J NZ7 TSw ~O~' f~c I W C
y m l ~ j~0 >F
g` d~ 9 ~Iv~ z o
ma 098G m z m } O LL
~ Q
O LL
2
~ I' I m IS Z I - p p
w oa I•- - z o
D] Nom -
V) a ~ L
- 6 >
?
OF ® ~z f
- r OWI o Q m _
m
w W a
o
r
@ Z Y ~ N 1 ~ Z.
e ~ >
Z a M
Q I Y ; m 9 ~Q
Ca -YL ~ vui O
• _ I K I m H b
LLJ
® do"k, 5 Z 5 'v
l< 50
® pu Y ® t- w d
Ot J1 ® 098x. Roo
~ cs N
J of m d o oz y~r Z o II
„i r - ~ti o m + v z< m
C U
43?13-1NNIildS I 04 °c N
"b5 ¢ I 38 Ol ONIM SIHl I - d~a N Vo <Q
u T O n
F7, ID C4 z 0
O y, z ~
ca9 fi C~% o 0Z' ~5
:5 o
N 03 00
d V
oN po
~J 5 MS A VMS MIS
~
ti
October 28, 2015
RW Signature Properties, LLC
Attn: Randall Wallace
111 Coolidge St.
Ashland, OR 97520
I
i
RE: Incompleteness Determination for PA-2015-01856
229 W. Hersey St.
Dear Mr. Wallace,
After reviewing the September 29, 2015 application submittal requesting Site Review to develop 11
multi-family residential units for the property at 229 West Hersey Street, I have determined that the
application is incomplete. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with state law
(ORS 227.178), and cannot be further processed until the missing information listed below is turned in.
Historic District Overlay Issues - The subject property is located within the boundaries of the
'Skidmore Academy' National Register Historic District, and as such is within the Historic District
Overlay as defined in AMC 18.3.12.050.A. I've attached a copy of the adopted "Historic Districts"
map with your property identified as well as the National Register listing's description of the
property. Because the property is within the Historic District Overlay the application will need to
address the following requirements which apply within the Historic District Overlay:
o Setbacks - For R-2 and R-3 zoned properties within the Historic District Overlay, the
minimum front yard setback is 20 feet as detailed in AMC 18.2.5.030.A (see "Footnote 5").
The illustrated 15-foot setback does not comply, and would need to be modified or a
Variance requested.
o Maximum Permitted Floor Area - Within the Historic District Overlay, new structures and
additions are required to Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) Standards as detailed in
AMC 18.2.5.070. Preliminary staff calculations are that a 14,997.95 square foot lot would
have an "Adjustment Factor" of 0.57 and a "Floor Area Ratio" of 0.58, yielding an outright
permitted MPFA of 4,958.32 square feet of living space and potential living space. (With a
Conditional Use Permit, the MPFA could be exceeded by up to 25 percent which could allow
up to 6,197.90 square feet.) To be deemed complete, the application will need to
demonstrate compliance with the MPFA.
o Historic District Standards - Because the property is within the Historic District Overlay, it is
subject to the Historic District Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 and these would need to be
addressed in the application.
Parking Space and Back-Up Area Dimensions - Not all parking spaces are fully depicted, and from
the detail provided it is unclear that all parking provided meets the dimensional standards of the
Land Use Ordinance. Compact spaces are required to be a minimum of eight feet by 16 feet with a
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 =y
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 I
wmmashfand.or.os derek.seversoi - Lc
22-foot clear back-up area behind, for a total dimension of 38 feet from the front of the space to the
end of the back-up area. Space #10 scales out to only 34 feet from the front of the space to the
opposite side of the alley. Full-sized spaces are required to be a minimum of nine feet by 18 feet
with a 22-foot clear back-up area behind, for a total dimension of 40 feet from the front of the space
to the end of the back-up area. Space #7 scales to only 36 feet from the front of the space to the
opposite side of the alley. The other spaces within the garages are not clearly illustrated, although
the driveways shown to standard spaces are only eight feet in width where a minimum nine feet is
required. To be deemed complete, the plans will need to demonstrate that all spaces meet the
dimensional requirements of the ordinance and provide adequate back-up area.
Functionality of Recreation Area - Projects subject to Site Design Review require that a minimum of
eight percent of the lot be provided in recreation area, with a density bonus of up to ten percent
available for additional recreation area provided beyond this minimum requirement. AMC
18.4.2.03O.H.2 notes that "areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not
provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this (recreation area)
requirement." The areas shown as open space which are a dry stream bed, a retention pond basin, and
areas planted in ajuga, lavender or other ground covers or shrubs not suited to human recreational use
could not be counted toward the recreation area requirement or density bonus, and either the treatment
of these areas or their inclusion as recreation area will need to be revised for the application to be
deemed complete.
