Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCentral_128_PA-2017-01294 Ca -f y F ASHLAND November 3, 2017 Notice of Final Decision On November 3, 2017, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA- 2017-01294 Subject Property: 128 Central Avenue Applicant: Robert Baldwin/Rogue Planning & Development Services Description: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two units. The proposal has been revised to add five units at the rear of the property and one unit above the reconstructed garage at the front of the property. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by 21 percent (985 square feet) and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391E 04CC; TAX LOT: 4500. The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12t1i day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winbum Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Maria Harris in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-48B-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 AsWand, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ivwi ash€and.or.us F&A SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice) E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.6, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after the City mails the notice of decision. F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below. 1. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 1 Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailing the notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter. 3. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to tine decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. 4. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that all error occurred crucial to tine decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny tine reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following: 1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision. a. The applicant or owner of the subject property. b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.B. c. Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the City by the specified deadline, 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 185.1.050.G.1, above, may appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain. i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision. ii. A statement demonstrating the person tiling the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal, iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public continent period. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or• considered. 3. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Connnnissionn. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading tip to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments, The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. 4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type II public hearing procedures, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision oil an appeal is final the date the City mails tine adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97524 TTY: 800 735-2900 - w%yw.asJilaE►d.ok'.us ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01294 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 128 Central Ave. OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert Baldwin/Rogue Planning and Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family residential development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two dwelling units. The proposal is to construct six new dwelling units with five -units located at the rear of the property and one unit above the reconstructed garage at the front of the property. The application also includes a request for a Variance to reduce the building separation requirement by 1.75 feet, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area by 21 percent (985 square feet) and a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees that are six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R- 3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E04CC; TAX LOT: 4500. SUBMITTAL DATE: July 19, 2017 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: August 18, 2017 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: November 3, 2017 DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.): November 15, 2017 FINAL DECISION DATE: November 16, 2017 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: May 16, 2019 DECISION The proposal is a request to construct six new residential dwelling units at the property located at 128 Central Ave. The proposal includes five new units located at the rear of the property and one unit above the reconstructed garage at the front of the property. The application also includes a request for and a Variance to reduce the building separation requirement by 1.75 feet, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area by 21 percent (985 square feet) and a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. The property is located in the Multiple- Family High Density Residential Zone (R-3) and Historic District Overlay. The subject property is located on the north side of Central Ave. between Laruel and Helman streets. The surrounding neighborhood is compfised of a mix of single-family homes, properties with multiple residential units and travelers' accommodations. The property is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District and many of the homes in the neighborhood are designated as historic contributing structures. The subject property as well as the area to the north and east are zoned Multiple-Family High Density Residential (R-3). The area to the south of the property is the intersection of several zones including R-3, Multiple-Family Low Density Residential (R-2) and Commercial (C-1). The area east of Hersey is zoned Employment (E-1). There is a historic home situated on the front of the property. The City of Ashland's historic resources PA-2017-01294 128 Cajitral Ave./inh Page I identifies the home as the James W. Dunkin house built circa 1895. The home is identified as historic contributing and a modest Queen Anne style. One notable feature is the large wrap around porch supported by turned porch posts. According to the application, the home is divided into two dwelling units. The historic home is a two-story structure. A one-story garage is located to the west of the historic honk and is estimated to have been added to the property in the 1960's. The rear yard behind the home is relatively large at approximately 120' deep. The rear yard is vacant and includes most of the trees on the property. The proposed dwelling units range in size from 488 to 495 square feet. Three units are attached in a triplex structure and are located on the east side of the property (units C, D and E). One of the triplex cottages is oriented to the alley and the two interior units face the interior open space. Two detached cottages are located on the western side of the site with one facing the alley and the other facing the interior open space (units A and B). The sixth unit is located above the reconstructed garage (unit F). The property slopes approximately six percent dowrrlrill to the north and includes a variety of nature trees throughout the property. The tree inventory submitted with the application indicates 14 trees over six- inches diameter at breast height (dbh) located on the subject property or very near the property line. A driveway on the Central Ave. frontage provides vehicular access to the front of the property and the existing garage. The proposal is to maintain the driveway on Central Ave. to provide access to the reconstructed garage. The property also has access from an alley located at the rear of the property. The alley system connects Laurel and Heiman streets. There is also an alley in the middle of the block that connects VanNess Ave. and Central Ave. creating four access points for the block. The alley at the rear of the property that connects Laurel and Hehnan streets is a 16-foot right-of-way and the unpaved surface that ranges from nine to 12 feet in width. The proposal is to add six paved parking spaces at the rear of the property including an accessible space and to pave the alley from Heiman St. to the western property line. The application is required to meet the approval criteria for Site Design Review in AMC 18.5.2.050 for the development of multiple residential dwelling units on one lot. The proposal is subject to the site development and design standards for residential development in AMC 18.4.2.030 and the Historic District Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050.B. The proposed development complies with all of the applicable provisions of the R-3 zone, except that a Variance is requested to reduce the building separation requirement between the existing historic home and the reconstructed garage structure. The density of the property 7.5 dwelling units and the proposed density is 6.5 units. Units that are less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area count as .75 of a runt for purposes of density calculations in accordance with AMC 18.2.5.080.B.3. As a result, the six new units is calculated at 4.5 units (.75 x 6 units). Along with the two existing units, the resulting density is 6.5 dwelling units. The proposal meets the yard requirements and lot coverage for the R-3 zone. The reconstructed garage is 20 feet from the front property line and the new cottages at the rear of the property are more than 30 feet from the rear property line which exceeds the ten-foot rear yard requirement for a one-story structure. All PA-2017-01294 128 Central Avedinh Page 2 of the side yards meet the minimum requirement of six feet. According to the application, the existing and proposed structures and paving will cover 55 percent of the lot which is below the maximum of 75 percent that is allowed for the R-3 zone. The proposal also demonstrates compliance with the required solar setback with approximately 50 feet provided to the north of the cottages facing the alley which exceeds the required 24.25 feet. A building separation of half of the height of the tallest building with a maximum of 12 feet required is required between existing and proposed structures in accordance with AMC 18.2.5.030.A. The five cottages at the rear of the property meet the building separation requirement because the new structures are located 12 feet from the existing historic home and are situated with 12 feet between the triplex and the two detached cottages to the west. According to the application materials, the existing garage is located 9.9 feet from the historic home and the proposed reconstructed garage is located 9.5 feet from the home. The application materials describe the historic home as the taller building and 22.5 feet in height. As a result, the reconstructed garage is required to be separated from the historic home by 11.25 feet. A Variance is requested to reduce the distance between the reconstructed garage and historic home by 1.75 feet. The Variance is necessitated by the significant trees on the property. Specifically, the preservation of a 30-inch Deodar cedar (41 on tree inventory) and 26-inch ponderosa pine (#5) located near the west property line and an 18-inch Walnut (#3) located behind the home influenced the placement of the new structures, Originally, the applicant proposed six dwelling units in two triplex structures at the rear of the property. However, the western triplex required the removal of the 26-inch Ponderosa pine. In response to neighborhood, Tree Commission and Historic Commission comments regarding preservation of trees, the applicant revised the proposal by moving one of the three units in the western triplex to above the garage. In addition, the placement of the existing historic home reduces the available space between the home and the west property line for the reconstructed garage structure, The home has a fairly generous side yard to the east ranging from eight to ten feet. The requested Variance is the minimum necessary to address saving the significant trees and the historic home. The proposed reconstructed garage is 24 feet in width which is common width for a two-car garage. With a modest footprint and the minimum six feet side yard to the west of the reconstructed garage, there isn't available space to shift the reconstructed garage further from the historic home. The benefits of the proposal are six dwelling units less than 500 square feet in a development with a variety of open spaces that preserves the historic contributing home and significant trees on the property. Additionally, the proposed density of 6.5 units is below the allowed density of 7.5 units. The need for the Variance is not self-imposed as the historic home placement dates back to 1895 and the trees on the property predate the applicant's ownership of the property. According to the application, the proposal includes 1,400 square feet of open space for recreational use by tenants which exceeds the eight percent of the total lot area or 1,312 square feet is required. The outdoor space includes several lawn areas in front of and between the cottages. In addition, the primary residence has a large wrap around porch and each of the six new dwelling units include a covered porch ranging from 48 to 60 square feet in size. The proposed development requires ten vehicle parking spaces in accordance with AMC 18.4.3.040 and PA-2017-01294 128 Central Ave./nih Page 3 ten sheltered bicycle parking spaces in accordance with AMC 18.4.3.070. The proposal is to provide six vehicle parking spaces located at the rear of the property and two spaces in the reconstructed garage. The application uses two on-street parking spaces for the development. AMC 18.4.3.060.A allows one off- street parking space credit for 22 feet of uninterrupted curb line adjacent to the property frontage. The subject property has over 50 feet of uninterrupted curb line adjacent to the property frontage and therefore meets the requirement for two off-street parking credits. The application indicates six bicycle parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the property and fora spaces in the reconstructed garage or on the porch with a "Cyloc" rack. It is unclear whether the dimensional requirements and type of rack referenced in the application for the garage and porch meet the Bicycle Parking Design Standards in AMC 18.4.3.070.1 and J. A condition is added requiring that the bicycle parking specifications are provided with the building permit submittals and shall meet the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.070.1 and J. The Site Design Review approval criteria require that the public facilities including water, sewer, electricity and storm drainage will be provided to serve the development. In addition, adequate transportation and paved access is required to serve the property. The site is served by city facilities including water in Central Ave. and sanitary sewer and electric in the alley at the rear of the property. The storm drainage from the subject property and proposed development will be collected and connected to a storm drain line that will be installed in the alley and directed to Hehnarr St. Central Ave. provides pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access to the property. The alley at the rear of the property provides vehicular access to the units located at the rear of the property. The City of Ashland street standards require the alley to be 12 feet in width and paved. Additionally, the Ashland Public Works Department has indicated a need to pave the alley because of the storm drain line that will be installed in the alley. The application indicates that the alley will be paved by the applicant from Helman St. to Central Ave. The proposed development is also subject to the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) for the historic district. The subject property is 16,400 square feet in size which would allow 4,605 square feet of floor area for the proposed development in accordance with AMC 18.2.5.070. According to the application, the proposal includes 5,590 square feet of floor area or 985 square feet more than is permitted outright. As a result, the application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area by 21 percent. The reconstructed garage structure is included in the square footage for the maximurn permitted floor area because of the proximity to the historic home. A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the MPFA requires the application demonstrate compliance with the Historic District Design Standards. As discussed earlier, the proposed development complies with the standards in the zoning district, adequate public facilities are in place to serve the proposed development and pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access are provided by Central Ave. and the alley located at the rear of the property. The target use of the use of the zone is 7.5 residential dwelling units and the proposal is to develop a total of 6.5 units. Given that the proposed development is a lower residential density than the target use, there is no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area in comparison to the target use of the property. The final approval criteria for the Conditional Use Permit to exceed the MPFA is compliance with the Historic District Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050.B as detailed below. The majority of homes orr Central Ave. from Laurel to Helman are designated as historic contributing structures on the City of PA-2017-0I294 l28 Ceiitral Ave.hiih Page 4 Ashland historic inventory. The hones range in date from in the late 1800's, early 1900's and 1940's. The area includes a variety of heights, sizes and architectural styles including hones such as one-story hipped roof cottages, one and a half story 20 Century Antrican Bungalows and larger two-story Vernacular homes with Queen Anne elements. New buildings are required to be of a height within the range of historic building heights in the vicinity, of a scale to conform with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity, comprised of small varied masses consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity and a form that is similar to historic buildings in the vicinity (AMC 18.4.2.050.8.2-4). In terms of height, scale, massing and forni, the five proposed units at the rear of the property are similar to the buildings in vicinity. The surrounding area is comprised of accessory buildings and detached dwelling units located at the rear of lots. Accessory buildings are required to be placed behind the primary historic building (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.13) and new buildings are required to be a height within the range of historic building heights on and across the street (18.4.2.050.B.2). The proposed reconstructed garage is a two-story structure. The proposal is to locate the reconstructed garage at the same setback from front property line as the historic home. The revised application materials submitted on September 28, 2017 indicates the overall height to the peak of the roof of the reconstructed garage at slightly under 28 feet. The application does not include information on the overall height of the historic home but identifies the average height as 22.5 feet. As mentioned earlier, the buildings facing Central Ave. include one, one and a half and two-story structures. Typically, an accessory building appears secondary to the primary historic home by being reduced in height, massing, scale and by being setback from or located at the rear of the historic home. The City of Ashland historic inventory identifies the existing garage on the subject site that faces Central Ave. as "an unfortunately visually dominating lion-historic garage is located to the west, detracting from the overall integrity of the site." The Historic Commission recommended the height of the building be reduced and the building be setback from the front fagade of the historic home to meet the Historic District Design Standards regarding accessory buildings and height. The Historic Commission recommendations are added as a condition of approval. Roof shapes, pitches and materials are required to be consistent with historic buildings in the vicinity (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.6). The proposed new units use an 8112 roof pitch with a classic gable roof and composition shingles. The roof pitch and materials are comparable with historic structures in the immediate vicinity. The two detached cottages at the rear of the property and the unit above the reconstructed garage are less than 500 square feet in size with relatively small roof forms but nonetheless include small gables at the front to break up the roof line. The roof line of the triplex is stepped down approximately half way in the building to break the building into a series of masses. The triplex also includes small gable end roof elements over each of three porches. Door and window openings on the primary faradc are required to be compatible with the adjacent historic buildings (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.7). Window placement and pattern are horizontal in nature and spaced similar to the historic home. A base or platform characteristic of historic homes in the immediate vicinity is required (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.9). The cottages including the triplex have an exposed concrete stern wall that provides a base of 12 to 36 inches in height. The first story of the reconstructed garage structure is PA-2017-01294 128 Central Ave./rnh Page 5 for vehicle access and therefore is a utilitarian design. However, a belly band is included that clearly delineates the garage from the second-story dwelling unit. Entrances are required to be well-defined with covered porches, porticos and other architectural features (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.10), The proposal meets this standard by providing unenclosed covered porches. The five new dwelling units located at the rear of the property include unenclosed covered porches. The second story unit above the reconstructed garage includes a side entrance. However, the front of the unit includes a covered porch that faces Central Ave. The proposed units do not replicate historic architectural details or styles and therefore meet AMC 18.4.2.050.B.11 that prohibits new construction from innitating historic features. Finally, the proposal does not include any additions to the historic home and as a result AMC 18.4.2.050.B.12 regarding location of additions is not applicable. The tree inventory submitted with the application indicates 14 trees over six-inches diameter at breast height (dbh) located on the subject property or very near the property line. The proposal includes removing eight of the trees. Six of the trees proposed for removal are behind the home in the rear yard and in the vicinity of the five new cottages. The six trees proposed for removal include two apple trees near the back of the historic home 2 and 4 on the tree inventory), two 12-inch incense cedars near the east property line 6 and 8), a 24-inch ponderosa pine near the alley in the northeast corner of the subject property (#10) and an 18-inch birch near the alley (0). In addition, an ailathus altissima or Tree of Heaven 14) in the southwest corner of the property and a small cedar (#11) to the north of the reconstructed garage are proposed for removal. The Tree of Heaven is described as in decline and dropping limbs on the neighboring property to the west. The small cedar is situated under the canopy of a 30-inch dbh Deodar cedar and conflicts with the recommendation of the Historic Commission to shift the reconstructed garage to the north. The Tree of Heaven meets the approval criteria for a tree that is a hazard and the seven other trees meet the approval criteria for removal of trees that are not a hazard. The application says that the Tree of Heaven has dropped branches on the neighboring property which meets the criteria for a condition that presents a safety hazard of falling on persons or property. In regards to the other seven trees, the approval eriteria of a tree that is not a hazard require that the removal is required to be consistent with other land use ordinance requirements and standards. As stated earlier, the property zoning allows the development of multi-family residential units and the proposed project is below the allowed residential density. The seven trees proposed for removal are in close proximity to the footprints of the new units at the fi•ornt and rear of the subject property and the application states that they will be impacted by excavation for the buildings, utilities or parking. The neighborhood appears to have diverse mix of tree species and sizes and the proposed tree removal will not affect this mix. The proposed development preserves some of the largest trees on the property including the 30-inch Dcodar cedar, 26-inch ponderosa pine and 12-inch incense cedar. Seven trees are included in the landscaping plan as mitigation for the seven trees that are proposed to be removed. The final approval criteria for removal of a tree that is not a hazard says "Nothing in this section. shall require that the residential density to be reduced belmi, the permitted clensity allou,ed by the zone. In making this deter•rnination, the City nzcty consider alternative site plans or placement ofstruetures of PA-2017-01294 128 Central Ave.h-ah Page 6 alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long cis the alternatives continue to comply i-Oth the other provisions of this ordinance. " In evaluating the application's compliance with the Historic District Design Standards and the request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the MPIfA, the Historic Conunission recognized the applicant's efforts to save the large ponderosa pine on the west side of the property by moving one of the proposed dwelling units above the garage at the front of the property. The site plan shows a water line running through the drip lines and protection zones for three trees identified for preservation including an incense cedar (#12), Port Orford cedar (#13) and a walnut (93) to connect to the triplex unit. The water line connection to the two detached cottages as well as the residential unit above the reconstructed garage is not identified in the application materials. The application states that the project will corurect to the sanitary sewer line and in the alley to the north of the site. It is not clear from the application where the sanitary sewer or storm drain connections will be located in relation to the trees that are to be preserved and protected.. A condition has been added requiring utility connections (i.e., water, sanitary sewer, storm drain and electric) to be coordinated with the tree protection plan and revised for the building permit submittals. The Tree Commission reviewed the application at the September 7, 2017 meeting and recominended approval of the application with recommendations to move a dwelling unit above the garage and preserve the ponderosa pine (#5), to consult an arborist to incorporate measures to protect the Port Orford cedar (#13) on the neighboring property, that three mitigation trees be larger caliper in size and the parking island be moved to the east side of the parking area to preserve the ponderosa pine (#10). The revised application was noticed for the October 5, 2017 Tree Commission meeting but the meeting was not held due to a lack of a quorum. The applicant responded to the first recommendation and moved a dwelling unit above the garage to preserve the ponderosa pine (#5) on the west side of the property. AMC 18.5.7.050 requires the applicant to replant trees that are either a minimum of 1.5-inch caliper deciduous trees or five to six-foot evergreen trees as mitigation for trees to be removed. The application includes replanting seven 1.5-inch caliper deciduous trees and this is found to meet the requirements of the ordinance. The applicant submitted information regarding the conflict between the ponderosa pine (#10) in the northeast corner of the property and the electric service and future transformer location. A condition has been added requiring measures to protect the Port Orford cedar (913) on the neighboring property. The Historic Commission reviewed the application at the September 9, 2017 and October 4, 2017 meetings. The Historic Commission review on September 9 was of the original proposal which involved six additional units in two triplex structures located at the rear of the property. The applicant revised the proposal based on neighborhood and Tree Commission conunents to the configuration of one triplex and two cottages located at the rear of the property and one unit located above the reconstructed garage as shown on the plans received on September 28, 2017. As a result, the applicant requested a 30-day continuation of the application and returned with the revised proposal to the October 4 Historic Conunission meeting. The Historic Commission reconnncnded approval of the application with adjustments to the location and height of the reconstructed garage structure and recommendations for the architectural details regarding the siding, windows, trim and porch rails of the new units. The Historic PA-2017-01294 128 Central Ave,tnih Page 7 Commission recommendations are added as a condition of approval with final review of the revisions by the Historic Commission. The applicant submitted revised plans on October 24, 2017 in response to the Historic Connnission reconunendations but those revisions are not approved with this decision. A variety of written comments were received regarding the application. Issues that were raised included the density of the project, the trees proposed for removal, scale, bulls and coverage of the proposed structures, the number of off-street parking spaces, the use of on-street spaces for parking, the impacts of additional traffic on the alley, pavement of the alley, and impacts on the flow of storm drainage. City plans and accident data do not indicate problems or accidents related to the alley system and the intersections of the alley with the surrounding streets. The remaining issues are addressed by the application materials, as well as by this report. The criteria for Site Design Review approval are in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 as follows. A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 78.3). 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 7 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval criteria for a Variance are in AMC Chapter 18.5.5.050 as follows. A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type 11 procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special PA-2017-01291 128 Central Ave.hnh rage 8 or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are in AMC 18.5,4.050.A as follows. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows [a, b, d --1, not included as not applicable]. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the PA-2017-01294 128 Central Ave./inh Page 9 density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are in AMC Chapter18.5.2.050 as follows. 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 properly damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b, The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 78.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversify within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. 1/7 making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. In staff's assessment, the application with the attached conditions complies with applicable ordinances and meets all required criteria. Planning Action #2017-01294 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2017- 01294 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: PA-2017-01291 128 Central Ave./mb Page 10 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) That the following items shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit. a) That a separate address for the second dwelling unit in the historic home and six new dwelling units shall be applied for approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. Addressing shall meet the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department and be visible from the Public Right-of-Way. b) That any necessary building permits shall be obtained for the existing second dwelling unit in the historic home and that the required systems development charges shall be paid in full. C) That an engineered alley improvement and storm drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning, Building and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the public right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the alley. The alley improvements shall be in accordance with AMC 18.4.6.040.F. d) 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. e) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including the installation of any required fire hydrants and fire apparatus access and turnaround requirements shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever applicable. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. f) That the electric service shall be installed underground in accordance with 18.4.6.090.C. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to installation. g) That a revised landscaping and irrigation plan reflecting the revisions required by the Tree and Historic Commission is submitted for review and approval by the Ashland Planning Division. The landscape plan shall include mitigation for the seven trees approved for removal in accordance with 18.5.7.050. h) The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking meets the design and rack requirements are met in accordance with 18.4.3.070.1 and J. PA-2017-01291 128 Central Ave./mli Page 11 i) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission from the October 4, 2017 meeting with final approval by the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. The revisions and the proposed bicycle parking on the front porch of the lstoric home shall be reviewed by the Historic Commission. j) That the following recommendation of the Tree Commission from September 7, 2017 with final approval by the Staff Advisory shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals, i. That the tree protection plan shall be revised to incorporate measures necessary to protect the Port Orford cedar (#13) on the neighboring property as part of the Tree Protection Plan. k) That the site plan, tree protection plan and arborist report shall be coordinated and revised regarding utility line location in relation to trees that are identified as preserved and protected. 1) That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials or the issuance of a building permit. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC 18.4.5.030.C. 3) That the plans submitted for the -building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. The site plan and elevations submitted on October 24, 2017 are not approved as part of this decision. 4) That the building permit submittals shall include the following information and revisions. a) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, patios and circulation areas. b) 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. C) Height calculations per 18.2.5.030.A for buildings in the historic district d) The exterior building materials and paint colors shall be identified on the building plans and shall not be very bright primary or neon paint colors in accordance with AMC PA-2017-01294 128 Central Ave.hnh Page 12 18.4.2.030.E. e) That all outdoor lighting shall be directed downward with frill shielding in accordance with AMC 18.4.4050 and locations and specifications shall be included in the building permit submittals. f) That location and type of any mechanical equipment, including but not limited to heating and cooling systems, shall be shown on the building permit submittals. Heat pumps, air conditioning units and similar mechanical equipment shall meet the requirements and noise levels of AMC 9.08.170E.3. 5) That prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any of the new residential dwelling units the following shall be completed. a) That all public improvements including but not limited to alley and storm drain shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan. b) That any cracked or damaged sidewalk adjacent to the subject property in the Central Ave. right-of-way or concrete in the driveway apron shall be replaced to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department. c) The landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any of the new dwelling units. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. d) That street trees shall be installed according to the approved landscape plan on the Central St. frontage prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the any of the new dwelling units. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. e) That the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any of the new dwelling units. f) That recycle and refuse containers for subject property and dwelling units shall be screened from adjacent properties and public right-of-ways, 2~ November 3, 2017 Bit Mol ,Community Development Director Date PA-2017-01294 128 Central Ave./mlz Page 13 r 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 11/3/171 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 fisted on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2017-01294, 128 Central. n w. Signature of Employee Oecument2 111312017 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4000 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5100 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4500 AYARS REGINA ET AL BAKER BARRY AIMICHELLE A BALDWIN ROBERT 199 HILLCREST ST 122 HELMAN ST 5243 PIONEER RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7300 PA-2017-01294 391 E04 CC 2100 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 3100 BARD'S INN LIMITED PTNSHIP BATZER JAMES HIR ANDREW BOWLAND SIDNEY JISHERI L 1120 PROSPECT ST PO BOX 970 PO BOX 1025 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2600 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7800 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5000 BROWN MICHAEL HAROLD & PHYLLIS COLLINGS DAVIDISCHRAN-COLLINGS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC ROS ET AL SABINE 246 FOURTH ST 119 VAN NESS 13236 E EVANS CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROGUE RIVER, OR 97537 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2500 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2300 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 3000 DAVIES RONALD L FOGELMAN LOREN GALLOWAY PAUL EIKIMBERLY D 6795 RAPP LN 173 HELMAN ST 157 VAN NESS TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2700 PA-2017-01294 391E04CC 5200 GREENE FAMILY LIMITED LIABILITY PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2200 GEARY EDWARD A TRUST ET AL COMPANY HADDAD JOANNE M 345 HARRISON ST 6795 RAPP LANE ASHLAND, OR 97520 367 OXFORD ST TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2900 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7700 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4600 HIRSCHBOECK ROBERT W TRUSTEE KENCAIRN KERRY K REV LIVING TRUST MERCER KYLE K 71 SCENIC DR 147 CENTRAL AVE 116 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E09BB 400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4900 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4300 PLAZA HOSPITALITY LLC PALZA INN ROGERS BRIANIJENNIFER ROSS SANDRA LYNN TRSTEE FBO AND SUITES ASHLAND CREEK 117 HELMAN ST 5104 YACHT CLUB DR 203 SE PARK PL 230 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROCKWALL, TX 75032 VANCOUVER, WA 98684 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4700 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7600 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7500 SCHLITZER MARGRET BRAY SEVERIN EZRA SHIELDS JOAN DARLENE 145 HELMAN ST 145 CENTRAL AVE DRAGER JOAN D ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 123 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4200 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2800 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4800 SILBOWITZ ALFRED 1NIRGINIA SNIFFEN MATTHEW SIREBECCA A STANLEY FAMILY TRUST ET AL 1601 E NEVADA ST 99 UNION ST 4886 HWY 66 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 8400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4100 TRAVISANO JOSEPH A VAN AKEN LOIS E TRUSTEE ET AL VAN DE VELDE BEN 155 CENTRAL AVE 140 CENTRAL AVE 164 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5300 PA-2017-01294 WARREN REBECCA WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL KERRY KENCAIRN 75 HELMAN ST 152 HELMAN ST 545 A STREET, STE 3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 JOAN DRAGER MIKE GOGLINIBRITTANY ALISON ROB HIRSCHBOECK/DEB DRYDEN 123 CENTRAL AVE 149 HELMAN ST 147 VAN NESS ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 RON DAVIES ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PETER CIPES 159 HELMAN ST 1424 S. IVY ST 315 N. MAIN ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 128 Central NOD 1113117 39 i i' ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review December 6, 2017 PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01294 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 128 Central Ave APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services OWNER: Robert Baldwin DESCRIPTION; A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two units. The proposal has been revised to add five units at the rear of the property and one unit above the reconstructed garage at the front of the property. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by 21 percent (985 square feet) and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT: 4500. Recommendation: The revisions sufficiently met their conditions and the Historic Commission recommends approving the application as submitted. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review October 4, 2017 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01294 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 128 Central Ave. APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning and Development Services/Robert Baldwin DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two units. The proposal has been revised to add five units at the rear of the property and one unit above the reconstructed garage at the front of the property. The application also include request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by 21 percent (985 square feet) and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove six trees that are six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 04CC; TAX LOT: 4500 Recomrnendatiion: The Historic Commission believes the scale and massing of the five proposed units at the rear of the property is similar to buildings along the alley. In addition, the Commission appreciates the applicant's efforts to save the large ponderosa pine on the west side of the property by moving one of the proposed units above the garage at the front of the property. Other benefits of the proposal to move a unit over the garage that the Commission recognizes area decrease in added impervious surface and increased landscaping. The Commission is concerned with the proposed new garage/one-unit structure located at the front of the property meeting the Historic District Design Standards requiring a height and scale comparable to the range of building heights and sizes in the immediate vicinity (AMC 18.4.2.050.8.2 and 3). Specifically, the proposed structure appears to compete with the historic home and surrounding buildings. The Commission recommends approval of the application with a condition that the plans for the new structure are revised to address the following items. 1. Recommendations for the new garagelone-unit structure: • Reduce the height of the structure by four feet. • Move the proposed garage/one-unit structure at least four to six feet behind (north of) the front fagade of the historic home. • Add trellis with 3 knee braces-and a beam above the garage doors to soften the vertical height. • Consider flipping the second story deck to the west side of the new second-story unit. 2, Recommendations for the five units proposed at the rear of the property. • Use smooth siding, not textured hardieplank. Add 3 to 4-inch framing between single hung windows. Do not use white windows. • Increase size of porch posts to larger than 4 x 4 - wrap 4 x 4 or use 6 x 6. • Use decorative or flat balustrade on porch railing of new units, do not use proposed 2 x 2. 1 _mm_ - - - REV1S70NS '10-II-IT PLO / . to-29-av PLe I, t t'N VIVINITY MAP 4,u~ y DAIHER; ROBERT BALDAIN APVXf:iS: I26OENTRALAVE..ASHLAND,OR.t11520 „g 3z FHO`rE:541.613_1625 W A,. APN 3`1 lE04C07AXLOTP45OO } 5126„! 10,279 50. FT,. 99 04 ZONING: R•5(II OF ASHLAND) OVERLAYS: HISTORIC DISTRICT PC54RIPrION cP PRO1(JGr: it OONP.+TKVOTION ONE TRIPLEX; TAO STAND-ALONE UNITS 4 ONE UNIT ABOVE RE-BUILT GARAGE; FOR A TOTAL OF VX r (y?, _ f DYIELLINGUNITS; E ACH WITH LE55 THAN 50090. FT Or ~ fCf 7 OOtt8ATtoNED 5PA45. - J Y (E) MAIN HOUSE TO REMAIN -2 FIVE (N) UNITS OFF ALLEY •5( C?NEM1 WNNT OVER GARAGE • 1 7 . r TOTAL DYiELLING DINTS •8 29_1" 9 ^ I 24..0.__.._ 22'-6" 2a,-2, , d 0 Y6--0". 6'-10"I.. ib'-0" ~•'r ~C7V'eA~iE . Ib,40060.PP..OR 1'..00°."0 TOTALLOT 4T~ 1,1 _ E '4T fe AM 016 SO, FT, ' IV/UNIT A90VEARAGE EST SH ADOW PROD, POIN FOR SS Y FT. DASHED LINE REBVIL7G Tl FT. OF(9)6ARACE N) UNITS K B ((FOOTPRINT) OOT ) U 50. ETERS C (N) g 90 IT 6 PROPOSED N)FRONT D 0AR.4VEYVA ARD54APE• 1946 q. FT. __/--,S2 V34'4 V' 93 I (N) FAYING /I IEING OFF A"FY 1,916 9Q. rT. - OT,AL PROPOSED COVE,RA6E 90a ISQFT.OR 55.3ou •.r ~ 1 ) I 1' .~i i I~` ~I TOTAL i r LAN05GAPINO, e I ) , (,r ~ SEE L SHEETS MIN. R5°YC OF S!rE rO SE LANOSG,SPEp. ngo,,~1~~ L `,P, nIR PARkVNIS ROOV MAIN /,✓linI I _ I I- TRIrLJSE:46PACE6R Q'A 2 TRIFL .n ExE5: 6 5 E G Lr d I 1 j d6c ~,r. TOTAL PARKkNb 10 B 3 0 9 l j} a @L49 q ~I 2 , IN I ~ • ~ GARAGE,TO~REMAPN `r. 6NEASFACE5OFFALLEY T ~Cy Q TOTAL 50F tlOSPACES P YDEO ~qq • L 0 o^• d ri i! SGLAIi SETBACK: ~ o GG7~ SLOPE •-.05;NE16HT• 16.65 FT ~ c! v -'i v, ti e ,`n,... lm 0 NlS AVM<90A.3997 76 FT MIN; 52 PT ACTUAL, USE"A" 0 556 15.69-b/395 •24,2S FTMIN; 3 1.39 FT PROVIDED r1 U7 ( p MPPA CALCULATION: c Imo;--~ + i LOT AREA: 16,400 Sr (D f ADJUSTED LOT AREA: B,dS d SP ' 1'. Y ' I..~ - J 1 + I_ 13P f ~ I III _ (I Ori6D MFPA PAR6UNITS; ry 4,605.12 sr AL AG,.. UP TO ~~9"~~R6A„JP?hPWA }Y,)TH ~CWPiwl. 15~ffi1 1, .2SD SP 4 f ! TOTAL ALLOPIED MPFA WITH CUP • 5,796.40 SP (<N.,m .ti,ti~ rn L.Ij EXISTING 5FR: 2.094 dP (p Et DER UNIT"F" 974 6P +,md. RE9 nLr ~AreA F o PRaP ~r r 2g6o3F U 1°I r ''~~t ~ / DTA eQOPo rFA 5 09FORZ a y r r k I _ wi q~ L.A7 y~ a 1 H 111 F' ~~f ~,~~,y)}fir. xf r... A d ~ N19TOSS }y. OF :4: EX T y) ~s~G`:°~.~ NINALLEY~ ~II IY'~1m1:. 1. 1 7,T-1 D ^i S'' .,~h 44 5HEET 1 SITE PLAN + VICINITY MAP RE(N)GYOLE S TRASH r EXI51TNG 5.F.R. HAS ' SHEET 2 UNVT A PLAN 8 ELEVATIONS .-.....r 4 RES.Or' v(E) cry ENCLOSURE SHEET 5 UNIT 5 PLAN t ELEVATIONS 2,054 5.P. HEATED NATURAL GAS O 04re,,,,10-s6-11 PLEX5HE,ET 4 UNIT II P,, E PLAN d ELEVATIONS SPACE (PER COUNTY) LINE TO HOUSE ❑ KEN TIP- W7 ELEC. PEDESTAL r CRAnN dw: pl G (N) WArER METER SHEET E GARAGE ! UNIT F PLAN d ELEW 5 ._._m_, TO (N) VNIrS (W) E AYW PARPARG COVE REP ELecrR!cMETER9 BIKE KING SHEETLA.O TF'LrPP~OTECTION T E F L A N SHEET L-2.0 Pa,ELIM. IRRIGATION PLAN U ~ SraPrT 'LB,O 1"KEL`i rL4N1TY""-PLAN 1.....: SC,AILV: l'- 10'-0" 0 SO 20 90 40 .60........ 60 70 SO 90 I PO FT gym..-..mm (E) • EXISTV& (N) • NEW OF a eaeErs tlµ ~ ~f ~ ~ ~ ' "b uv\ a l _ - RE41SlQNS NOTES: I. IN GENERAL, ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS d COLORS SHALL MATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE. 2. U5E FNHITE LAP VPING WI 5" (MAX) EXP05URE ON WALL5,. B. USE 1 XGORNER'TRIM. 4. USE hNHITE DIAMOND SHINGLES ON GABLE, ENP YiALL5. 4`s z to cn.. 5. BASIC 51NGLE HUNG WINI7O1,95, tL cs'{3 I 16r W N o ~VN; Yli -4 > m c/ A > 12 %zp Y W Cat oa UNI NORTH ELtMV. UNIT A - EAST ELF-V'. ~a I u 5C-ALP: tia"„ V.D, r, „ - Fm 4 rum , II ( ry h r U \ Q - V a UNIT FLOOR PLAN SCALE' 114"- V-0" ~ ~ f'PRGW SPADE . ABB S.P ~ BR S.F - UNHEATED STORAGE = f a 5 K , 1 -10 D S 15 35 FT UNIT A - WEST r=L' V. UNIT A - j SCALE. 1/4"=.10 SCALE: 1l4"- V-0" r'1-- ~Y . 