Tree Inventory/Tree Protection - While the narrative provided notes that all trees on the property
are to be removed and no tree protection beyond that provided by existing fencing is proposed for
trees on neighboring properties, a plan detailing the location of the trees on the property proposed
for removal and trees on adjacent property within 15 feet of the property line along with details of
their species and condition is required to enable the Tree Commission and Planning Commission to
fully review the request for compliance with standards and assess whether tree removal is merited
and whether additional protective measures are necessary.
Signed Zoning Permit Application - AMC 18.5.1.060.A.1 requires that a signed application form be
provided for the application to be deemed complete. The application form provided has not been
signed; I've provided a copy here for signature.
To continue review of your application, you must either:
1. Submit all of the missing information listed above;
2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division
written notice that the remaining information will not be provided; or
3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no additional
information will be provided.
Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the original
application submittal date of September 29, 2015 will result in your application being deemed void.
The application will be deemed void if the additional information is not submitted by March 27,
2016. Planning staff will expedite review of the requested materials once they are received.
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
W - derek,sev Sc i.ar.us
I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Applicant's Statement of Completeness". Please review the
enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting.
Your application cannot be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness
form is completed and received by the City of Ashland Planning Division. If you have
questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (541) 552-2040 or via e-mail to
(I of°.us .
Regards,
Derek Severson, Assoeiate Planner r
i
Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness
c'
Cc: File; Rogue Planning
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 L,
www,ashland.or.us derek.seaerso, a= _ s
I'
Date Received
(to be completed by staff)
Applicant's Statement of Completeness
(To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division)
Re: PA-2015-01856, 229 West Hersey Street
Date Application Expires: March 27, 2016
Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, 1, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant,
elects one of the three options below by initialing:
( ) 1. Submit All of the Missing Information
(Initial !f circled)
I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter.
Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this
additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete.
I understand that this 30-day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my
opportunity to submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still
incomplete after the second review. (Note: the 120-day period for the City of Ashland's final
determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional review
for completeness period is completed)
Check if desired
❑ I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review
of the information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code
criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff to
be incomplete.
I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based
upon the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If
material information is missing fiom the application, the application will fail to meet the
burden of showing that all criteria are met, and the application will be denied.
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
)ryas derek seversor -,a.
i
2. Submit Some of the Requested Information:
(111ilial it eleclcd) Decline to Provide Other Information
I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other information
requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all
information the City of Ashland believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that
the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended.
( 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information
(Inilial ifc/cc/ed)
I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development
Department may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or
recommended.
Signed and Acknowledged'
(Applicant or Applicant's Agent)
Date
Return to:
City of Ashland, Planning Division
Attn: Derek Severson, Associate Planner
% 20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
l
i
Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 1\J
www,ashland.ar.us derek,severson@,ashiand.or.us
( L
NIPS Form 10-900-A OMB Appr A No. 1024-0018 (8-86)
i
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register Historic
Continuation
Section Number: 7 Page: 25 Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR
53.0
FREEMAN, MARY & ANDREW HOUSE 1900c
261 HERSEY ST W 391E05DA 600
Other: Vernacular [L-House] Historic Contributing
On property owned by Abel Helman, this house is dated c1900 by the Assessor and is clearly in place by
1907 according to Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of the area. Sometime prior to 1911 the house was
purchased by Mary R. G. Freeman. (JCD 95:374) The 1910 Census reports Mrs. Freeman, her
husband Andrew, and the couple's seven children all living at this site. Mr. Freeman listed his
occupation as a building contractor. As late as 1920 Mrs. Freeman, by then a widow, was still living on
the property. In 1945 Ted R. and Hilda L. Kinney purchased the large parcel and in subsequent years
several partitions reduced the original lot in scale to its present configuration. The property is now used
as a bed and breakfast, operated under the name Arden Forest Inn.
The Freeman House is a large one and one-half story dwelling with a gable roof over the main ell,
augmented by an inset front porch. A large addition substantially augmented the structure to the west
as part of the change to traveler's accommodation use. While modified and enlarged, the Freeman
House retains essential integrity in materials, setting and feeling, with the addition sufficiently
subservient in design to the original structure, allowing it to demonstrate sufficient integrity to the
original period of construction.