17 WEEi s } j _ REVIS ON5 10-i 1-17 PLG DOTES- 1, IN GENERAL, ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS d COLORS SHALL MATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE. 2. USE NHITE LAP' SIDING Vil 5" (MAX)' EXPOSURE ON WALLS, S, USE 1 X CORNER TRIM, Q 4. USE YdHITE DIAMOND SHINGLES ON &AISLE iy ENDNALLS. ' , If! P` 5.8ASIC 51NGLE HUNG ViINPON5. a RC' ~1, tL w 1 + _ ...m.. z tu h p ~ .1 ILA tu A_- ,r. I ~y113 > to x A ~ I v w a Pe er e. cape UNIT 5 - FAST ELEV. UNIT E3 Ne,'~)KTH a } a x j Lu V v r h J h u 14) 00~ s UNIT 5 FLOOR PLAN f~ - I SC EAT°T~lT0~1^ E• f95F ' ~ ~ a ua P RGVSPhGE 4,! v ____._I ~ ~ ,d c p S }5 2S FT i 0511 11 }Op -AL-11 UNIT 5 - WEST L V. UNIT 5 - eCUTH ELEV. B C SCALE: 1/4" - V-0" SCALE: 1/4"- V-p" MY + care~W~_ n ' FRa7iN r'! 12. ; ":NCCT 5NEET5 OF 11 I _ . w.... . o. r _ I o si.: p. FEYISONS... i©-r a-14 Pv.c NOTES. 1 IN GENERAL, ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS d a COLORS SHALL MATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE.. 2. U5E YiHITE LAP SIDING YV 5" (MAX) _ EXF05VRE ON 6NALL5. S. USE 1 X CORNER TRW. Q 4. USE NHITE DIAMOND SHINGLES ON GASLE Gc a f1 l END kNALLS. S ^ , 01 ~n 5.5A51G 51NGLE HUNG WINDOWS. 4c f J Q ~s ~a I ~ N N,r Cl d o ~ lu I Op `j1 Oq W f S FO 00 IF -11 FJ Fl z _ - 0f 22'-6 TRI-FLEX FLOOR FLAN SCAL`. L,' a T 1'-0" O 5 25 FT Ili ? 0} H iAQ prmrH 11 9o.6H9 pr '.-F.-'1 (.g i 71~:__.T_ t aO17 F'eker L. G"ye N 1m I!a~lIIILI mm ~I Fun ol I~JI[IIII~111~111 TRI-FLEX WEST ELEVATION TRI-FLEX NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 9116" = 1'-O" SCALE: 5/16"- I'-0" a, 0 v d lot pil ' NO B tD TRI-FLEX EAST ELEVA,TVON TRI-FLEX 5OUTH ELEVATION crzaAxi or:: PI-G EkIEST !f ~ 4~(7 v1 ai 'sf ~1° ~ r b', a1 X !'jT oRa EreEr I 7 - ae:wisoN~ I 24'-0' 4'-0° NOTES: 1. IN GENERAL, ALL E,XTERfOR MATERIALS b - COLORS SHALL MATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE. 2. U5E Y4HITE LAP 51VING YV! 5" (MAX) uw E'XPpSURE ON MALLS. 5. U5E 1 X CORNER TRIM. 4. U5E YMHITE QIAMONQ 5HINGLE5 ON GABLE S~ ENCJ CMALLS.F a Ur 5. BASIC SINGLE HUNG YVINVOri5. a x'`? I-- 4 k Ul Q1 E V GAF. AGE - 1 I Z. l- f I C 777 l I lilt aw~--- - r - V. i L.A ........,m,m i~ ozP l7 Pete. L. G'pes 411 k~a:E ad5v_ridd CvARAC-,E - SOUTH ELEVATION (SARASE - EAST ELEVAtTnON I,,. 1 ~ (ai- r ~ I I m ~ Q (ftg4 KF . 4 i I ~.r III, I PORCH a'k r ~I ~a ~ a 1111, . ~ + f " I III 11 CSARASE W N ^F-eT ELEVATION SArl1~AIS7r= - NORTH EL.EVATION m SCALE: 114"- P-0' 56ALE 1/4"- Y,-0: HEATEQSAAGE 49R5~~ _ pC1ftGME5 g95F t A -7 ri.H AG5 15 20 FT ti a.G 1 l October 16, 2017 Site Design Review Application For Multi-Family Site Review AMENDED FINDINGS II Reguest: A request for a Multi-Family Site Design Review for an eight-unit development was submitted on July 19, 2017. The application was deemed complete on. August 29, 2017'. The development previously was proposed to consist of the two-unit residence at the front of the property, and sN new units in two tri-plea structures at the rear of the property accessed via the alley. The exiting garage adjacent to the front residence accessed via Central was proposed to be retained. A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by nine percent was proposed. The application required a tree removal request to remove six trees. Following the September 6th Historic Commission meeting, and the September 7th Tree Commission meeting, design modifications were made to accommodate for the large Ponderosa Pine on the west side of the property. Modified Proposal: The proposed redesign removes one the units from the tri-plex, leaving two cottages and allowing area for the preservation of the large ponderosa pine near the west property line. This unit was shifted to the front of the property and is now proposed above a front-loading garage. In order to comply with the Historic Commission recommendations following their October 4t", 2017 Historic Commission meeting, the garage with unit above structure has been setback to the maximum Iimit without adversely affecting the large Deodar Cedar tree on the site. With the revised site plan, dated 9-20-17 with 10-11-17 revisions noted, the garage structure is recessed eight-feet behind the front porch fa~acle of the historic contributing residence. The structure is reduced in height using an 8.5-foot plate height on the ground floor and scissor trusses above to alllow for the truss to sit directly on the seven-foot wall. This allows for the new unit over garage to be lower in height with 16-foot eaves compared to the 18-foot to eaves of the historic home. The (historic home also has a tall, steeply pitched roof which is an average height of 22.5 feet. The proposed structure has an average building height of 20.63 feet. Page 1 of 6 J With the relocated unit above the garage, the separation between building standards is not met and a variance to reduce the required separation is requested. The average height of the historic structure is 22.5 feet. The average height of the new unit above the garage is 20.63 feet. The required separation is 11,25 feet. Due to the location of the existing historic structure, the existing driveway, the necessary preservation zones for the large Ponderosa Pine that triggered' the relocation of the unit from the rear of the property to the front, above the garage, a 11.25-foot separation cannot be provided between the two-vehicle garage and the required six-foot side yard setback. The proposal provides a 9.6-foot separation. Variance findings have been provided, The variance request is for less than a 10 percent reduction. The required open space area is 1,312 square feet. The proposed open spaces consist of approximately 485 square foot of porch area for the triplex units, cottages and upper level units. The historic residence has a 372-square foot porch. There is a 378-square foot deck at the rear, on the west side of the structure. A common lawn area is between the triplex units and the front house. More than 1,400 square feet in area has been provided in "functional" open space. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and other plantings. The goal is for a low water use, low maintenance landscaping, there is ample area available that could be turf areas. Based on the project team's knowledge of u!se of apartment complex common areas, limited turf is conducive to the apartment complex open spaces and how the tenants will interact with the space and each other. The landscaping plan provides two new street trees, a shade tree in the eleven-foot landscape buffer along the west property line, and four new trees in the landscape areas. A detailed survey of the trees has been provided in the application. There are a variety of large stature trees that have generally been well taken care of. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan has been provided. There are 14 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) on the property. There are eight trees proposed for removal, With the proposed site modification, a smaller DBH cedar that is under the canopy of a larger IDedoar Cedar directly to the north of the garage and the Ailanthus tree that is to the south of the existing garage. See attached email from project arborist. The request includes an exception to not plant "trees that will achieve similar size and stature at maturity" to replace the Ponderosa, cedar and the Deodar cedar trees. Conifer trees are excellent specimen in areas where there is room to grow but are not necessarily compatible with six new residential units, within an eight-unit, multi-family d'evelopment.. Additionally, six-inch caliper mitigation trees are not proposed. Upon consultation with the project landscape architect and arborist, six-inch trees do not survive as well as two-inch caliper trees, they are difficult to obtain, and they are more costly. New, smaller stature trees and ground cover landscaping is proposed that is compatible with a multi- family development. Adequate outdoor space exists to allow for tenant outdoor space that is functional Page 2 of 6 1 to the residents. The porches provide valuable square footage of private outdoor living area that is more than ten percent of the floor area of the new units. The provided landscape area provides for a common area where tenants can interact with others or provide a small gathering area. These combined areas encompass more than eight percent of the site area. FINDINGS ADDRESSING MODIFICATIONS: 18.5.7 Tree Removal: B. Tree Removal Permit. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable band 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 1.8.3.10. There are fourteen trees on site. Of the fourteen trees, eight trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height ([GBH) proposed for removal. The trees proposed for removal are a double stemmed (12" and 14" DBH) apple, a 24" DBH apple, two, 12' Deodar cedar trees, a 24" DBH Ponderosa pine, a 14" Incense cedar, and a 24" DBH A,ilonthus tree. The Ailanthus tree was misidentified as being on the neighbor's property and requested removal was overlooked as the application progressed. The removal of these trees is proposed to allow for the development of the site with the allowed density, compatible with historic district design standards, in an economical footprint. The development of the site also requires substantial modifications to the site to accommodate for electrical infrastructure and storm water detention and drainage compliance. Tree #9, the Birch is one of dwindling number of healthy birch trees in Ashland. It is unfortunately, in a location that will be substantially negatively impacted by the site development. With the excavation near the trunk, substantial grade alterations within the dripline to accommodate required parking, and walkways, utility installation for sanitary sewer, electrical, storm water detention and drainage facilities. The presence of the amount of irrigation the tree receives will be substantially altered and further its demise. Tree X118 is a 24'" GBH Ponderosa Pine. There are overhead power conflicts with this tree. When the site development happens, at the pole located just to the northeast of the tree, an underground vault is required for the proposed development and excavation to provide the neighbor to the east at 116 Central with underground service. The subject property and the property at 116 Central have a secondary overhead service the follows the east property line through the Ponderosa and the IDeodars. This Ponderosa will be negatively impacted by the substantial amount of excavation that will be necessary to install the required' electrical infrastructure for the subject lot and adjacent properties. Page 3 of 6 J 1 The two 12" DBH Deodars are berth too close in proximity to the proposed units and both are within the foot print. These trees ore also into the overhead powerlines that exist, and the new power must be installed in the some location but underground. Deodors, like Ponderosa's are exceptionally large conifer trees that are not conducive to multi family development to the envisioned densities allowed in the municipal code. The 14'° DBH' Cedar is within the canopy of a larger Deodor Cedar that is to be protected and will be negatively impacted by the new construction. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, sail stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The removal of the trees will not have impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, and protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The structures, landscaping and other site improvements are necessary on the site that will cover the exposed soil. There ore no surface waters. 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 conger trees within 2007 feet of the property. The removal of the three trees will not have a negative impact on the densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity. The proposed layout allows for the preservation of a substantial number of the sites large stature conifer trees. The removal of some allows for better preservation of other trees. 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 high density multiple family residential site has a large number of larger stature conifer trees that do great in epee landscapes with substantial' amounts of irrigation. Any development on the site will substantially alter the soils porosity, permeable surfaces and in turn have a negative impact on the trees. The proposal allows for many of the sites trees to be preserved while achieving desired densities. The permitted density is 8 units, the proposal is compliant with density of standards. It is possible that the preservation of the trees would require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted densities because of loss of parking area, or loss of developable area for the structures. Page 4 of 6 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. Due to the nature of the development, high-density multi-family, no urge stature, conifer trees for mitigation ore proposed. Seven deciduous trees are proposed in the landscaping. The trees shall be planted and maintained per the specifications of the Recommended Street Tree Guide. 18.5.5.050 Approval Criteria. 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or Unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. The variance to reduce the required separation of J the height of the taller building from 11.25 feet to 9.6 feet is necessary because the separation between buildings standards does not account for the 12- foot side yard setback of the historic contributing home on the site. This setback is double the minimum in the zone. The proposed structure is a replacement of an existing structure, utilizing nearly the some footprint. The setback is based on the height of the historic contributing structure and the existing garage didn't meet the separation between building setback standards. The need to now address the criteria for the variance arose with the relocation of one of the proposed, less than 500-sf cottages from the rear to the front of the property resulting in the destruction of the existing garage and replacement with a new, two-story structure. The site unique in that it is a multifamily lot that has a high number of dwelling units permitted by density but is also heavily treed. The layout allows for the preservation of the large Ponderosa pine tree, and two large Deodar cedar trees, Additionally, the reduced separation allows for a standard width, two vehicle garage. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The requested reduction in the separation between the buildings is the minimum necessary. The proposed garage with unit above replaces an existing single-story garage that is presently 9.5 feet from the historic contributing structure. The proposed replacement structure is also 9.5 feet from the historic contributing structure. The historic structure has an average height of 22.5 feet. This requires any structures be separated from it by /a the height of the taller building. Clue to the limited lot width on the west side of the historic structure because of the 12 foot side yard on the east, it is not possible have a structure that accommodates two vehicles within and comply with side yard setbacks on the west side of the garage. Page 5 of 6 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The development of the property with six new, efficiently designed rental units with generously landscaped open spaces, large stature trees, parking for bicycles and automobiles and improvements to the public alley at the rear of the property greatly outweigh any negative impacts the proposed retention of a non-conforming separation between building standards. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not anise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. The need for the variance is not self-imposed. The height of the historic contributing structure and the large side yard setback from the east property line from the historic home are the driving factors for the exception. The development of the two-story structure versus the existing single story structure is not the cause of the variance, it is the existing site layout that necessitates the variance. Attachments: Arborist email Revised Site Plan ~ Page 6 of 6 6 Gxa~im, /';,L Cnt'C~~GR VATt..¢•.i,..®~ - d'fvaMl C a EGY' }19 ~ i. I ~ C H 4 e.eaeceMS. e.N e a,u.~,cv. z a i l L NOKTP ELEVATION n f l li , L!I~Li+ m Cali R AGE e?uTwi ELE ATION J sT 1 id. will TRI-°LEX ✓ SNE5T ELEVATION - 1 w 123Central Ve., Ildbleme), Onwon (541) 488-464 j~r~i3rrrryer~~r~~a~ail.~iur Ashland Planning Department Ashland Planning Commission Subject: Planning Action PA-21717-012941 Saturday, October 7, 2017 Dear City Planners and Commissioners, i recently picked up the modification plan of the proposed multi-family development across the street from my residence. In the revised plan the garage is to be upgraded with an apartment above. Currently the house facing Central is a duplex. My only concern is parking for the residents or those occupying the units. The unit above garage is proposed to receive 2, on-street parking credits. Thereby adding additional cars to street. According to the proposed plan there is no provision for guests, or occupants with 2 vehicles. Central Street is a busy street seasonally as it has direct access to Water St, and is a popular route to B St. and downtown. Currently, I have a cutout for one car access. This is due to 25 feet of my original lot having been dedicated to a public access. This 25 feet has been added to the property adjacent to me at some time prior to my ownership. Should this modified plan be approved', I would like to have it noted that I should lie given permission to widen my driveway to 2 cars and remove a cedar tree that overhangs the driveway, My lot size is about 75 wide by 148 feet. I have a 2200 square foot house, but because of the cutout for the public access, the neighbor next to me has 2 cutouts for driveways on a much smaller lot. 1 was told by someone in planning awhile back to widen my driveway it would have to be X number of feet front the property that has the cutoaats closest to me. I have had to paint the sides of curb yellow, purchase a cone, and put up sign to try to prevent People from blocking my driveway. Some of the driveways are, not concrete or improved in my neighborhood as it is an historic neighborhood. I allow some vegetation to prevent erosion and water run off during the winter as our street has lots of runoff from Bush Street that is not paved. Consequently, 1 see this problem only getting worse as parking space becomes a premium for residents, guests, and tourists, employees who work clown town. During events or busy times nay driveway has been blocked. oil one instance I had to have a community policemen come to get a car removed. It took several hours because he tried to find out who (lie owner was. Then he had to call a towing service front Medford. I fully understand the need for smaller units and have looked at the plan. The only other concern is that the units behind' the main house and garage will accesses the units from unpaved alleys or from Bush St. The amount of dust that results is noticeable. These alleys and Bush St. need to be paved' as more people are using them as properties are being developed. Sincerely yours, Joan Drager Maria Harris From: Joan Drager <jddrag opendoor.com> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 2:33 PM To; planning Subject: PA-2017-01294 Dear Planners, I recently sent a PDF file to address some concerns regarding the modification of the original plan for proposal (PA- 2017-01294).. In addition to the comments made in the letter you received by me, I would also like to have it noted that most of the residences on Central Ave. from Heiman St. to Laurel have driveway cutouts for one carp and narrow driveways. Consequently the residences with more than one vehicle, in many cases are forced to park on street. I believe if we can come up with a reasonable way to increase the residences parking, we could alleviate some of the on street parking. This is a problem through out the city. B Street is bumper to bumper from Water Street to 2n or 3rd Street. Heiman Street from Central to North Main is as well, most of the time. We don't even have good visibility to see cars coming from North Main down Heiman, as motorists driving from Central can't see over or around the vehicles parked on Heiman St. We have a cross walk but no stop or signage to slow the traffic or allow motorists a safe left turn off of Central. Please forward these comments to the Traffic Commission for review. Also, the section of Centrall from Heiman St. to Water St, is so narrow, parking should be restricted to one side to allow for safe passage. Sincerely, Joan D. Drager 541-488-4645 jdredrager@gmail.com jddra,g@opendoor.com t ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review October 4, 2017 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01294 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 128 Central Ave. APPLICANTIOWNER: Rogue Planning and Development Services/Robert Baldwin DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two units. The proposal has been revised to add five units at the rear of the property and one unit above the reconstructed garage at the front of the property. The application also include request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by 21 percent (985 square feet) and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove six trees that are six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 II E 04CC; TAX LOT: 4500 Recommendation: The Historic Commission believes the scale and massing of the five proposed units at the rear of the property is similar to buildings along the alley. In addition, the Commission appreciates the applicant's efforts to save the large ponderosa pine on the west side of the property by moving one of the proposed units above the garage at the front of the property. Other benefits of the proposal to move a unit over the garage that the Commission recognizes area decrease in added impervious surface and increased landscaping. The Commission is concerned with the proposed new garage/one-unit structure located at the front of the property meeting the Historic District Design Standards requiring a height and scale comparable to the range of building heights and sizes in the immediate vicinity (AMC 18.4.2.050.6.2 and 3). Specifically, the proposed structure appears to compete with the historic home and surrounding buildings. The Commission recommends approval of the application with a condition that the plans for the new structure are revised to address the following items. 1. Recommendations for the new garagelone-unit structure; • Reduce the height of the structure by four feet. • Move the proposed garagelone-unit structure at least four to six feet behind (north of) the front fagade of the historic home. • Add trellis with 3 knee braces and a beam above the garage doors to soften the vertical height. • Consider flipping the second story deck to the west side of the new second-story unit. 2. Recommendations for the five units proposed at the rear of the property. • Use smooth siding, not textured hardieplank. • Add 3 to 4-inch framing between single hung windows. • Do not use white windows. • Increase size of porch posts to larger than 4 x 4 - wrap 4 x 4 or use 6 x 6. • Use decorative or flat balustrade on porch railing of new units, do not use proposed 2 x 2. t I i October 2, 2017 Re: proposed development at 128 Central Avenue Clear Ashland Planning Department and Historic and Tree commission members, We want to acknowledge and appreciate the applicant and the commissions for hearing our concerns thus far and modifying the plan so that one of the large Ponderosa is preserved and that the alley unit density was reduced. However, our major concern still remains; and that is that the proposed development exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Space. The city's current code's MPFA is generous and helps preserve the scale, bulk and feel of developments congruent with the neighborhood locaie. it would also help mitigate the concerns we have over traffic, noise, congestion, parking on the alley and unnecessary removal of the remaining existing healthy trees. Furthermore, the new plan which calls for a new two-story unit at the front of the property is of concern. If built using the current plan, it will dominate or at least compete in dominance with the existing 2 story historic farmhouse. If there is to be a unit rebuilt on the front of the property it should be subservient to the larger house by setting it back further, limiting it to one story and creating a cottage like feel with a street level front porch (which all the houses facing Central Ave have). It is also of concern that the parking for the front two units is not provided for at the front of the property. There should be 5 spaces and only 4 are planned for. If one of the parking spaces is assumed to be on the alley that is not only unrealistic, it also creates a even more aggravated parking squeeze for the alley units. As we mentioned in our previous letter, 6 spaces for the 5 alley units is probably not enough given some of the occupants will be couples and all will have visitors. There remains also concern regarding, the tree plan. While, as mentioned above, we are grateful for the preservation of one of the Ponderosa Pine, the remaining large Ponderosa is healthy, on the property edge and provides a valuable ecosystem and microcli mate. We would like to see this large native healthy tree preserved. We also ask that tree commission request and review the tree preservation plan for the remaining trees especially the large Ponderosa on the west property to ensure it's protection during the construction process. In addition, as long as there is going to be development and improvement of this property, the removal of hazardous, unhealthy and ill placed trees should be planned for. The large ailanthus tree on the southwest corner of the property is in declining health and with every wind storm, a new branch or two falls down. This last event was in June when a large branch fell blocking the sidewalk and taking a part of the neighboring front fence down. Another tree that should be considered for removal is the relatively recently planted but ill placed incense cedar that is too close to the existing garage, the property line and a large Deodora cedar keeping in mind the immense size and girth these trees obtain. The existing plan takes out healthy well-planed trees and ignores trees that should be removed. In conclusion, if this development,goes forward in any form, the following conditions should be imposed: Keeping to the allowable PFA. NO CUP. Exceeding the MPFA creates a density that is out of scale and character for this unique alley neighborhood. In keeping with allowable IVIPFA,if a current garage structure is developed into a living unit, it should be designed in a way that it is not dominant over the existing historic farmhouse. It should be set back further than the current house and have a cottage feel. Not a garage, and not two story. A small , well designed cottage that is set back, smaller and one story would be appropriate for this property and streetscape. The parking for this unit should be located off Central Avenue and not off the alley. Preserving the remaining large native Ponderosa Pine, removing unhealthy, hazard and poorly located trees and ensuring the preservation of the remaining trees. Increasing the parking to a realistic number for the number of units despite thin size of the units. Allow for enough parking for the front units on Central Avenue. Improving the alley using speed abatement and vehicle access to the street. Alley pawing from Heiman is a good, idea but realistically the auto traffic will be headed north toward Medford so if there is any paving, it should be in a northerly direction as well. Consider using flag lot configuration if more than 4 units on the alley to reduce the traffic and congestion on the ill prepared back alleys. Decreasing light impact by keeping outdoor lights to a minimum and with low wattage and low vertical) height. Decreasing noise impact by requiring HVAC systems to be locatedin the interior of the project or at least enclosed with noise abatement materials Requiring trash pick up to be residential not commercial Requiring mail and package delivery service to be from the street. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ezra Severi'n 145 Central Ave 541301-1567 ezraseverin@gmail.com Mike and Phyllis Brown 119 Van tress phyllisbuck@opendoor.com Brian and Jeri Rogers 117 Heiman St 520 907-1380 li htfaazz~gmail.com Kyle Mercer 116 Central Ave kvle@inguirymethod.com Brittany Alison 149 Heiman St 541 6259004 britt~-iny,illi;c.n mail.com Mike Goglin 149 Heiman St 541414-7259 mike ogg lin@yahoo.com Lois Van Aken 140 Central Ave 541951-1225 vanaken@mtashland.net. Rob Hirschboeck and Deb Dryden 147 Van mess 541 414-7498 laws a KenCairn Landscape kchilecture \ti r r~ SO P ~ . k I 1 1 'aAan.ww OR naso 54 i t~ 1 4 _I 41 L I V r t 1 Q- STATFOF i RHa.I49.1 ~ 1 I Y,N • KeRCmTm J r c I I Drawn R J I L T. _ I ' I N k I I f' 1 Ff ~ II I - _ - - - 7 a D 0 Y', f l 1 ✓ Lo r II 1 - U ti III )Ir, y i 10 0 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL NOTES D9H HEIGHT XN CRO4°NR FEET TR£EpRM1ECTWEd iGLERANCE TO 1. PRORTO! 1 I' CANAHORP`H'I- ENT pR COI....ENtA,GANY CCeP,STRUCr10ttACilVl l IHI I T' G"NERAL UPIHLLSICEOF THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE TOW%~VEN751ITATIONAND'OR ERO516'1 WITHIN THE TREE PROTECY76N . ~W 51'fCXEN ~ CONDITION N'RTEB CUNIRAC~ A !TACTTHFU 1PEARC''HPTECTPDR'APRE-CONSTIUICTIO!I MEEII 1,1 1IF 6GA ARCHHECTA;D QNCNE5) F£ET IN RADNS ZONE HANIUS IN FEED CONSTHUCTID~.d l w sf EACAVATI:. ,i FF.:':-.uRPROR 7CC INCI; :-JTYViORKCYN THE SITE. THE LAYIDSCA,PErI I.I. I-IBEI-11FIEDBTTHE. 12 . BE.FO CePAD PREPARATIOM,OREXCAVATION FOR THE FOUNDATIONS, FOOTINGS. HALLS, OR TRENCHIRG, AH( TREES V'IH49N V C-1 kVG3lY 3p 7D 25 23 'GOOD End P=:OTEGP 1 CUYTRACTOR 4811 3. IN ADVANCE FRAI I SITE,'. R5 RLr'JESTED . CONTRA ETCH. SHALL DBIAI ,21!1-'11' F"'Xll IHE '1'[`Il II 1C1RL'c"QNzoNESHALL-FQC-IED I FOOT OUTSIDE THE TREE. PRATECTIWI ZONE BY CUT INS ALL RC41T5 2 .1' 12,14 70 So 1L7 GGili F'-'! I,"1VE J O NGbtlS SHhL16E CUT BY 17NI1PhLLY LAGG@RiATRE1RCIi AND CUTTING NI.EHS REPRESE1FFA. I I'AT CONST Gl.-•" Bt,: '4 AFTER ALL OF THE DESCRIBED FEAKNG IS V>EI.A,,l F .-.',.G fihIALU L -ELI i_1'-I1_E NG'LE70ADEPTR A R€AWA IN PLACE UNTIL THE P20:cCT IS I.,.NIErh H A SAYE, VIBRATMIX'i KUI-E.FIT, :1'I,k"HAViITRENCHER d'HTN{EILARP BIADES,CROTHERAPPROWD 3 18 8p- 10 - 22 co P 1 2. FENCES MUST BF TAECTEO TO PROTECT TREES ROOT G.,,,E_ LPMENT, n U i TC E PRESERVEDAS BLI©7171 IN DIAGRAMI FENCING ShIALL BE 6'HALLR ':MRY 5 )!'n , ' I• 1 I co T 1 CI WA LINK PAN.= VISTAL' L N YHI'H VETAL CI"-:'4L, H STO ALP. MULLS AREA INTEGRATED, THESE FENCES BH-L BEIIB I'.EOBp 13.. ANNROOTE:?GED DURINGGRADIRGORCONSIRU DNSHALL BE EXPOSED TOSDUNUTIS5UEAHD CUT CEENILYATAYJ DEGREE - THATITDOESI4 ALL' -SIM7---OF PEDE,,hif3 ANN OR VEHICLES THROUGH IT. FENCES BERNS ASPE~CIFIC PRQTECT~I:,:72GNE ANGLE POI.,LJTY1l*HASPr1A, PLACE OhvP.SUaA.Aln'D h1LCU'I'ROOTS TDADEPTH EQUALING THE- EAISiIX4 FpBSHGN'pF 5 26 76 td 19 35 7 12 WR EACH TREE C Y G' '-S. FENCESARETORE,AVNM4TRALL, NIEWORX IRASBPENCOMPLETM FEUCESMAYNOTEE YUTEI HOURS OF CUTS BEP413 AIADE. 7 35 8. 12 F' ATE' Good f1ELCCluTEO OR Gr-" .1. ITHE '.pERM15$tO'IOF THE LANSSSCAPE ARCHITECT, A 3p8 N9, 1110 14, If TEMPORARY HAUL OR ACCESS ROADS MUST PASSOVER THE 8007 ARF.AOF TREES IOBERETAICIEO,AROADBEDDS61'RCHESOF .1E 6 12 I [I': •Ir "'Al 1 3, CA:NSTRUCTION TRAHI ENS, TRAFFIC AND STORAGE AREAS MUST RUWN OUTS'U` FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONES AT ALL HVIES, MULCH OR GRAVEN. SMALL BE CREATED, TO PROTECT THE SOIL. THE ROAD BED MATERIA,LSHALL BE REPLENISHED AB NEC'ES8ARY'TO g Cry-I_ !I.. ;,,;J 35 14 ® REV~~~ONDATE MAL'ITAHR AB INCH DEPTH. 10 70 $3 18 -oP I'I' 4 At PROPMSEO L I ROLI UTIT IIIES ANi - R HI2 OR IRRIGATIpM LINES SHALL BE ROUTED OUTSIDE THE TREE PRO'FEC710N TONE. IF I''-°'fC'JE REV, 9; 01, 26,17 - - LitEESI,IUSTTRAw,L!f TiI-PRDTEOTjCF-RTI FT'STN'LLBETUNNELED OR BORED U.NOER TIfE TRUE ROOTS, NOTIFYTHE 15, SPOIL FROM TRENCHEG,EASEMENTS. OR Q71PREXCAVATIOUS SHALL NOT BE PLACEC YRTHUI THE TREE PROTEGIIOLI ZONE, EITHER 11 IE-: ~ ~=-i 1 :H '.S 14 I Et!,iE UM(rB F,IUTF lA,IXTSCAPEARCHITECP "VE➢44TELY IFANY RRG--': S. "I:I,SC'0!VPHC7 h'lITN TWIN REOUIREA,'EM. TEVPORARILY OR PERVMNITLV'. 12 H.: q 6 -:.tl II:.II I I 5, NO MATERIALS =IH, SPOIL OR WASTE OR WASHOUT 4'fATER MAY BE DEVOSUIEO, STORED, OR PAREDIYHHHIVHETREE 16. NO BURN PILES OROEBRIS PILESSHA"'BE PLI L.':ITHIPT THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. R0 ASH'S. N£RRI9, OR GARBAGE VAY BE 13 1a--- RRDTEO ID C E~pAPEA1, DUNpEDOH BURIED h'171HVX71I-TREE P@LY1TE I. ICI ~,H, 14 "T l !4 18 C1 El _ _ m.... .......I B. NOTIFYTHELANtl APEARVIREC7IFIPEEPRUIANOISREQUIREDCONSTRUCTIONCI.EAU.NCE 17.AWAITAITT FIRE-SAFE AREASAROU`iDFEIICEUAREA, ALSO. UGHEAT SOURCES ,FLAMES ,IG';ITIKI:NSOURCES ,Oil SVOMNGISALL47OED f^• TREE YXEAR YQLCH OR TRF.EB. i. AIIV IIERBILIOES DANCED UNHFR l1M141':GM1n7f.RIAISAUST HE SAfF. F04 H5 AR-:11!LD TREES AtIOIMELED FOR THAT USE r l TREE CANOPY OF TREE. PROTECTION TREES T{7 BE Id. o0 HUT R415E THE SOIL LEVEL WtlinglR THE ONE -TAE'S iOACNIiAE POST fIVE DR4 VHAGE EYCEPTTD M"ARCHGRADES 0.'iIP14EWEYlALI(5 FftOTECT011 9 TREES TO ~ pROTEOTION p]18 IF INJURY SHOULD OCCUR TO ANY TREE DURING WNSTHUCTTON. NOTIFY T} I' R APEARCIFTEGTI:H,rECATELY ALLBAMAGE AND CURBS, AND IN THOSE AREAS, I FATTIER THE ADDED TOPSOIL BACK PC [DUSTING GRADE AT APPRONP,ATBLY&I SLOPE. ` f REMOM) n~A' CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION TOEXISTING TREES SHALL I CQVPFN5ATTD FOR.. L:_tlFr END, NO PARTT, BEFORETHEPRDJECTAAL ZONE REBLAIN ) FENCING r~l({'~IY BE CO4817PREC COMPI- IR REMOVE7HE ROOT WAIT FOR EACH TREE THAT 131l.0CAiED OLT THEPLANAS BEH REMIYIErF IQ. WATERING S'CICG`t!.:WAT''1'PROTECTED TREES SHALL FOLL^"/T1_°C4-DARDS,HOYYE.VER PERIODS OF EXINEVE HEAT, VVHIO 20.E%CEPTIOIISTOIFr7HEEPROTECIIOF4SPE'CIHCA7IO,'dSMAYG','RYBEGFWITEDI4KTR40RD I'44RYCIRCUdSTA11CESV.I7HiVRIYTEI4 RAINFALL DRC !LA'•-'.- :-REORLES V+ATEPT - I-IFN THZSFNOTES. APPROVALFROSI Ti{E IAHOBCAFE.ARCIIII&Ci PRVCE2TDA:7VV70RK CDM.Y€PNCV'Mi. THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE FOR EACH TREE IS BASED ON PIE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHER BY' A. M05r£r UUR-TRII .'111! FZHTHROUCRiSEPTEIMERI ?UbLI-,Py.N&'.COH;,.7. 199R Ti -1d7)ear1AR -fA7~'lE~9dtmlfrdll2 Pi Yn^re sntrUno/FeCb ()n, HL,r;%dDt vP<y rtmc p.72. ISSUE DATE: 8. QU£RCU FE +11111 fAFlu-ll F OFT NG OTHER MONTICS.FOROAKSALREADYINTHE 21, ASAPROTECTNE'E'iG'-'IF TOCOMPPISATEFORCONSTRRUCTIONNPACTS,MOTO51 iTCPRIOR TOCONSTRUCT ALL JULY 18,2017 VICIATYO ,rT luAFT( , UL I .M~.'NATLEVIC BEALE NOT BEALI SPRAY 04N DR RETAIN EOTREESSHF,"1~ N TIPS PLAN SHALL RECEIVE AN AETHCATiON OF WCOA7LI r1 L 1 IRPOSESDWBLEPERV.,l ACTUREA'S I VIITF!)3r 10 -NYA L"=Ill11 EAl-V -=13,11POOLORDRANT07IARMIH`I' HIS'IRUCTIONS. ITTV'F'IXHI PRODUCT CA5PECLCLY FORVUTATEDIVvll:l w,LR ISLSST"'L U%4TV A,_STFE - - O WATT. I! I I L t':!: 7 1 "09YSI-'~ 1 FNLIE':FOR REFSTHATAREPI.HTQFAp-TU-;A{NTPROIECTTHAT AB5ORPTINE SU - TI'- QP I11E TREES ROOT SYSTEMS. Tills PROMDTESA':J I-i ':U-1-t-AN' ~-IEH-VI;,.F MUST bEIAII -WRVE4iPO- 2,11Ii CDHR .OF LO:ISTRUCTIO'I ARP, AUTO ",19C gYR:':'•i!O'l15 -III LI OFR' ,GPCOTSTRUCTURE.DI'SIRIBUTEPfYCOAPPLYF.V' 1 14Ff' N A, ="AHED ~fiA1 F,. 1W^1~1 a „ LNSTALIED, IS Y GAL5._ I'I PEH tNEE fi'QBHAYiO BREATEY2 Al li V".'A.VaFd BT )~I5ol-SURFACE( ultlliES aE V2 r ! OY ATEAI.IP-JIT TION, LOCATE THE ACTIVE ROOT ZONES1111'111 ILPJAMCA ARCHITECTPRE It. ERORONCIFTROLDEI' SSUCHASSIIT FENC17GDEH ~ISBASI;IS, NJtl WAl£H INVBR910NBTRtl1CT41RESE 'tJ 11 BENSTAILEDoN THE ICOAFPBY ISAV"I,48L1._ IIa GORt-02ALAPPIJCATION, R4C.PH0NEIQS41i4i15il 0;5, r - r - r d` 6' 10' Rp' ~0' EXTERI7PLD ELAN TUBE KenCa.irn THROUGH THIS EA ` i-nndscape ArchitWIlTe ZONEd Y _ , a II ~ , h'_. !ID.OR 91520 319 IS r OREGON ! F I REG # 193 I.- 1uaz~r U__ w~ ~ r d T A~ 70N-- 2 ZONE3 I r I III i Drawn yr , I 1 i 3GB Il, I r ! Yi) , LOCATE LATERAL P, V. C 1 5,2 ADJACENT TO PATH MP ROTATORS ~~-dpF 1 Jn - - - - I_ I 7 4.85 I AN-LINE DRIP T'- i I L__ ;ya 3 385 _ _ nllF 1 . IN LANE DRIP 2,75 £Xt-RIORWALL r:r)UNr CONTROLLER V' I ` MP ROTATORS z LOCATE ALL IRRIGATION-_ 6. VALVES IN LANDSCAPE /W~y W u z t r uj LID IRRIGATION HEAD LEGEND W Q ~ IRRIGATION LEGEND SYMBOL D£SCRIPT60N h4gDEL ° NOZZLE RAD FLOW T£ PM _ q LL SYM ITEM a is D 32, D.ss ~ - HUNTERICV-101G (SPRAY) d 114 112, FULL HuntefPRS30' NPBDp-SR 6 .8'I Z Q< 0 HUNTER PCZ-104 (DRIP) _ _ ~J 014 112, 3M, PULL Hu~nler PPRS80 MP Rolalor 1000 8 0. 11, 0.21, 0,44 77 MAIN LINE: SCH.40PVC(4'/a) W Q END, CENTER Hunter PRS40 MP-Rotator Stn Strip 0.19„ 0.38 LATERAL LINES SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC. (1") C _ Co _ SLEEVES - SCH. 40, MIN. SIZE SHALL BE 2x DIA. OF PASSING PIPE, ry~ \1 Q lia r ISOLATION GATE VALVE • LINE SIZE QUICK COUPLING VALVE: HUNTER44RC REVISION DATE REV,-1: 03,26.17 CI, CONTROLLER: HUNTER IC-h1 SERIES WITH SOLAR-SYNC _ ZONE LD. f....` 15.0 G.P.h9 PRELIMINARY Sir _ ru bbs s APPLICATION IRRIGATION VALVE SIZE. PLAN P,D.C. m~-- POINT OF CONNECTION ISSUE DATE: JULY 18, 2017 FLUSH VALVE SCALE V 15'•0" F_. DRIP IRRIGATION: HUNTER PLD04.18 ~wm o L 2.0 0' 5' ti5" 207 30' ORGANIC MULCH cam • 1 KenCairn L indsca 1e Architecture THROUGHOUT Garo-4 SpiN - - TaxH - 6 %F EuoG-6 Phiv•1 i Taxes - B MPY-1 - ZeIS•1 Cat-? •2 Cala -3 Polm SIN -3 f Gare\2 Skir-2 h Crol SPIN -6 EXISTING . A - - - i - - - - -ArcE-7 ` PLANTING 0 ~WI s a o 13 r TO REMAIN V'., ' Ir Acec-1 - 1 ` MISY 3 Chat 1 1 $ Gs A $7. $7E a ASH{A!.~. OR m5za EXISTING la,H LavH-11 "S - " , sneSSZre~ 1 \ PLANTING CrpaL-2.._._.~ S/\ Chat 1 j 7., \ TO REMAIN Wel02 NanS 3: jST$~~ - - GT Chat• 1 V. % ATEOr Dap Po 11 A a6 2 - OREGON 1 u / Lo 1. - r -V60-1 L.. r RIG k491 GauP-6 - 5 ,dr CmL•1 Mahr-1 9 U r \ I, Laves -2 s - Dabpoo-1 1 ~~NeR~ea, a,z ♦ • ! C~1ti LAWN V 1 Polm I _ Cato-1 C CroL•1 x Mist -3 Crot_1 1 . Dapo-1 AbaR-2 1 SpN -31 a - 1 1 D~- "6 J y o a I Drawn By: ig, _ _ r F JSTIP Sarr Dapo - 1 A TG N[INIw Skint Cal-2 SpIG-2 SBB CEI_1 f'IAIII~ R f.. LAWN C RR~ ~Oa~"nt'+~~~~ ~____'~~?i ti e5 S S. g1 I ■ ' LagN•1,_ . I Ca1.5; - \NanS-1 4 i . 1 - R NanS-1 I HeuP-14 j n ` MisY-2 ♦ ~1e4~WN ' w ti • R ♦ ♦ ♦ LAWN 'I MagL-1 B; - BuxM-3 4iy • Dapo-1 ~ r Palm-3 , ~LavH-2 I S J 1 o o B 3 4; - SpiG-2 EKISTIN L, Mist • 1 i PL N11NG PA PLavH enes-1 Cart • 1 S1 4 TO H ,tQ.PJ NroL 1 anS 1 Woo-2 -AboR-~ Penes 1 Mist-2 i Cenr S - Choi-1 Vibo-1 EXISTING SpIN-2 Chat •2 0 1 I rAceS -1 - Mist. PLANTING p TO REMAIN Palm -1 Mahr-3 ! l'' NanS • 2 . 1 - Phiv -1 AgaE 3 x.15 , Y Aces - ti \ - r W \EXISTING PLANTING TO REMAIN \ r w - - L ` - - - - - - Z / \ Cato-3 ORGANIC MULCH Care-2 W LU DaPo -1 Taxes-14 THROUGHOUT I- z IN O PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND LavH Lavendula angusti€olla Hldcote' HIDCOTE LAVENDER 1 gal PRELIMINARY PLANTING NOTES ^ Lore Laropelalum cfiinensls PurplePixle PURPLE PIXIE FRINGE FLOWER 5 gal SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE PLANTING Nahr Mahn iarepeakushima' DWARFIN♦AIO Nt6.HONIA_ ON THE OS ASS i gal 2. ALL OPEOSTREET MVOSEiiETREES V LLEHAVEAf MINIMUM 5AN0YLON,ITOPSaLTOP$CILVOLU E FOR EACH ~ Z TREES OF(2) CUBICFEETSOILVOLUL4EQREACSOUPRE O W FOOT CANOPY LIATVRITY, $CIL Acec Acercircinalum VINE MAPLE 2"cal NanS Nancinadomestics 'Sienna Sundea' SIENNA 5UNRISEHEAVENLY BAMBOO 3gal S TRUCOTUTRALSaLUN ERTII,PERV10usSUaf1ANCESrtEyfLL9EACHIEVEOUrtIEANSOFTOPSOILINPLnNTERSaNO J AGeB AceTpa4malum'Bloodgood' BLOODGOOD JAPANESE MAPLE 2"cal PanH Penniselumalopeculroides'Hamaln' DWARF FOUNTAIN GRASS 1gal 3. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE S'CFUNSETTLED GRGANICMULGH. Q CC) U) Aces Acei sacchatum'Bonfire' 80NPI RE S UGAR MAPLE 2' cal Phiv Phlladelphus x vIrglna11s iNSnOlvilake DWARF MOCK ORANGE 3gal 4. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL PROVIDE A FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION - - OLVICE THAT VOLL I,tEET THE CITY OF ASHLAND REQUIREMENTS. W r Q Clal Cladrastas lulea KENTUCKY YELLOW WOOD 2' cal Polm Polystichum munilum SWORD FERN lgal 5. THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYST£LI VlILL CONSIST OF LOP+VOLUAIE DISTRIBUTION. LagN Lagerslrcem€aindica'Nalchei NATCHEZCRAPE AIYRTLE cal SaR Sarcoceccamscifelia FRAGRANT SWEET BOX 3gal j Magi- Magnolia granMora'Little Gem' LITTLE GEM SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 2" cal Skir Skimmia reevesiana REEVFS SKIMMIA 2 gal JOB no, 1710 ZerW Zelkova serrala'SchmMilow' WIRELESS ZELKOVA 2"cal SpiG Spiraeajaponica'Goldmound' GOLOMOUNO SPIREA 2 gal REVISION DATE I,""-_.._........ - - _ SHRUBS ~ SpiN Spiraea japonica'Neon Flash' NEON FLASH SPIRPA 2 gal REV. 1: 0916.11 AbeR Abellax'RoseCreek' ROSE CREEK ABELIA .3 gal TaxH 7axuszmedia'HiCksir HICKS YEW 10 gal AgaB Agaslache'Blue Fortune' BLUE FORTUNE HYSSOP 1 gal Vibd Viburnum davidii DAVID VIRBURNUM 3 gal ArcE Arclostaphylos uva-ursi'Emerald Carpel' EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA 1 gal Vibo Viburnum opuWs cempacla COAiPAC7CRANBERRYBUSH 5 gal BuxM Buxusx'GreenMountain' GREEN MOUNTAW BOXWOOD 2gal 1 Wait) Welfletatlorida'DarkHorse' DARK HORSEWEIGELA 3gal PRELIMINARY iCalo CalycanlhusoCCidentalis :CALIFORNIASPICEBUSH 5gal WeiM Weoela4orida'Minuet' MINUETWFIGFLA 3gal _ PLANING Cart Carextestacea NEW ZEALAND SEDGE 1gal GROUNDCOVER Cenr centranthus tuber RED VALERIAN a gal PLAN Chol Choisya lemala MEXICAN ORANGE 5 gal 1 Linope muscad Llyturf 1 GAL @ 18' OC CisB CisWS x Brilkancy+ BRILLIANCY ROCK ROSE 5 gal ISSUE DATE; Crol- Crocosmie Lucifer' LUCIFER CROCOSMIA 1 gal LAWN LAWN SOD Dapo Daphne odors Marginala JULY 18, 2017 VARIEGATED WINTER DAPHNE 3 gal bapB Daphne xburkwoodii'Carol Mackn• CAROL MACKI DAPHNE 2gal rr Waldslelniatragaroides BARREN STRAWBERRY 1GAL CM 30C EuoG Euonymusjaponias'GreenSpire' _ GREEN SPIREEUONYMUS 3gal SCALE: 1'=S6'•0" 3.0 Gare Garryaelipeca COASiSILKTASSEL 5gl EXISTING R L EMAIN GauP Gaura lindfieimeri'Passionale Blush' PASSIONATE BLUSH GAURA 1 gal 0' 5' 10' 20 30 Heup Heuchera x'Peach Flambe' PEACH FLAMBE CORAL BELL 1 gal e REVISIONS { ~r r~ PORCH z p : ~ v 05PR00M v - _ ~ ~ ♦ ~ ~l ~ ~ n l 1 . UHEh o OM 8 LIVI CROON LVING q LIYIN'G B ~R00`f eEL,, 01 IS - >!a O _ PORCH` jy 61 T ` CINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE T I / - SERRO„„~ M Llvlh. rl , PORCH ITCH uvar:9 -DDRESSNPREW KRNG, ROBERT BALDWIN, AGENT Q ` M itGNi,~r+ ; KITCHEN ".r-y BCENTRAL AVE.,ASHLANP,oR.gT52a J I . ~ I I I I i PHONE: 541-615-1625 ~ 8S -.-I"..` CI ,-I J .mmw - II AFN:551E04GCTAXLOT"4500 22`-fi" 22'-&• 22'-2" 6'-0• _ 6«5 I 21 T 51zE:! 70,248 SO, FT, Q t91 XONING: R-S (CITY OF ASHLAND) c OVERLAYS: HISTORIC PI5TRICT 1-- TRI-FLEX FLOOR FLAN - UNIT A(4S)FL,~N SAR, UNIT PL_ ©I SCRIPTIp dOF PPROJECT: AND-ALONE UNITS > SCALE: 119 9-O" SCALE!: 1/5"- 9'-O" SCALE: I.N9'r IONO UNIT 50VERRE- UII-TH LESS THAN 500 eO~ FT, OF CONrNTIONEP SPACE. 2. .~a (E) MAIN HOUSE TO REMAIN •2 Q1 FIVE-(N)UNITS OFF ALLEY' =5 ONE (N) UNIT OVER GARAGE -.1 ~ TOTAL PWELLING DINTS • 6 20'-0• 24"-0" A6„y„ 221.-6" 22'-6" 28'-2" 8°-O" 1$'^fl" 16'-10"'I 16'^O' 'v L "T C,0,VERACDE,;, r . TOTAL LOT • 16,400 50, FT. OR 100% r - - - WEUNI~ABOVEGE A16 EST SHADOW PROD. FOIN/FOR S5 (E) HO (E{ OUSE GARAGE (FOOTPRINT) ) 2500 SO.,T, (N) UNITS A 4 N)TRIFLX (PO 7) • 1,17350. FT. "M1 "L.. - , ( E (FOOTPRINT) 1.16 9 SQ. FT. (N) TRI-FL _ , r: *r E 'T G~ 1 ME7CR5k ___._y.. PAVING /PARKING OFF ALLEY ^ 9,815 50. FT. a.. q; 7r771' FR4NTPRIVEAAY9HA,RP5GAFE`1,546SO.FT. Is TOTAL FRG= ?SCG COVERAGE - 9,04 1 50, FT.OR 55 5% 117 ~f l a It f / ► ! I I'~l bt LANDSCAPING: t I s1,, I i lylf r, I I k' ~ib EE L SHEETS MIN.25%OF SI7E TO BE LAND5G,4.PER es 11 Pete - r L. Czipr 1~1 ~f:~ ~N 9aRe~e~ I F. PARKING R£Q'D"' p I rr / I m w MAIN HdU5E.4SPACES REQ'R p, rl l >1 / I ea*.00 S.F. 1 f Y 2 TRIPLEXE5:6 SPACES REd'D ° 46~k CD 5.F, t f l 1 ! x-(17 dz (.i, TOTAL PARKING: i4SPACES RE0'D ep Y © PARKING PRGWII7ET; 2EXISTIN6 SPACES IN GARAGE, TO REMAIN 1 ! 6 NEW SPACES OFF ALLEY 2 ON- SPACE REOUESTP_C~ { N 1 YI I L' ~ ( - ' a TOTALOFE10SPACES PROVIPEV ~V 1 ktj j F r, 50LAR SETSACK, A of y1 If • - ~ " ~ ` ~ J~~ - o; f~: SLOP'En-.OSIHEIGHT• 19.55 PT r P. _ f N/5 DIM 501555 15 FT MIN; 82 FT ACTUAL.>USE"A' o 0 7~ -7 See 15.58-6/855 24.25 FT MIN; 51.35 FT PROVIPEP -~j ` r. - } I r f' 1 _ ~t f 1 1, I , 1 MPFA cALcuLATIC_ J I t i It, LOT AREA: I64005F Q "n 1, 1 is APJUSTEPLOTAREA: 6,856 5P I r (a ALLON#ED MPFA FOR 6 UNITS: 4€05. 1 2 SF -,To o '~1 . W ~ ,i~,1 1t ! r'. ~ UP T025%aP'NCREASE OF MPFA NiITH GUPn 1,151.285P li . TOTAL ALLONEPhPFAN17HCUP =5,7 56,405F 1 EXISTING SPR = 2,054 SF Ir r 1. II t0 REBUILT GARAGE UNDER UNIT F - 5165F s J l~ s ~ { 55P NEW UNITS:-. ..gut 6O 5F - p. i,U ..9t..GC s. TJ-, a ~'YM ll .';k i s Y - 1 i FROP05ED MPFA 5,5gO 5F OR 21OVER I' t f ! p.. . , + s y ! t L I (N) SEWER VALIP ANN N FgINTOP AT 100% TL E 7055 tf Y ! LYhY ,.1 ! :"wm N t I! I I .:-:~a~war.++• +I' g, ! ~.r.^++ .r +,-.~c..~ ti-'..~ 1f'~I IY ALL Kx/ /r~ti 4 r 17 _ rNJTRA5H6.I I INmEX OF SHEETS: eracs ,E M .tee , 21054 S.F. wEA7EP ENCLOSURE ISHEET I_......,...._.._SITE PLA....._._._.__. EXI5ITNG 5.F.R. HAS RELOCATE (E RECYCLE i N • VICINITY MAP NATURAL GAS I DATE 04 20"1 5PAG5(PER COUNTY) LINE 70 HOUSE j NEW TIP-FLEX . TRI fL£X FLOOR FLAN i -°(N) ELEC. PEDESTAL - (N)YS)TERSETER ~..-,.~.....(N)AWNING COVERED 5HEET2 EXTERIOREL'£VATIONS °EE 70 ELECTRIC METERS BIKE PARKING SHEET L 1 TREE PROTECTION R SHEET L 2,- 71ZE-L-IM. IRRIGATION PLAN E-LIM. IRRIGATION PLAN SITE IfLAN 0 10 20 SO 40 50 60 10 80 90 100 FT I(N) kErn / ) - _ L- f.. / I~~' J__.._..----.__. OP 5 5H5CY5 IZ~N151OF~3 NOTF-a: 1 IN GENERAL, ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS d GOLOR5 SMALL MATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE. 2, USE WHITE LAP SIDING W/ 5" (MAX) EXPOSURE ON WALLS, 5. USE 1 X CORNER TRIM. 4. USE WHITE 1?'IAMOND 5HiN5,LE,5 ON GABLE ~ i END WALLS, r 9. SASIG SINGES HUNG WINDOW'S. 12 i \ _ / . Ill ny lu 0) L i 4- vy 7 TWIll, tu z cc NORTH ELEVATION SCALE. 1/4"= 1'-4" a is za sa as I I 11 ~ jf I i! ' I I ~ I I I 1 III `III II { ~Aaa, ~geDealoe~ ' ~ I f Llxll liiants R tlieserved , 0 co 3. ~l II • ~z I I I ~ rv / 11 l e W SARAC -SOUTH ELEV T14N o to zdwT kn i i I z cl) i, II ~ .;II tkR U, g s I. v~Ane Ers pLG SHEET TRI-FLEX / ^EST ELEVATION _ SCALE; 1/4 - 1-a" 0~... as 50FT.... IMPORTANT NOTE: SCALE AS NOTEP ONLY VALIPlINHEN PRINTSO AT 100% aF E SWEETS t t Gmail Army Gunter <amygunter.planningu@gmaiLcom> "Tees at 128 Central 2 messages Kerry KenCairn <kerry €x7kencairnlandscape.com, Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:10 PM Reply-To: kerry@kencairnlandscape.com To: Amy Gunter <amygunter.planning@gmail.com>, Amy Gunter <amy.gunter@ashland.or.us> Dear Amy,. We made a huge mistake in the application by not identifying the ailanthus on the front west property line for removal. This trees is a weed, and not recognized as needing a permit for removal by the City of Ashland. The tree has dropped limbs on the neighbor damaging her fence and pother plantings on her property, it should' come down as part of this application. Additionally, the Incense cedar tree that is growing under the Deodar Cedar should be removed, it is challenging the future growth of the deodar and will never be able to grow well in this compromised situation, it is better to select for the growth of the deodar. Ponderosa Pines are tap rooted trees, and in this way are better able to stand construction close to their trunks. The application and conditions of approval should include careful root exploration prior to excavation" and if necessary, the foundation should include the use of alternative methods if important roots are encountered at the foundation line. Roots over 2" in diameter may be cut with care, and roots over 4" in diameter should be protected and the foundation built to facilitate their protection. Kerry KenCairn, ASLA KenCairn Landscape Architecture LLC„ 545 "A" Street, Suite 3 Ashland, Oregon 97520 e-mail, a OW! phone , II 01-5559 mr , Amy Gunter <amygunter.planning@gmail.com> Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:29 PM To: Amy Gunter <amy.gunter@ashland.or.us>, kerry@kencairnlandscape.com Thank you! lQuoled text hidden) Please forgive the brevity & typos. Response is from an !Phone. Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 541-95,14020 Rogueplanning.corn ~""k ei 1 C ' 8m , b 4 0 33 TE VIGGNITY Mak' ~r , n _ °E I I~ I TRI FLEX FLOCK PLAN u~ r aces 111-aN para. unlr P~ am P • M . rr _ 1i lJ fi ICI -j~ 4.xr~+ w , i I o 4m 1 I li Planning Department, 51 Winbuin~Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-458-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY; 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01294 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 128 Central Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert Baldwin/Rogue Planning & Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue, The existing house contains two units. The proposal has been revised to add five units at the rear of the property and one unit above the reconstructed garage at the front of the property. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by 21 percent (985 square feet) and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP : 391E 04CC; TAX LOT: 4500. The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday October 4, 2017 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located' at 51 Winburn Way. The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, October 5o- 2017 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 25, 2017 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 9, 2017 4G4 17 v 9. ISr ktA ~rl 4IJ ~I . \ 191 Subject Property a 128 Central Ave. PA#2017'-01294 Im f J i 14S 14l C~ qS5 //~~"*flz 1}J 147 I's r 2 121 is ` The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4;30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which ailows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete„ the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LU'BA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and wiil be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Ail materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services (Building, 51 Wwinburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. G,1co~9no-dev'~ laruninolPGnlauri,n~ AeCions4h°uiieiarg FnIJar4t+tai0ed Notim Si,pnsL10I7V'A-2017-01294128 Ccmral NOC`-REVAotx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to:. building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18,3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water„ sewer, electricity, urban storm drainaci paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the " ^yrr enl & .moat °ds. 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 negativoly impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. CONDITIONAL iUSE PERMITS 18.5.4.050.A A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. Z. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water„ sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a, Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets, Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities, c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area, d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light„ and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3, Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones, d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 182.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0,50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements, e. C-1-D, The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements„ and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 1822 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18,12 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i. CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 183.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0,60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k, CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying C:1contnt-dev11r1eruoia ,lPlarunirr~, Act ions%lotkin,h Colde[AMa'vled Notices 1C. SiMnsV201.7,PA-2017-01310 NOC'-REV .docs with all ordinance requirements. 1. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses „meted in chapters 18.3.3 health Care Services, 18.3.; north Mountain Neighborhood, and 18,3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively„ complying with all ordinance requirements. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.13 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 (l.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, I I I - ' 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 °iteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The try: is ~ roposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standard's, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 184 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 240 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone, In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e, The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.53,050, Stich mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Ci:tieam~ao-dew KplanniNg~d'lannony AcUonslNolicing Folder4Nlailed. Notices & Signsh2017TA-201 7-61 3 10 NOCi-RS:.V docv 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 September 25, 2017 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 #PA-2017-01294, 128 Central Ave. 01-- ' S nature of Employee C:lUsersk"thda.AFNHEIDesklopkAFFI©AVITOF k1AILItdG_ 3.dxx9/2512017 i PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4000 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5100 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4500 AYARS REGINA ET AL BAKER BARRY AIMICHELLE A BALDWIN ROBERT 199 HILLCREST ST 122 HELMAN ST 5243 PIONEER RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7300 PA-2017-01294 391 E04 CC 2100 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 3100 BARD'S INN LIMITED PTNSHIP BATZER JAMES HIR ANDREW BOWLAND SIDNEY JISHERI L 1120 PROSPECT ST PO BOX 970 PO BOX 1025 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2600 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7800 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5000 BROWN MICHAEL HAROLD & PHYLLIS COLLINGS DAVIDISCHRAN-COLLINGS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC ROS ET AL SABINE 246 FOURTH ST 119 VAN NESS 13236 E EVANS CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROGUE RIVER, OR 97537 PA-2017-01294 39IE04CC 2500 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2300 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 3000 DAVIES RONALD L FOGELMAN LOREN GALLOWAY PAUL EIKIMBERLY D 6795 RAPP LN 173 HELMAN ST 157 VAN NESS TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2700 PA-2017-01294 391E04CC 5200 GREENS FAMILY LIMITED LIABILITY PA-2017-01294 391E04CC 2200 GEARY EDWARD A TRUST ET AL COMPANY HADDAD JOANNE M 345 HARRISON ST 6795 RAPP LANE ASHLAND, OR 97520 367 OXFORD ST TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2900 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7700 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4600 HIRSCHBOECK ROBERT W TRUSTEE ET KENCAIRN KERRY K REV LIVING TRUST MERCER KYLE K AL ET AL 116 CENTRAL AVE 71 SCENIC DR 147 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E09BB 400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4900 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4300 PLAZA HOSPITALITY LLC PAAZA INN ROGERS BRIAN/JENNIFER ROSS SANDRA LYNN TRSTEE FBO AND SUITES ASHLAND CREEK 117 HELMAN ST 5104 YACHT CLUB DR 203 SE PARK PL 230 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROCKWALL, TX 75032 VANCOUVER, WA 98684 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4700 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7600 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7500 SCHLITZER MARGRET BRAY SEVERIN EZRA SHIELDS JOAN DARLENE DRAGER 145 HELMAN ST 145 CENTRAL AVE JOAN D ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 123 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4200 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2800 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4800 SILBOWITZ ALFRED INIRGINIA SNIFFEN MATTHEW SIREBECCA A STANLEY FAMILY TRUST ET AL 1601 E NEVADA ST 99 UNION ST 4886 HWY 66 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 8400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4100 TRAVISANO JOSEPH A VAN AKEN LOIS E TRUSTEE ET AL VAN DE VELDE BEN 155 CENTRAL AVE 140 CENTRAL AVE 164 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5300 PA-2017-01294 WARREN REBECCA WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL KENCAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 75 HELMAN ST 152 HELMAN ST 545 A STREET SUITE 102 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 PETER CIPES ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT RON DAVIES 315 N. MAIN 1424 S. IVY STREET 159 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 BRITTANY ALISONIMIKE GOGLIN ROB HIRSCHBOECKIDEBORAH DRYDEN 128 CENTRAL 149 HELMAN ST 147 VAN NESS 912 512 0 1 7 NOC-REV ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 38 04 z1mam Mon. ~r ;1- ~ ODE OQU Fir o" , ~~Il fl 11 l~ dl fl [~~I~t~ Both 1Iid ~fl Bove- am in, n, t. o' InAbL el;, M~/' G.. f f E+' /t'~.~'~✓ M.Y°~~" G.,,. C,„= „r dir.. 71.+`` ,-s h'A,. U' I ~ t ,.6 cle~, a ly "V ~4 f j September 21, 2017 Site Design Review Application For Multi-Family Site Review AMENDED FINDINGS Request; A request for a Multi-Family Site Design Review for an eight-unit development was submitted on Juily 19, 2017. The application was deemed complete on August 29, 2017. The development previously was proposed to consist of the two-unit residence at the front of the property, and six new units in two tri-plex structures at the rear of the property accessed via the alley. The exiting garage adjacent to the front residence accessed via Central was proposed to be retained. A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by nine percent was proposed. The application required' a tree removal request to remove six trees. Following the September 5th Historic Commission meeting, and the September 7th Tree Commission meeting, design modifications were made to accommodate for the large Ponderosa (Pine on the west side of the property. Modified Proposal: The request is still' for an eight-unit multi-family development. The proposal consists of the existing, duplexed residence at 128 Central, a new unit above the reconstructed garage accessed via Central Avenue, two small cottages and a triplex structure. The cottages and the tri-plex are accessed via from the rear alley. The new units are all proposed to be one-bedroom units with less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area. No modifications are proposed to the existing, historic contributing residence, excepting the installation / removal' J relocation of the electric meters at the rear of the structure. The residence has a large wrap around front porch and a strong orientation towards Central Avenue. There are architectural' details such as turned posts, subdued Queen Anne details with diamond shingle pattern in the gable ends, spindle bracketry under the eaves, trim details, etc. that give the structure architectural interest. To the west of the residence is a 24 X 24, two vehicle garage that was constructed sometime in the 1960s. This structure lacks any distinguishable characteristics. The garage will be replaced with a new, two-vehicle garage with unit above. At the rear of the property accessed via the alley, in place of the previously proposed triplex along the west property line, two separate cottages area proposed. Unit A is 488 square feet and has a small front Page 1 of 22 1 1 porch that faces the alley and parking area. Unit A has been shifted 14-feet to the west to accommodate the large 26-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine tree. Unit B is to the south of Unit A. It its proposed to be 495 square feet. Unit B is proposed six-feet from the west property line, it is outside of the dripline of the Ponderosa pine tree. Unit B also has a front parch that faces east, into the courtyard area, Across the courtyard area, a tri-plea consisting of three units is proposed along the east property line. Units C and D face the internal courtyard. The end ulnit, Unit E faces the alley and the parking area and units. Units C and D are 495 square feet and Unit E is 488 square feet. The proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 21 percent and requires a Conditional Use Permit for the increased area. Maximum Permitted Floor Area: Adjusted Lot Area: 8,856 SF Allowed MPFA for Eight Units: 4,605.1.2 SF Up to 25% increase with CUP: +1,151.28 SF Total Maximum Allowed IVIPFA: 5,756.40 SF Existing Residence: 2,054 SF Rebuilt Garage Uinder Unit "1"': 576 SF Proposed New Units: 2,960 SF Total Proposed MPFA: 5,590 SF or 21% OVER. The garage is 9-feet, 11-inches away from the residence. The porch cover nearly touches the eve of the existing garage. The garage, as a separate structure was excluded from the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) calculations, With the revised Ilayout with the unit above the garage the floor area of the garage is included, in the MPFA. The previous request was to exceed the MPFA by nine percent, the amended proposal increases the request to 21 percent overage. All units are proposed to have exterior details reflective of the historic contributing structure, the structures have historically appropriate rhythms of openings and windows and door areas. With the number of units proposed within, the allowed density and the historically appropriate proposed' design, the request for a minor provision of additional floor area is reasonable. The proposed development is similar in bulk, scale and coverage as other multi-family developments in the vicinity. The proposed modifications do not alter the required number of parking spaces, The parking is provided adjacent to the alley, in the garage and as on-street credits. The proposal requires ten (10) bicycle parking spaces. A covered rack for six bicycle parking spaces is proposed at the rear of the property. The bicycle parking structure may need to be relocated depending upon the location of the electrical transformer. Regardless, a secure, covered structure for the parking Page 2 of 22 of six bicycles will be provided. The other spaces are on the porch of the front residence using the Cycloc product or similar and in the garage. The trash and recycle enclosure area is proposed adjacent to the east property line. No landscape buffer is proposed along the east property line due to the refuse area fencing providing a buffer. A eleven-foot landscape buffer is proposed along the west property line. The required open space area is 1,312 square feet. The proposed open spaces consist of approximately 485 square foot of porch area for the triplex unit, cottages and upper level units. The historic residence has a 372-square foot porch. There is a 378-square foot deck at the rear, on the west side of the structure. A common patio area is between the triplex units and the front house. More than 1,400 square feet in area has been provided in "functional" open space. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and other plantings. The landscaping plan provides two new street trees, a shade tree in the eleven-foot landscape buffer along the west property line, and four new trees in the landscape areas. A detailed survey of the trees has been provided. There are a variety of large stature trees that have generally been well taken care of. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan has been provided. There are 14 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) on the property. Of those, ten are in the development area. There are seven trees proposed for removal. The property owner is requesting an exception to not plant "trees that will achieve similar size and stature at maturity" to replace the Ponderosa and the Deodar cedar trees. Conifer trees are excellent specimen in areas where there is room to grow but are not necessarily compatible with six new residential units, within an eight unit development. There are three trees within 15-feet of the proposed development areas on the property to the east. There are two trees within 15-feet of the proposed development on the property to the west. Following the Commission meetings, the project was redesigned to remove on the units from the tri- plex, leaving two cottages and allowing area for the preservation of the large ponderosa pine near the west property line. This unit was shifted to the front of the property and is now proposed above a front loading garage. At the Tree Commission meeting, recommendation was made that the parking area shade tree and landscape buffer get relocated to the east property line to provide shade for the adjacent property to the east. Parking area shade trees are required for the new development, having the shade tree along the west property line provides shade for the proposed parking area. With the required amount of electrical facility installation to service not only the existing property but adjacent properties in the area, it would be inappropriate to plant a tree in conflict with the electric power. The secure trash and recycle area is also along the east property line and will be screened with fencing and is required to be solid surface, a tree would also conflict with these standards. Page 3 of 22 Additionally, six-inch caliper mitigation trees are not proposed, Upon consultation with the project landscape architect and ar'borist, six-inch trees do not survive as well as two-inch caliper trees, they are difficult to obtain, and they are more costly. To accommodate the electrical site work necessary on the site and provide adequate room for essential functions of development inclu!diing required separations between buildings, site grading, storm water improvements, a few of the sites trees, and, two of the larger trees on site require removal. Findings address the tree removal criteria are attached. The street tree is Iproposed for removal so that two larger stature trees can be replanted in the parkrow, Along the east property line there is a power pole that has lines that run parallel to the alley, From the pole near the northeast corner a secondary service pole that feeds the existing residence and the property to the west. When the site develops, the electric service is required to be undergrounded. The service upgrades will require a below ground vault. The proposal is to place the vault near the alley and' the northeast property line. The neighbors service would be undergrounded to their residence along the similar electrical path as the overhead. The route of the line depends on the service location. The City of Ashland Electric Department has been consulted and has reviewed the proposed layout. The water service will be installed from Central Ave, along the east property line as close to the residence as possible to reduce the impacts on the large cedar tree on the adjacent property to the east. Sanitary sewer service will go the alley. A sidewalk / path system is proposed through the development in order to provide a safe walking route to the public sidewalk on Central Avenue and from the units to the parking area and to the trash / recycle enclosure area, The unit above the garage will have access via a gravel walkway system that connects to the driveway and to the sidewalk. It is the applicant's understanding that the alley will be required to be paved from the west property fine to the east at the intersection of the alley and Helman. Conclusion. In conclusion, the applicant finds that the proposed modifications to the development further comply with the standard's for multi-family development and the permitted uses in the R-3 zone. The units proposed are a desirable size for individuals, and some couples comfortable with the small unit seize. The property is near downtown, and there is an array of amenities provided within walking distance of the neighborhood. According to Walkscore, the property is Very Walkable and has a score of 87. rn ~ - U There are six, small, new energy efficient units proposed combined with the generous site amenities including mature trees, covered, secure bicycle parking, automobile parking, in close proximity to Page 4 of 22 downtown and within walking distance of many businesses, bus routes, and the ambiance of an established neighborhood. New, smaller stature trees and ground cover landscaping is proposed that is compatible with a multi- family development. Adequate outdoor space exists to allow for tenant outdoor space that is functional to the residents. The porches provide valuable square footage of private outdoor living area that is more than ten percent of the floor area of the new units. The common patio area provides for a common area where tenants can interact with others or provide a small gathering area. These combined areas encompass more than eight percent of the site area. 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. On the following pages, the criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it pertains to Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit criteria have been addressed. The City of Ashland criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant's findings are in Calibri font. Page 5 of 22 Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: Ashland Municipal Code 18.5.2.050 A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multiple Family Residential. The parcel is 16,400 square feet (.376 ac) and meets minimum lot area and minimum lot dimensions in the R-3 zone. The request is still for an eight-unit multi family development. The proposal consists of the existing, duplexed residence at 128 Central, a new unit above the reconstructed garage accessed via Central Avenue, two small cottages and a triplex structure. The cottages and the tri-plex are accessed via from the rear alley. The new units are all proposed to be one-bedroom units with less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area. The existing setbacks are slightly non-conforming to the front property line (19 feet, 1112 - inches facade of the garage). The replacement garage is proposed at 20 feet from the front property line. This is to preserve the cedar tree that is to the north of the existing garage. A 10-inch DBH holly tree is proposed to be removed. All proposed construction meets or exceeds minimum setbacks. The cottage on the west side is setback 14 feet to accommodate the area to preserve the 26-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine tree that is near the west property line. The units are separated from the front residence by more than 12 feet. There is more than 12 feet of separation between the new structures. The existing nine foot, six-inch of separation between the historic residence and the garage will be replicated with the new construction, this slightly less than the required separation 12 feet. This requires an exception. The proposed dwellings have traditional styling that reflects the character of the historic contributing structure. Similar siding, reveal, and Queen Anne details in the gable end are similar to the front residence. There are varying roof forms, with the stepping down the slight grade to break up the gable line and the mass of the structures. The proposed porches add architectural interest and add variation to the horizontal plane. There are numerous windows to allow for ample natural light into the units. The porch posts are proposed to be square instead of turned like the historic structures porch posts. The garage is presently oriented towards Central and has no distinguishing architectural features, the proposed garage with unit above is setback further, and has design features reflective of the existing residence and the proposed residences. The solar setback standards are met with the development because the structures are single story, more than 25 feet from the 16 foot wide right-of woy and there is only a four percent slope. The units will not cast a shadow beyond the width of the right-of-way. Allowed Density 18.2.5.080: .376 X 20 = 7.5 Proposed Density: Seven residential units (6.5); Page 6 of 22 Six units less than 500 sf (6X, 75 = 4,5) Duplexed front Residence The required open space area is 1,312 square feet. The proposed open spaces consist of approximately 485 square foot of porch area for the triplex unit, cottages and upper level units. The historic residence has a 372-square foot porch. There is a 378-square foot deck at the rear, on the west side of the structure. A common patio area is between the triplex units and the front house. More than 1,400 square feet in area has been provided in 'functional" open space. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and other plantings. The landscaping plan provides two new street trees, a shade tree in the eleven foot landscape buffer along the west property line, and four new trees in the landscape areas. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and plantings. At the rear of the property, accessed via the alley, there are six parking spaces proposed. An offloading zone for an ADA van accessible space is provided adjacent to the ten foot buffer along the west property line. A parking lot shade tree is proposed to be planted in the buffer on the west side to provide shade for the parking spaces. Lot Coverage: Proposed impervious areas including existing building footprints, proposed building footprints, pathways, driveways, deck (excluding 200 SF) is 9,071 SF of the 16,400 SF lot for a total lot coverage of 55 percent, this is less than the maximum of 75 percent in the zone. Parking: The proposed development requires ten (10) vehicle parking spaces. Six units less than 500 sf.• 6 Front Duplex Residence: 4 Total: 10 The two-vehicle garage will provide the two parking spaces for the primary residence. The upper unit is proposed to utilize two, on-street parking credits. In accordance with AMC 18.4.3.060.A. for on-street credits the property has more than 44 feet of continuous curb along the frontage of the property. Central Avenue is o fully improved Neighborhood Street with curb, gutter sidewalk and park row. The property is not a corner lot. Lastly, the property is more than 200feet from downtown and the SO zone. At the rear of the property, accessed via the alley, six head-in parking spaces are proposed. An offloading zone for an ADA van accessible space is provided adjacent to the five foot buffer along the west property line. Ten bicycle parking spaces are required. There is a six-bike rack near the parking area adjacent to the alley, two spaces in the garage and two on the covered porch. U-shaped bicycle rack staples will be used Page 7 of 22 to accommodate for the six spaces, a wall mounting system is proposed for the two spaces on the porch. See attached specifications for CycLoc. Energy Usage. All of the units within the proposed development will be constructed to the current energy codes and building code standards. A detailed analysis of the actual energy consumption has not been determined but the square footage, use of ductless heat pump systems, LED lighting all contribute to the low energy consumption anticipated in the triplex units. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The property is in the Skidmore Historic District. Development is subject to AMC 18.4.2.050. The design complies with the applicable overlay zone requirements. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development B. Historic District Design Standards. The property is occupied by a historic contributing, two-story duplexed residence. The circa 1895, James Duncan House is a historic contributing structure. It is not proposed to be altered as part of this proposal. To the west of the residence is a 24 X24, two vehicle garage that was constructed sometime in the 1960s. This structure lacks any distinguishable characteristics. The garage will be replaced with a new, two-vehicle garage with unit above. Height: The proposed structures are similar to average heights of structures in the vicinity. The proposed garage with unit above is similar to the height of the existing structure. The single story cottage and triplex structures are substantially shorter than the historic contributing structure. Scale: The scale of the proposed structures are within the range of other multi family dwellings in the vicinity. The limited square footage of the structures, the separations between the structures, the incorporation of single and two story construction and the overall layout of the proposed multi family development is consistent with the scale of multifamily development in the vicinity and future development potential on adjacent properties. Massing: The proposal to incorporate the unit over the garage is to preserve a large Ponderosa Pine and to vary the massing of the development. The unit over the garage has a 6.5 foot deep parch that steps half of the second story above the garage back and reduces the massing on Central. The removal of the triplex along the west side of the rear portion of the property and the proposal for detached cottages in combination with the triplex, the mass of the development is spread through the property. Additionally, through the incorporation of a stepped gable with a hipped gable over the middle unit the ridge line has been broken up to reduce the mass. The multiple gable ends and the incorporation of a covered porch, the mass of the triplex has been varied. Page 8 of 22 Setback: The proposed setbacks comply and exceed the minimum standards. The garage will be setback to 20 feet, though this is the minimum, it is necessary to save additional trees on the property. The proposed units have an 12.5 foot separation between the structures in the central courtyard. Roof: The proposed roof pitches are 8:12. This pitch is similar to the various roof pitches in the vicinity. The roof forms are broken into a series of masses to reflect the subtle grade changes and to prevent a continuous ridge line. There are smaller gables for the porch roofs that add interest to the roof lines. The roof materials are proposed as composition shingles. Rhythm of Openings: The units have a consistently spaced window pattern that is consistent with the rhythm of openings found on the historic residence. The windows are proposed as single hung, vinyl windows. The windows will not be bright white. Base or Platform: The concrete foundation stem wall will be exposed for 12" to 36". This provides a sense of a base and makes the structure appear grounded. Unless dictated by code or to a11ow for the construction of ADA accessible units, there will be a single stair on the majority of the units to the deck of the porch, To limit the amount of excavation in proximity to the Ponderosa pine tree that may necessitate two or more risers. Form: The form of the proposed development including the triplex is consistent with multi family dwelling development and is sensitive to the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The units are small and single story, reducing visual impacts. The unit over the garage is setback behind the fu~ode of the front porch of the historic home slightly. The unit is lower in over all height than the existing historic structure. Entrances: The primary residence has an entrance that generally faces the public street. Due to the substantial setback of the triplex units from the public streets, there is not a requirement for a visible entrance. There are very prominent entrances provided on the units. The north unit of the triplex and the cottage each face the alley with an entry porch. The other units face the internal courtyard. These units also have porches which distinguish the entrance. The unit above the garage will have an exterior entrance at the rear of the structure. A single man door will provide access to the proposed roof top deck. Imitation: The proposed triplexes have elements of the existing historic contributing structure on the property and brings in the Queen Anne stylings but has a more subdued look vs. the historic contributing structure. The siding exposure and reveal are similar to the existing structure. The color will match or be complementary. The units are proposed to have square posts instead of the turned posts, the crisscross brackets will not be mimicked but the diamond shingle detail in the gable end is proposed to be carried over to the new units. Though there are a variety of housing Page 9 of 22 styles in the vicinity. Vernacular 1-home, craftsman and American bungalow cottage style construction are found throughout the Skidmore Academy historic district. The proposed units have elements of those design styles as well. Garage Placement: A street facing garage is existing. A replacement garage is proposed that complies with the minimum setbacks. A unit is proposed above the garage. The unit will be accessed via the rear. The existing garage has a single door. The proposed garage will have two, eight foot doors that will not detract from the historic residence. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposed site development complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except cis provided by subsection E, below. The proposed layout does not provide for any hidden areas that are not survey able by tenants of the site. The use of low level lighting, low growing vegetation and open space orientation, the design provides areas of safety for the tenants. 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 Central Avenue. A large front porch wraps around the front of the residence. The garage is slightly recessed behind the eave of the roofline of the historic structure. The garage unit access is at the rear of the structure. The rooftop deck provides orientation of the unit towards Central Avenue. The rear cottages and triplex units are not visible to the public street and are not oriented towards Central. The units are oriented towards the alley upon which they front and towards their shared courtyard. 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 of the structure in the garage and at the rear of the property. Page 10 of 22 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 setbacks are existing for the primary residence and the detached garage. The proposed replacement garage is setback 20 feeet from the front property line. 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. New vehicular access to the site is from the alley and not from the street. The property has utilized on-street, garage and driveway parking. There has never been alley access. It is being created to accommodate for the new development. A front-loading garage exists. The garage is proposed to be re-constructed with a unit above. The access from Central will be retained. 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 concrete stem wall that forms the base. The units are proposed to have horizontal, Nardi-plank siding with five-inch exposure, with diamond shingle treatment in the gable ends which reflects the treatment in the historic home gable. Square porch posts, and wood and metal railings are also proposed. The roofing is proposed as composite shingles. The structures are proposed to be white like the primary residence. Streetseape. 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. The landscaping plan provides two new street trees. The street trees will be planted in accordance with the street tree standards from 18.4.4.030. E. Landscaping and Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. Page 11 of 22 A common refuse area will be provided in a screened area adjacent to the alley in the northeast corner. It is anticipated that the electric vault, if in the ground can have the dumpster rolled over it, The property owner would prefer an above ground pedestal to the south of the trash area in a location that is protected from damage and is screened from the alley while still providing adequate service for the property. This is being discussed with the City of Ashland Electric Division. An electrician has not been selected for the job since it has not obtained approval so the exact sizing of the equipment is unknown and still in the early design stages. There is an 11 foot landscape buffer along the west property line. This will allow for adequate area to provide a large stature deciduous tree to shade the parking area. Open Space. 1. Recreation Area. An area equal to at least eight percent of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the development. An area of more than 1,400 square feet in area is devoted to the open space areas available for recreational use by the tenants. 2. Surfacing. Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted towards this requirement. The areas that account far the open space and recreation areas are surfaced with decking, porch flooring, and paver/concrete patio area. 3. Decks and Patios. Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space. The open spaces are a mixture of common patio area and semi-private deck and porch areas. 4. Play Areas. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. Play areas are eligible for open space. A play area is not provided in the eight-unit development. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location The proposed parking is not located between the building and the street. The parking is located adjacent to the alley. Page 12 of 22 I I B. Parking Area Design. Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4.3.080.11, See also, accessible parking space requirements in section 18.43,50 and parking lot and screening standards in subsection 1.8 4o4.030Y. 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of p feet by 18 feet. Three of the six proposed parking spaces are 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Up to 50 percent of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact ears, Minimu►n dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." Three of the six proposed parking spaces are 8 feet by 16 feet. They will be painted "compact car only" 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-tip maneuvering space not less than 22 feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. All proposed parking has a back-rip space of 22 feet. The alley will be improved to accommodate the backing up dimension of 22-feet. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. The driveway to the existing street facing garage is a non-conforming situation. The new parking is proposed to be accessed via the public alley at the rear of the property. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all Curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate. The Central Avenue curb cut is necessary for existing improvements and will be retained. c, If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. All new access is from the alley. The garage access from Central Avenge is pre-existing non- conforming it is necessary to retain. The existing upstairs unit has always utilized on-street Page 13 of 22 parking. The new units will be served by the alley and all new access for motor vehicles will be from the alley and not from the street. 5. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. No new curb cuts are proposed. The existing access from Central is pre-existing non-conforming. The new vehicle access is from the alley. E. Parking and Access Construction. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds, and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, porous solid surface, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. The parking areas are proposed to be paved with concrete, asphaltic or porous solid surface depending on the storm water detention design. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles, and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. Drainage for the parking area will be provided to prevent sheet flow or drainage of waters into the public rights-of-way or onto abutting private property. 3. Driveway Approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. Driveway approach is pre-existing and is concrete. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. The parking spaces will be marked with paint or wheel stops. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. Page 14 of 22 Wheel stops, if provided will comply with this section. 6. Walls and Hedges a. Where a parking facility is adjacent to a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen between 30 and 42 inches in height and a minimum of 12 inches in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way Iine. The parking is not adjacent to a street. A sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge will be provided along the side property lines to screen the parking spaces. A 198 SF landscape buffer is provided. 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation A continuous walkway system extends throughout the development, and to existing public sidewalks. The walkway provides a safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connection between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. The building entrances are connected to one another to the greatest extent practicable. The walkway connects the on-site parking areas, common areas, and connect to the public sidewalk on Central. 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. The conceptual landscaping plan submitted with the application has been designed so that plant coverage of 50 percent after one year, and 90 percent within five years of planting is met. The eleven foot landscape buffer will have a larger stature shade tree. A hedge is not proposed due to the presence of a solid panel fence adjacent to a parking space along the property line to the west. This fence will be replaced as its present location is not along the property line. Two-inches of mulch will be provided in all non-turf areas after planting. There is a short and scraggly street tree that will be replaced with two newstreet trees. The street trees will be two-inch caliper at the time of planting. Low level landscape lighting for the paths will be provided throughout the open space. Each unit will have recessed can lights in the porch roof, or a shrouded yard light that provides down- lighting and security for the unit but will not directly illuminate adjacent properties. There is a six- Page 15 of 22 foot fence os a buffer. No plant materials are proposed that prevent surveillance of the open space or the porches. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection: A detailed site survey of the trees has been provided. There are 14 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. Of those, ten are in the area of the development. The trees along the property lines of the adjacent properties are protected by a six-foot tall fence. This fence will be reconstructed along the property fines following site development. For the trees on the site, six-foot chain link panels are proposed to be installed at the dripline or in accordance with the tree protection plan that's has been provided with the application. Tree #5, an excellent condition, 26-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine is now proposed for preservation. The triplex that was originally proposed in the location of this tree has been redesigned to be two separate cottages. The tree is approximatly six feet from the property line, Unit A is now 14 feet from the property line and though it encroaches into the dripline of the Ponderosa, the project arborist does not believe that the impacts will have major implications on the health of the tree. Excavation within the root zone area of a number of the sites trees will be necessary so the tree protection fencing is not able to encircle the dripline but will need to follow excavation routes. The project arborist/landscape professional will be on-site during excavation. A lot of consideration was made as to how to layout and the number of units allowed by code, provide a much-needed housing size inventory, while preserving the maximum number of trees. The proposed layout takes advantage of long linear nature of the property, provides for the necessary parking improvements, and utility installation is accommodated for. The required separations between structures, and necessary aesthetic spacing. Functional open spaces, provision for trash and refuse areas all contributed to the proposed layout. 18.5.7 Tree Removal: B. Tree Removal Permit. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. There are fourteen trees on site, ten in the area of development. Of the ten trees, seven trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) proposed for removal. The trees proposed far removal are a double stemmed (12" and 14" DBH) apple, a 24" DBH apple, two, 12" Deodar cedar trees, and a 24" DBH Ponderosa pine. Page 16 of 22 The removal of these trees is proposed to allow for the development of the site with the allowed density, compatible with historic district design standards, in an economical footprint. The development of the site also requires substantial modifications to the site to accommodate for electrical infrastructure and storm water detention and drainage compliance. Tree #9, the Birch is one of dwindling number of healthy birch trees in Ashland. It is unfortunately, in a location that will be substantially negatively impacted by the site development. With the excavation near the trunk, substantial grade alterations within the dripline to accommodate required parking, and walkways, utility installation for sanitary sewer, electrical, storm water detention and drainage facilities. The presence of the amount of irrigation the tree receives will be substantially altered and further its demise. Tree #10 is a 24" DBH Ponderosa Pine. There are overhead power conflicts with this tree. When the site development happens, at the pole located just to the northeast of the tree, an underground vault is required for the proposed development and excavation to provide the neighbor to the east at 116 Central with underground service. The subject property and the property at 116 Central have a secondary overhead service the follows the east property line through the Ponderosa and the Deodars. This Ponderosa will be netatvley impacted by the substantial amount of excavation that will be necessary to install the required electrical infrastructure for the subject lot and adjacent properties. The two 12" DBH Decors are both too close in proximity to the proposed units and both are within the foot print. These trees are also into the overhead powerlines that exist, and the new power must be installed in the some location but underground. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The removal of the trees will not have impacts on erosion, sail stability, flow of surface waters, and protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The structures, landscaping and other site improvements are necessary on the site that will cover the exposed soil. There are no surface waters. 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 Page 17 of 22 species diversity. The proposed layout allows for the preservation of a substantial number of the sites large stature conifer trees. The removal of some allows for better preservation of other trees. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In snaking 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 high density multiple family residential site has a large number of larger stature conifer trees that do great in open landscapes with substantial amounts of irrigation. Any development on the site will substantially alter the soils porosity, permeable surfaces and in turn have a negative impact on the trees. The proposal allows for many of the sites trees to be preserved while achieving desired densities. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18,53,050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Due to the nature of the development, high-density multi family, no conifer trees are proposed. Seven deciduous trees are proposed in the landscaping. The trees 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 drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Adequate city facilities exist to service the new units. Water: There is an existing eight-inch water main in Central Avenue that serves the property. The existing inch meter will be used for the residences at the front of the parcel adjacent to Central Avenue. The meters for the new units are proposed on east side of the parkrow to parallel the east property line back to the area past the Black Walnut where the lines will branch off to service the units. A common area meter will also be provided. Sanihny Se}Ver: There is a four-inch line in the public alley to the north of the site. This is adequate to service the new units. Page 18 of 22 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. The triplexes will have a three-pack meter installed on the east side of the east triplex and the west side of the western triplex. Storm Sewer: There are no storm sewer services in the vicinity excepting uphill from the majority of the development across the Central Avenue right-of-way. The project civil engineer is working with the public works department to devise a bubbler system that will comply with the building code and the public works standards for storm water treatment and detention. Central Avenue is paved with curb, gutter sidewalk and parkrow along the frontage of the property which provides paved access to the development. Street trees are proposed in the parkrow. The 15 foot wide alley at the rear of the property is gravel. If this surface needs to be paved, the applicant is willing to pave to Heiman Streets intersection with the alley. The apartment buildings will have Fire Sprinklers installed as required by the Oregon Fire Code and Oregon Residential Structural Specialty Code. 