54.0
VACANT LOT 0
229 HERSEY ST 391E05DA 700
Not Applicable , Vacant
In the 1940s the house on this lot was owned by James H, and Fredyce Burr and later owners included
James Holcomb, who resided here at least from 1964-1977 according to city directories. The structure
was demolished in 1997. (City of Ashland Permit 9706081)
55.0
SETTLES, L. H. HOUSE 1895c
223 HERSEY ST 391E05DA 800
Other: Vernacular [I-House) Historic Contributing
Dated at 1895 by the County Assessor, this house definitely standing by 1911 when Sanborn Fire
Insurance first documented this portion of Ashland. L. H. Settles, (possibly Henry L. Settles)
purchased the property in the late 19`h century and construction may be connected to that transfer.
(JCD 45:7) By 1920 Settles had divided the parcel into the present configuration and this dwelling had
been sold to William S. Stennett, who owned several rental properties in this part of Ashland. In 1945
the house was owned by Harry and Flora Wimer, who lived next door. (JCD 263:584)
The Settles House is small vernacular volume with a gable roof and projecting shed porch on the front
elevation. The house retains very early 2/2 vernacular-type double hung windows, cornerboards, siding,
v W `_'^L (U mp i5 ao>tabI r- ~I r I I IBS '
vJ I.L vI Z`a
L
r-~y-~.7IA I
M1 ` I ~ i / ~ I ! AV Wlb
C ~ - y T - ~ I I I Alb NiVI NnOW
w % ~I I I I I/ 1r\
E- 0
1 00
1 ^~iNnoWN r ~ yi
~I q L
~ I ~-r
I I : r 11 ',~r~¢ AIL\:f~ a to
jjL
- rr -
~~QgAil-
ILI
r.
I
7
/y„ ~u NO6NMi'fllh~
Tf"
14-
ILI FE"
\ ti ~ cL~1
1-7
i
~5;,~~,
o-g-
Lj-
Tv,~ i ,
CL
77
AI/~~" \ /
-77 m 1 i r✓ ~ ~ ` ~ i ; rn~ ~ d'~'Cr~h / / / V ~ ~--.-tee-~
' ~!1 11~-~~ U ~1~4T~`~ 3.~~~/~ V~ ~~~\'\w~'~ V / / I~ ~.-J L1 T
Ley
ILI IF
jrs~
L-!
Y.
111::E1 L~-I" 1 J jlt'~j-! / C 11'
ll i/~ I ~I
~1nN S3H~ ~t /
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
r £ 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE #
-AS H LP►N D 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT -
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? 0 YES ❑ NO
Street Address
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E Tax Lot(s)
Zoning Comp Plan Designation -
APPLICANT
Name Phone E-Mail
Address _ City - Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER
Title Vame Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name _ Phone E-Mail
rat ~ . -
Address J 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. 1 further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removgd t mp se. If 1 av y doubts am advised to seek competent profession dvice and assistance.
I'A
V
A Iicant s Si nature Dat
As owner of the property involved in this reque have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner
P Operty Ow 's S' nat (required) D to
[To be completed by City Staff)
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
OVER
G:\comm-dev\planning\Foms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc
t
ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
❑ APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner.
❑ FINDINGS OF FACT - Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or
findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include
information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document,
❑ 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11"x17", Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape
details, (Optional -1 additional large set of plans, 2'x3', to use in meetings)
❑ FEE (Check, Charge or Cash)
❑ LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) - Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall
provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps;
• Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and
construction of the project; and
• The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued.
NOTE:
• Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis.
• Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property k
owner(s), all required materials and full payment.
• All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance
with ORS 227.178.
• The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission
meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which
meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St).
• A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns,
• If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions.
Wcomm-dev\planning\Forms & HmdoutsVoning Pem* Application.doc
Job Address: 229 W HERSEY ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
C
A Owner's Name: RW SIGNATURE PROPERTIES 0 Phone:
P Customer 08507 N State Lic No:
P RW SIGNATURE PROPERTIES T City Lic No:
L Applicant: 111 COOLIDGE ST R
I Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: T Address:
IN Applied: 09/29/2015 O
T Issued:
Expires: 03/27/2016 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: 391 E05DA700 City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Type 2 site review for 11 Multi family units
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
Residential Site Review 3,528.00
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 C I Y Y F
SH LAN
~
51
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following:
Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
(180 days),
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 3,528.00 $ 3,528.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 3,528.00
Fees Paid: $ 3,528.00
Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY F
-ASHLANU