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. An exception to the existing 9foot, 6-inch setback between the historic residence and the reconstructed garage is necessary. The reduced separation allows for the relocation of one the units from the rear of the property in a triplex format in order to preserve large stature conifer tree. The site unique in that it is a multi family lot that has a high number of dwelling units permitted by density but is heavily treed. The layout allows for the preservation of the large Ponderosa pine tree, and two large Cedar trees. Additionally, the reduced separation allows for o fullwidth, two vehicle garage that has two, single vehicle garage doors. Two doors is more historically compatible than a single, 16foot door. The existing historic structure is more than 12 feet from the east property line which is 2X the minimum setback. This reduces the setback area between the historic structure and the west property line where the garage exists and the reconstructed garage is proposed. Page 19 of 22 1 1 1 8.5.4.050 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria The conditional use permit request is to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the historic district by nine-percent. The proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by nine percent and requires a Conditional Use Permit for the increased area. Maximum Permitted Floor Area: Adjusted Lot Area: 8,856 SF Allowed MPFA for Eight Units: 4,605.12 SF Up to 25% increase with CUP: +1,151.28 SF Total Maximum Allowed MPFA: 5,756.40 SF Existing Residence: 2,054 SF Rebuilt Garage Under Unit 7": 576 SF Proposed New Units: 2,960 SF Total Proposed MPFA: 5,590 SF OR 21% OVER i. `T'hat the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. The use of the site is residential which is consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan policies and does not violate and city, state or federal law. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. As addressed above, there is adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage and paved access to and through the development. 3. 'rhat the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of tile subject lot with the target use of the zone, p►►rsuant with subsection i 8.5,4,050,A,5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. The additional square footage will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the site as eight residential units. The proposal complies with the target use of the zone, the proposal complies with the site design standards applicable in the zone. Page 20 of 22 a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. The proposed triplexes are similar in scale, bulk and coverage as other multi family developments in the zone. The proposed single-story structures are similar in height as the multi family development across the alley. The coverage on the subject property is less than that of the multi family development across the alley. All of the separations between buildings including setbacks and lot coverages are met which provides for a reduced bulk and coverage. The unit over the garage will be setback 20 feet from the front property line, the fagade of the garage is behind the roofline of the parch of the historic residence. A portion of the upper floor is recessed an additional six feet, five-inches to allow for the outdoor upper level porch, this reduces the street fronting mass of the new garage with unit above. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. The square footage proposed to exceed the maximum permitted floor area will not have an impact on the generation of traffic. The use of the property is multi family as envisioned in the code. The request is to fulfill the allowed density on the property. The units are small and have adequate parking as required by code proposed. The property is within walking distance of downtown, grocery and other retail stores, restaurants and bar. The employment center of town and near the bus route on N Main Street. The units are in a walkable neighborhood that has sidewalks throughout. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. The proposed dwellings have traditional styling that reflects the character of the historic contributing structure. Similar siding, reveal, and the Queen Anne style siding detail in the gable end are similar to the front residence. There are varying roof forms, with the stepping down the slight grade to break up the gable line and the mass of the tri-plex structure. The two small cottages are also architecturally compatible with the impact area. The existing garage is setback less than 20 feet from the front property line. The proposed garage with unit above is setback more than 20 feet, the deck provides for an openspace, recesses the facade of the upper story behind the facade of the historic residence. The proposed porches add architectural interest and add variation to the horizontal plane. There are numerous windows to allow for ample natural light into the units. The porch posts are proposed to square versus the turned posts the historic residence. The homes in the impact area are a mixture of vernacular, ranch style, bungalow and craftsman. The proposed buildings have elements of each of those design styles. Page 21 of 22 d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. The additional square footage for the development of the site will not impact the air quality in the impact area any more than the allowed multi family development of the site at seven units. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The proposed increase in square footage will not impact the generation of light, glare or noise any more than the allowed multi family development of the site with seven units would. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The additional square footage will not prevent the multi family development of the adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. it can be found that all of the standards for the development of the site have been met. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. The conditional use to increase the MPFA square feet is an allowable use in the zone. Page 22 of 22 i h a REVIS'ONS / 111 10" IV-10, 0 6"- PdRGH, PC~.N o ~ l p EEPRd - t , . 1.1 J', 'dA.lI~ml , c l i 6 LIVING E C+ROOM - EEQR OM LVING ~ BEdR OM LIVNG ~ KITCHEN it ~ ~ II ~ IT ° a v'ICINITY MAID' ..m_ PORCH it / I lr {i i I NOT TO 50ALfi N If I t II (`~rt! ' , KIiCN EN et[`:-{7M. LIViMS it PtlRCH ~~•:ITCH LIMN 1OAHM ANDREA KRVGI R013EKT 0AU.aaNN. AGENT -13 i - ~JI rQ KITCHEN AQQRE55 Iom KITCHEN 1.1 I - fXLA R.Ni52q V1 i ~ ~ - ) ~}2&GEMTRALAVE. A9 N.➢.0I [:,y,'~ ~ r-}, I q e'1 l am ® PHONE. 541-695 1625 16 `'I ap. 1 l APN 55 tE4400 TAX LOt U450tl 6'-5'_ 51LE ^ 1 K-5 A SQ. P'T- rk zd NrNf: R-B (CllTY or ASHLAND) OVERLAYS: H15TORIG QiSTRI :T I_ •a TAI-ALEX FLOOR PLAN UNIT A(4B)FLAN G1, UNIT FLAN a~rRIPTlafaoPP~aLLCr_ > - GONStRN.'rK7N ON5TF . rh: T r E • I SCALE: 9/8 -P-O" SCALE: I/8 1'-0" SCALE: 1 /8" 1'-0" KE-OVI-T A ALOMEVr61X ONE VNIr GErFORrOTAL OF SIX .I n(~. `}1r I QWELLINIG UNITS; EACH I- T THAN 50050. FT. OF - CONQITIONEQ SPACE. J Si (E) MAIN HOUSE, TOREMAIN •2 E1 'FIVE(N) UNITS OFF ALLEY •5 7 OnE {N,JU_N„ITC7V2R GARAGE • 1 l TOTAL V NELLIN'6 UINT5 - B f TOTAL LOT O7 • 15,40458, FT. 09 1104°,'0 20 0 p 2`~ 0 YVEUNYI T Br7WE E Y8 1 27"-b' 9 a2'_6,• E5T 5HFQOW PROQ.WOIN oFOR58f I&'_0,. ,E'-10". 15=0" Lar TOTAL '~l}~1~rm4 r- ~RE Q I(E) HOUSE (FOOTPRINT) 2,400 50. PT. RINT) .°°°.°°..--......E Gr METERS' ~((9 4 N) NJ TRI-PLEX E A (FOOTP(FOOTFRINT) 1,961501. fT- UNI'GSA n e(FOOTPRINT) 1,17 5 50. FT. (NJ P ICI , -.,r~++-~•-~+*• ....-.A,,° AVING /PRKNNG OF ALLEY. 9 8 'p ..`y ~~t~} I y ! i 1 r Ir I iFRPNT PRINEWAYt WAftR; P FT. Lq~ irl 1Y1rn ' f { 1 0 TOTAL PROPOSER COY=¢! , 1 -K. FT.OR 5S. " ~ L r >1 f ~ z •II y ~ , I"~ Lek;NCSf~kPIMIG: - ;i #555'L"SHEETS-MIN. 25;6 OF SITE Yq BE LANQSCAPE. 2 I7PL .G.3e: °aqR'y'sc red ~t PARR QOilE~Q77cESREezQ 1 n A TOTAL PARKINr- 10 ES REC Q i ¢ I1 41 \ 1, ! r . }l g 1'il ' U' a j PARKING PRAVIPL 2KI SNGSPAGcS INGARAGE TO REMAIN 4 / J~i NEW SPADES OFF ALLEY ' ON-STREET SPACE REG7UE5TFP ' TOTAL OF 10 SPACES PRJvIQEQ p rt HE:! 7 'I N Or is SOJ.S Sri-15.58 FT ` ! f TS F MIN; 82 FT 1 ACTVAL ° f5~56 •i5"'SB-6/,5F5- 24.25 5 1.55 PT > PROVflQEQ .U Ft HIN'"'''~ 1 I v a ~ ,q ~ - ' ~ I t I ( ~ C ~ ~ ...1 j MAPPAGAV.CIUL,4rIGHl 7 L.~, l rJ r J I , ( e 1' ) LOTAREA 16,4005P Q AQJU5TEQ LOT AREA: 6,555 Sr ALLOWEQ MPPA FOR 6 UNITS 4605.125P C y p I IUP Yf)259"PNCISGASEOF MP PANIYHCVPr-1.15 120SF LA.! TOTAL ALLOIwEQMPPA p7H'W CUP 5,756.40bP - '2,054 5P ' II '4 E 2,q 6 TOTAL PROPOSED NQER UNIT F' 5765r 1 ~ I ~Jf1 P ~ L r PL EQNEWEMMPPA •5.5905F q h-. NSC I I ! I / ti 1 J. 05F OR 21 OVER p n V ~ ( pp 1 I - : fZ_ J, ~ 1f n _ h ~'S7 11 I A L j i h f a* f r ` y I" INEi"oss tU}Ik (o, 1 t{ IN ALLEY 11 Lr SPAGE(PERODUNTY) LINE TO HOUSE j NEIi TIF-PLEx- (N) ELE TRIPLEX FLOOR PLAN 0'"I ( N) TRA5H 6 J INV X OF SPI T : EXISITNGS:F,R,HAS RELOOATE(E) RECYCLE 2,0554 S.F. HEATED NATURAL GAS U` ENCLOSURE SHEET 1 SITE PLAN' V1GINITY MAP O D4TE09 30 7T __..C. PEDESTAL, GRayyN SM: I'I-G - (N)9WATERMETER N 5HEET 2 EXTERIOR ELE\/ATIcNr, TO(N)UNITS 1 PWNINGGOMEREQ ELECTRICMETERS E31 BIKE PARKING 5HEET L 1.0 TREE. PROTEGTIPN HEEr ~Y 5HEET L-2.0 PRE-IM. IRRIGATION PLAN 6~ 1 9 HEEr 1-3.0 -RELI*-l PLA";TING PLAN SCALE: 1" ° 10-0., am 'Ell 0 10 20 SO 40 SO 60 TO ao WO 1 OO FT (E) • EXI571NG (N) NEW OP 5 EHEETS T...,_ _ FEVI9!O'NS NOTES: 1. IN GENERAL, ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS d COLORS SHALL MATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE,. 2. USE WHITE LAP 51©ING WJ 5" (MAX) I EXPOSURE ON WALL5. 1 5, USE 1 X CORNER TRIM. d _ '4. USE WHITE PIAMONO 5HINGLE5 ON GABLE N END WALL5,.-, LD 5. B'A510 51NGLE HUNG KNPOW5, U_ I ills, ff r cV NORTH ELEVATION SCALE; 1/#"•E-0" o ao so ao _ sort l ~1 - T I LI 1, W II tl 0 ?'IY P h Gyes d b III t Q LU J II ,I ~ II II III ~ n a G KAG r= m SOUTH ELEVATION ;t \ SCALE: 1J4"• I,_~„ o to most L r FC"L o 13 1~ z W Lk B TR FLEX ! WEST ELEVATION E~°-5T 3 SCALE; 1J4"-1'-O• o uo mo so <o no Fr OF S @NEE:T5 p Per 9.011 , (TAW t~ j 1 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #FA-2017-012 !45 ) RE VEST Fait A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for ) AN EXTENSION the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two units, ) OF THE TIME and the proposal would add six 475-square foot units at the rear of the property in ~ LIMIT two triplex structures accessed from the alley. The application also includes ORS 227.178(1) requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor ) Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by nine percent (395 square feet) and for a Twee Removal Permit to remove seven trees six-inches in diameter-at- breast-height or I;reater. APPLICANT; Robert Baldwin Applicants request a 30 day extension to the time limit set forth in CRS 227.178(l). Ap clant Date Applicant Date [dote: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (C)RS 227.178(1)) may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."] G September 12, 2017 Ashland Planning Division, I have the following comments on the proposed development at 1.28 Central Ave; 1. Traffic generated by this project will create additional safety and maintenance issues in the alley to be utilized as the access to the proposed apartments. This alley is narrow and poorly maintained as is the cross alley between Central and Van Ness. There is significant pedestrian traffic utilizing these alleys with little shoulder room to dodge traffic. Additional traffic, not only from residents but from delivery and service vehicles, will also add to the degradation of the surface, increase dust during dry months and add to drainage issues during the wet season. 2. One parking space per unit is not realistic and street parking on Felman, Central and Van. Ness is already at a premium. Sincorf ]y, lee" Paul Galloway 157 Van Ness' 541-601-2030 "Apr {I, /0// l Pe k__ .)4r Y~~i~r 4F 5. G1 ,,'A 1J ,s„.~..»° ,4✓' ( / na , "Pow F , A A,61 4171, /Vey / , mac ,rte'` g M ~r , p q / ~ Gtr.~~ F~" d L~'~a~,+?~~'~' ,t~`- G ` "l.~"'~ ~/pC i•~ f ~ SW q_ u ? Gr eft.. ' : ,s J~ { Ivea " ► P, C , 7 12 r r { tl 6,f l &la 1 . r r ! A utll~ I~J u _ _ _ _ % Dear Ashland, Planning, Tree and Historic Commission members, 911/17 The following comments re the proposed development at 123 Central Avenue, Ashland Oregon. We understand and accept that our R3 neighborhood is zoned multifamily, high density and that the current vacant lots will be developed over time, however we think the proposed development exceeds what is reasonable and appropriate for this neighborhood for the following reasons: -The project is not similar in scale, hulk, coverage and density to the current surrounding neighborhood which consists of single family dwellings, FD's with 1-2 ADU's and a few duplexes. The most densely developed lot is located at 125 Van Riess across the alley and the lot is very similar in size and configuration to the subject property. It consists of 1 duplex on the street„ 2 duplexes on the alley and provides 1 on street parking spot and 9 alley parking spaces. This development fits reasonably well with the neighborhood and is a example of a project with adequate and realistic parking capacity.. There is inadequate parking proposed. Although allowable, 6 parking spaces for 6 1 bedroom units or even is not realistically adequate. With rental prices high in Ashland and Oregon law allowing for 2 persons per bedroom, it is likely that at least some of the units will house couples and it is likely that they will have more than one vehicle. In addition, they will have visitors that will need to park their vehicles. The alley cannot accommodate any overflow parking without infringing on neighbors or the safety corridor for emergency vehicles. Helman Street will be inconvenient for casual use and street parking is already becoming glutted due to downtown visitors, employees, tour buses, Bard's Inn and Plaza Inn guests and the Helman residents without off street parking. There is also a daycare, health clinic and several vacation rentals located' on the short stretch of Helman from the alley up to Central which utilize street parking. -The traffic generated will present a safety, health and access hazard on the alley in its current condition. The traffic generated from this project will create undo pressure on this unique alley system which is already overburdened. It is a narrow dirt alley that generates dust and does not allow for pedestrian and bicycle passage when cars are traveling on it. The city needs to take a longer view of this alley neighborhood which surely will be developed over time. Indeed, there is currently a project proposed at the rear of 147 Van Riess and 5 more vacant lots that can and will be developed over time. Improvement of the alleys with speed abatement and consideration of vehicle access to the streets using flag lot design are essential before further projects move forward. -The proposed large tree removal is excessive, uinnecessary and detrimental to the immediate surroundings. The plan calls for removal of 7 trees larger than 6 inches DBH and 2 trees that are native Ponderosa Pines of at least 26 DBH that have been deemed in excellent health. In particular, these large pines provide a cooling microclimate to the property and the adjacent west and east properties which allows for less use of energy for cooling and a pleasant outside living environment. In addition, all the trees on the property but especially the large ones are crucial players in the management of the large amounts of water runoff from the hills above and the many aquifers that course through this neighborhood downhill. It is not uncommon in the winter months to have strearns coursing across the alley and standing water in the low spots and resident cellars. The design of this project especially if kept to the allowable MPFA can eas- ly be reconfigured to preserve these valuable trees. In addition, if any large trees are to be removed the unhealthy ailanthus at the front of the property should be removed as it poses a safety hazard to the sidewalk, driveway and yard located underneath. Every wind storm brings down another branch; the most recent one brought down a large limb blocking the sidewalk destroying a section of my fence and damaging a large ornamental shrub. In conclusion, if this development goes forward in any form, the following conditions should be imposed: Keeping to the allowable MPFA or less for this neighborhood. Preserving the 2 large native Ponderosa Pines and removing unhealthy hazard trees. Increasing the parking to a realistic number for the number of units despite the size of the units. Improving the alley using speed abatement and vehicle access to the street using flag lot configuration. Decreasing light impact by keeping outdoor lights to a minimum and with low wattage and low vertical height. Decreasing noise impact by requiring HVAC systems to be located in the interior of the project or at least enclosed with noise abatement materials Requiring trash pick up to be residential not commercial Requiring mail and truck delivery service to be from the street. Thank you for your time.. Sincerely, Ezra Severin 145 Central Ave 541 301-1567 m Brian and Jen Rogers 117 Helman t 520 007. 1330 B01 r _ii.U...c.o1'n Kyle Mercer 116 Central, Ave n U corn Brittany Alison 140 Helman St 541 625-9004 bu.iri( u,r ir l.coir~m Mike C"oglin 149 Helman St 541 414-7259 . r, ""loo corn Lois Van Aken 140 Central Ave 541 951-1225 _ LL 'U r. j ASHLAND THE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET September 7, 2017 PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01294 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 128 Central Avenue APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services OWNERS: Robert Baldwin DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two units, and the, proposal would add six 475-square font units at the rear of the property in two triplex structures accessed from the alley. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by nine percent (395 square feet)' and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density (Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT: 45001. (Note: during the meeting the applicants indicated that they would save Trees 5 and 7 with alterations to the proposal - including moving the middle cottage in one grouping to over the garage and flouting the foundations near trees - that would came back to the Historic Commission for consideration in October.) The Tree Commission recommends approving the applilcation with the following recommendations: 1. That one residential uniit be moved to above the garage as proposed by the applicants and that. Tree ##5 be preserved and protected. 2. That an arborist be consulted to incorporate measures necessary to protect the Port Orford Cedar on the neighboring property as part of the Tree Protection Plan. 1 That mitigation trees for the removal'' of Tree #2, 44 and #10 be six-inch caliper shade trees. 4. That the parking lot island and mitigation tree for Tree 10, be moved to nearer the proposed electrical vault. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5350 C I T Y 0 F 51 AWlnbUrn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashl3rJ, Oregon 97524 TTY: 800-735-29130 ASHLAND 1 d r ` N N Q0 I . ti r 66 IlIN ~I r I ~1 I'd If, 1 "At e," y v~ i ~u k 'u C d N t i~. r 1 , I i K I •~-~.n) itlllliiiiiill ^ y,- i C.? 100 r C%9 i I C~ F ar , ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review September 6, 2017 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01294 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 128 Central Ave. APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning and Development Services/Robert Baldwin DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue. The existing house contains two units, and the proposal would add six 475-square foot units at the rear of the property in two triplex structures accessed from the alley. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by nine percent (395 square feet) and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04CC; TAX LOT: 4500 Recommendation: The Historic Commission recommends approving the application as submitted subject to the specific recommendations below. • The Historic Commission believes the scale and massing is similar to buildings along the alley. However, the Commission believes a portion of the development could be two story and designed to meet the Historic District Design Standards in order to preserve trees. • Use smooth siding, not textured hardieplank. • Add 3 to 4-inch framing between single hung windows. • Do not use white windows. • Increase size of porch posts to larger than 4 x 4 wrap 4 x 4 or use 6 x 6. • Use decorative or flat balustrade on porch railing of new units, do not use proposed 2 x 2. 1 I To: City of Ashland Planning Dept. Fie: Planning Action PA-2017-01294 Property: 128 Central Ave Sept 7, 2017 To Planning Department; As neighbors of the proposed development at 1.28 Central Ave, we would like to raise some concerns: -The density of the proposed project (six small extra units plus two existing, all in the 475 sq.ft range) seems extreme for the size of the property. Our concerns reside in the increased alley parking and car traffic that would result. The alley is a 4 way, and a still foot-friendly conduit among neighbors and between Central, and Heiman; Van Ness and Laurel streets. Surely a somewhat reduced plan, not so impactful to the character, and local ambiance of this current, and somewhat unique, cross alley neighborhood system, would still provide needed housing in the area, while being more in keeping with the existing backyard culture and its community engendering environment. -We are also concerned about the number of trees that would need to be removed for this project. There are some very mature trees, particularly one majestic tall evergreen tree on the property line next to our neighbor's at 140 Central which, if part of the proposed removal, would certainly impact the quality of the surrounding area, as well as diminish hot sun southern exposure shading to neighbors. That tree is an ancient beauty, we°d hate to lose, as also would also be true of the big established Ponderosa Pine affecting the property at 145 Heiman. We hope that the planning dept. and the developer will weigh these concerns in their deliberations, recognizing that it's not just housing that creates community neighborhood; it's connections. This particular cross alley system is our avenue for that., Sincerely, R . Rob Hirschboeck and Deborah Dryden Property fawners: 147 Van Ness tl 1 FLL A limited liability company 541-482-8244 September 4, 2017 Re: Planning action #PA-2117-0129 Dear Sir: In reference to the above planning action I would hope you would consider improvements to the alley this property will use for access. The alley is already heavily used with very minimal maintenance. It should be paved to full width with no parking encroachments allowed. Also, if alley is improved, speed controls must be placed on the alley. Speed bumps, though hated by all, are effective. I would anticipate property owners will pay their fair share of cost, which I am willing to do, Sincer Dave Greene GFLLC (Owner of 125-135 Vanness) 307 Oxford St Ashland, OR j Maria Harris From: Phyllis Brown <phyllisbuck opendoor.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:15 AM To: Maria Harris ~F Subject: PA,-2017-01204 128 Central Ave. To: Ashland Planning, Tree and Historic Commissions Subject: Proposed development of 128 Central Avenue, Ashland OR My name is Michael H. Brown. My home is 119 Van Ness Avenue where I have resided for 15 years. I understand that our neighborhood is zoned for high density, multifamily use. My concerns are: 1. This development includes 6 new units that are "accessed from the alley." This will test the ability of the narrow lane to handle the additional auto and foot traffic created by this project. 2. l am directly downhill from this project so l am concerned that the runoff from the newly created impervious surfaces be affectively directed to the existing storm drains. This is a narrow passageway, not a street. Auto traffic is restricted to one vehicle the direction of which is determined by the driver. I trust that the Planning Commission has the authority and the foresight not to allow the conditional use permit for the additional 39,5 sq., ft., which may alleviate some of the problems created by this project. Maybe a tree could be saved, traffic reduced, runoff decreased. Thank you for your attention. t R"m E SEP 0 0 2017 Cif hid, Dear Ashland Planning, Tree and Historic Commission members, 911117 The following comments re the proposed development at 128 Central Avenue, Ashland Oregon. We understand and accept that our R3 neighborhood is zoned multifamily, high density and that 'the current vacant lots will be developed over time, however we think the proposed development exceeds what is reasonable and appropriate for this neighborhood for the following reasons: -The project is not similar in scale, bulk, coverage and density to the current surrounding neighborhood which consists of single family dwellings, SFD's with 1-2 ADU's and a few duplexes. The most densely developed lot is located at 125 Van Ness across the alley and the lot is very similar in size and configuration to the subject property. It consists of 1duplex on the street, 2 duplexes on the alley and provides 1 on street parking spot and 9 alley parking spaces. This development fits well with the neighborhood and is a good example of a reasonable project with adequate and realistic parking capacity. There is inadequate parking proposed. Although allowable, 6 parking spaces for 6 1 bedroom units or even 5 is not realistically adequate. With rental prices high in Ashland and Oregon law allowing for 2 persons per bedroom, it is likely that at least some of the units will house couples and it is likely that they will have more than one vehicle. In addition, they will have visitors that will need to park their vehicles. The alley cannot accommodate any overflow parking without infringing on neighbors or the safety corridor for emergency vehicles. Heiman Street will be inconvenient for casual use and street parking is already becoming glutted due to downtown visitors, employees, tour buses, Bard's Inn and Plaza Inn guests or and the Heiman residents without off street parking. There is also a daycare, health clinic and several vacation rentals located on the short stretch of Helman from the alley up to Central which utilize street parking. -The traffic generated will present a safety, health and access hazard on the alley in its current condition. The traffic generated from this project will create undo pressure on this alley which is already overburdened. It is a narrow dirt alley that generates dust and does not allow for pedestrian and bicycle passage when cars are traveling on it. The city needs to take a longer view of this alley neighborhood which surely will be developed over time. Indeed,there is currently a 3 unit project proposed at 147 Van Ness on the alley and 5 more vacant lots that can and will be developed over time. Improvement of the alley with speed abatement and vehicle access to the streets through the properties are essential before further projects move forward. -The proposed large tree removal is excessive, unnecessary and detrimental to the immediate surroundings. The plan calls for removal of 7 trees larger than 6 inches DBH and 2 trees that are native Ponderosa Pines of at least 26 DBH that have been deemed in excellent health. In particular, these large pines provide a cooling microclimate to the property and the adjacent west and east properties which allows for less use of energy for cooling and a pleasant outside living environment. In addition, all the trees on the property but especially the large ones are crucial players in the management of the large amounts of water runoff from the hills above and the many aquifers that course through this neighborhood downhill. it is not uncommon in the winter months to have streams coursing across the alley and standing water in the low spots and resident cellars. The design of this project especially if kept to the allowable MPFA can easily be reconfigured to preserve these valuable trees. In conclusion, if this development goes forward in any form, the following conditions should be imposed: Keeping to the allowable MPFA or less for this neighborhood. Preserving the 2 large native Ponderosa Pines. Increasing the parking to a realistic number for the number of units despite the size of the units. Improving the alley using speed abatement and vehicle access to the street using flag lot configuration. Decreasing light impact by keeping outdoor lights to a minimum and with low wattage and vertical height. Decreasing noise impact by requiring HVAC systems to be located in the interior of the project or at least enclosed with noise abatement materials. Requiring trash pick up to be residential not commercial. Requiring mail and truck delivery service to be from the street. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ezra Severin 145 Central Ave 541 301-1567 ezraseverin(cD-gmail. com Brittany Alison 149 Helman St 541 625-9004 brittanyallison@gmaii.com Mike Goglin 149 Helman St 541 4147259 mikegoglin@_yahoo.com Lois Van Aken 140 Central Ave 541 951-1225 yanakenCaD_mtashland.net Marla Harris From: Mike Coglin <mikegogl ~ `at,_yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 8:06 PM To.. Maria Harris Subject: Concern re development at 128 Central Ave Attachments: Gear Ashland Pianning.pdf Attached is a letter regarding proposed development at 128 Central Avenue. Thank you for your time, Michael Gogli'n ` F j lDear Ashland Planning, Tree and Historic Commission members, 91111,7 The following are my comments re the proposed development at 126 Central Avenue, Ashland Oregon. My name is Brittany Allison and I have lived at 149 Heiman Street for 3 years. Our backyard is directly adjacent to the subject property and we benefit immensely from the shade provided by the 2 large Ponderosa Pine trees that are being proposed to be cut down for the 123 Central Ave project. One of the main reasons I love living in Ashland' is because it is nestled in the trees. While I, understand and accept that my R3 neighborhood is zoned multifamily, high density and that the current vacant lots will be developed over time, I think the proposed development exceeds what is reasonable and appropriate for this neighborhood for the following reasons: -The project is not similar in scale, bulk, coverage and density to the current surrounding neighborhood which consists of single family dwellings, SFD°s with 1-2 ADU's and a few duplexes. The most densely developed lot is located at 125 Van Ness across the alley and the lot is very similar in size and configuration to the subject property. It consists of lduplex on the street, 2 duplexes on the alley and provides 1 on street parking spot and 9 alley parking spaces.. This development fits well with the neighborhood and is a good example of a reasonable project with adequate and realistic parking capacity. -There is inadequate parking proposed. Although allowable, 6 parking spaces for 6 1 bedroom units or even 5 is not realistically adequate. With rental prices high in Ashland and Oregon law allowing for 2 persons per bedroom, it is likely that at least some of the units will house couples and it is likely that they will have more than one vehicle. In addition, they will have visitors that will need to park their vehicles. The alley cannot accommodate any overflow parking without infringing on neighbors or the safety corridor for emergency vehicles. Helman Street will be inconvenient for casual use and street parking is already becoming glutted due to downtown visitors, employees, tour buses, Bard's Inn and Plaza Inn guests or and the Heiman residents without off street parking. There is also a daycare, health clinic and several vacation rentals located on the short stretch of Heiman from the alley up to Central which utilize street parking. -The traffic generated will present a safety and health and access hazard on the alley in its cur-rent condition. The traffic generated from this project will create undo pressure on this alley which is already overburdened. It is a narrow dirt alley that generates dust and does not allow for pedestrian and bicycle passage when cars are traveling on it. The city needs to take a longer view of this alley which surely will be developed over time. Indeed there is currently a 3 unit project proposed at 147 Van bless on the alley and 5 more vacant lots that can and will be developed over time. Improvement of the alley with speed abatement and vehicle access to the streets are essential before further projects move forward. -The proposed large tree removal is excessive, unnecessary and detrimental to the immediate surroundings. The plan calls for removal of 7 trees larger than 5 inches DBH and 2 trees that are native Ponderosa Pines of at least 25 DBH that have been deemed in excellent health. In particular these large pines provide a cooling microclimate to the property and the adjacent west and east properties which allows for less use of energy for cooling and a pleasant outside living environment. In addition, all the trees on the property but especially the large ones are crucial players in the management of the large amounts of water runoff from the hills above and the many aquifers that course through this neighborhood downhill. It is not uncommon in the winter months to have streams coursing across the alley and standing water in the low spots and resident cellars. The design of this project especially if kept to the allowable IVIPFA can easily be reconfigured to preserve these valuable trees. In conclusion, if this development goes forward in any form, the following conditions should be imposed: Keeping to the allowable MPFA for this neighborhood or less Preserving the 2 large native Ponderosa Pines Increasing the parking to a realistic number for the number of units despite the size of the units. Improving the alley using speed abatement and consider vehicle access to the street. Decreasing light impact by keeping outdoor lights to a minimum and with low wattage and vertical height. Decreasing noise impact by requiring HVAC systems to be located in the linterior of the project or at least enclosed with noise abatement materials. Requiring trash pick up to be residential not commercial Requiring mail and truck delivery service to be from the street. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Brittany Allison 149 Heiman St 541 525 9004 brittanyaklisonl a@grraail.com 1 I Clear Ashland Planning, Tree and Historic Commission members, 911117 The following are my comments re the proposed development at 128 Central Avenue, Ashland Oregon. My name is Brittany Allison and I have lived at 149 Heiman Street for 3 years. Our backyard is directly adjacent to the subject property and we benefit immensely from the shade provided by the 2 large Ponderosa Pine trees that are being proposed to be cut down for the 128 Central Ave project. One of the main reasons I love living in Ashland is because it is nestled in the trees. While I understand and accept that my R3 neighborhood is zoned multifamily, high density and that the current vacant lots will be developed over time, I think the proposed development exceeds what is reasonable and appropriate for this neighborhood for the following reasons: -The project is not similar in scale, bulk, coverage and density to the current surrounding neighborhood which consists of single family dwellings, SFUs with 1-2 ADU's and a few duplexes. The most densely developed lot is located at 125 Van Mess across the alley and the lot is very similar in size and configuration to the subject property. It consists of 1duplex on the street, 2 duplexes on the alley and provides 1 on street parking spot and 9 alley parking spaces. This development fits well with the neighborhood and is a good example of a reasonable project with adequate and realistic parking capacity. -There is inadequate parking proposed. Although allowable, 6 parking spaces for 6 1 bedroom units or even 5 is not realistically adequate. With rental prices high in Ashland and Oregon law allowing for 2 persons per bedroom, it is Ilikely that at least some of the units will house couples and it is likely that they will have more than one vehicle. In addition, they will have visitors that will need to park their vehicles. The alley cannot accommodate any overflow parking without infringing on neighbors or the safety corridor for emergency vehicles. Heiman Street will be inconvenient for casual use and street parking is already becoming glutted due to downtown visitors, employees, tour buses, Bard's Inn and Plaza Inn guests or and the Heiman residents without off street parking. There is also a daycare, health clinic and several vacation rentals located on the short stretch of Heiman from the alley up to Central which utilize street parking. -The traffic generated will present a safety and health and access hazard on the alley in its current condition. The traffic generated from this project will create undo pressure on this alley which is already overburdened. It is a narrow dirt alley that generates dust and' does not allow for pedestrian and bicycle passage when cars are traveling on it. The city needs to take a longer view of this alley which surely will be developed over time. Indeed there is currently a 3 unit project proposed at 147 Van Jess on the alley and 5 more vacant lots that can and will be developed', over time. lmprovement of the alley with speed abatement and vehicle access to the streets are essential before further projects move forward. -The proposed large tree removal is excessive, unnecessary and detrimental to the immediate surroundings. The plan calls for removal of 7 trees larger than 6 inches DBH and 2 trees that are native Ponderosa Pines of at least 26 DISH that have been deemed in excelllent health. In (particular these large pines provide a cooling microclimate to the property and the adjacent west and east properties which allows for less use of energy for cooling and a pleasant outside living environment. In addition, all the trees on the property but especially the large ones are crucial players in the management of the large amounts of water runoff from the hills above and the many aquifers that course through this neighborhood downhill. It is not uncommon in the winter months to have streams coursing across the alley and standing water in the low spots and resident cellars. The design of this project especially if kept to the allowable MPFA, can easily be reconfigured to preserve these valuable trees. In conclusion, if this development goes forward in any form, the following conditions should be imposed: Keeping to the allowable MPFA, for this neighborhood or less Preserving the 2 large native Ponderosa Pines Increasing the parking to a realistic number for the number of units despite the size of the units. Improving the alley using speed abatement and consider vehicle access to the street. Decreasing light impact by keeping, outdoor lights to a minimum and with low wattage and vertical height. Decreasing noise impact by requiring HVA,C systems to be located in the interior of the project or at least enclosed with noise abatement materials. Requiring trash pick up to be residential not commercial Requiring mail and truck delivery service to be from the street. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brittany Allison 1449 Holman 5t 541 6259004 brittanyallsonl7@a gmail.com Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ( c41-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY:1-800-735-2900 11,&i g NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01294 SU'BJECT' PROPERTY: 128 Central Ave OW11NER1APPLICANT: Robert Baldwin/Rogue Planning & Deveiopment Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development for the property located at 128 Central Avenue, The existing house contains two units, and the proposal would add six 475-square foot units at the rear of the property in two triplex structures accessed from the alley, The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District by nine percent (395 square feet) and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi!-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S, MAP: 39 1 E 04CC; TAX LOT: 4500. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday September 6, 2017 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 6:00 P in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 29, 2017 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: September 12, 2017 13, VP128 ubje c etnProp rty C tral Acre. A~#201 7--0 0 1 294 rr.. - i90 1'ee iii ~ C r]p f' ~ m4G ~ Y ~f t2 12. The Ashland, Planning Division Staff', has rt:ceived a complete application for the property noted above, Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland', Oregon 57520 prior to 4:80 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period, After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.11.050.G) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeat to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or) that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable crilteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cast, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building,, 51 Winburn'Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Uf you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-485-5305. G;~cr'mint-dev`plannimg\Plannirig ActioavsV'CQoticing Folder@Arailed Noakes ~ Signs12 MPA-20'17-01249.doee SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2)„ including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, (lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height„ building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C, Site Development and Design Standards; The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. L" D flue , .e. _....u)t < ..u ~ S The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found' to exist. 1, There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the speci^-, requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 185.4.050.A A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be (located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets, Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. L The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g.. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows, a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 182,5 Standards for Residential Zones.. b. R-1, Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c, R-2 and R-3, Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d, C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with at] ordinance requirements, e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 182.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 1822 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements, and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g, M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2,2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements, h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Dill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i, CM-CE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3,2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 183,2 Croman Mill District, d'evel'oped at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements, I. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18,33 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. Wcomin-de0planningTlanni❑g ActionslNlrrfi eng FolderWo*d Nlokes & Sign512017%JIA 2017-01.2,19.docx TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18A7.1040.13 1. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. T`-e City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.056. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. 1 -A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval' authority finds that the application meets au _ i the luiiuwing teria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable (Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternafives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval' pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Cclrcmn~-dawhplairnunp d laruri~~l Acficin lotieing FoldcOM ailed Notices & Signsl201 "7U"A-20.117-©1249. &ocs AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON } County of Jackson } The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On August 29, 2017 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 #PA-2017-01294, 128 Central. f-9 n , &W Sin ture of Employee C,%Users%lrappCeslioplTemplees'AFFIDAVIT OF I,W LING_Regan.doex 812812017 I D9LStianyanegec~alzasill}n i =dn-dodpaogaABIJalgni~Japugeajng3eqelgzalldaa I I I slua}ed/woaAme:led 1 sjlaege6/ea•/Gane a zany oload f%se3 assaipe,p sapanbl;3 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4000 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5100 r A-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4500 AYARS REGINA ET AL BAKER BARRY AIMICHELLE A BALDWIN ROBERT 199 HILLCREST ST 122 HELMAN ST 5243 PIONEER RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7300 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2100 PA-2017-01294 391 E04 CC 3100 BARD'S INN LIMITED PTNSHIP BATZER JAMES HIR ANDREW BOWLAND SIDNEY J/SHERI L 1120 PROSPECT ST PO BOX 970 PO BOX 1025 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2600 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7800 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5000 BROWN MICHAEL HAROLD & PHYLLIS COLLINGS DAVIDISCHRAN-COLLINGS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC ROS ET AL SABINE 246 FOURTH ST 119 VAN NESS 13236 E EVANS CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ROGUE RIVER, OR 97537 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2300 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 3000 DAVIES RONALD LARRY FOGELMAN LOREN GALLOWAY PAUL ElKIMBERLY D 6795 RAPP LN 173 HELMAN ST 157 VAN NESS TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 4 j PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5200 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2700 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2200 GEARY EDWARD A TRUST ET AL GREENE FAMILY LIMITED LIABILITY HADDAD JOANNE M 345 HARRISON ST COMPANY 6795 RAPP LANE ASHLAND, OR 97520 367 OXFORD ST ! TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2900 j PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7700 HIRSCHBOECK ROBERT W TRUSTEE ET i KENCAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KENCAIRN KERRY K REV LIVING TRUST I AL 545 A STREET SUITE 102 ET AL 71 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 147 CENTRAL AVE i ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4600 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 391 E09BB 400 MERCER KYLE K PETER CIPES PLAZA HOSPITALITY LLC 116 CENTRAL AVE 315 N. MAIN 203 SE PARK PL 230 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 VANCOUVER, WA 98684 1 ~ I ! I ~ I PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4900 PA-2017-01294 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4300 ROGERS BRIAN/JENNIFER ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ROSS SANDRA LYNN TRSTEE FBO 117 HELMAN ST 1424 S. IVY STREET 5104 YACHT CLUB DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ROCKWALL, TX 75032 j PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4700 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7600 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7500 SCHLITZER MARGRET BRAY j SEVERIN EZRA SHIELDS JOAN DARLENE 145 HELMAN ST 145 CENTRAL AVE 123 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4200 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 2800 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4800 SILBOWITZ ALFRED INIRGINIA SNIFFEN MATTHEW SIREBECCA A STANLEY FAMILY TRUST ET AL 1601 E NEVADA ST 99 UNION ST 4886 HWY 66 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I o9l59ieldwgjkanyasn I ya6p3dn-dodesodxoo4aui16uolepuag I r~ ®09 LS O/(U 3,Ab s9jeldWa;/W03-fU8ne 01 00 slageT ssaappd®laad Ase 11 I 09L9Ajany}uegegapz0Sf11j L 1 =dn•dodpjoga3aiJaI,?n§Osapuyeajn4~e4el@zasldad I s;llege6/eo•ti0ne a zallb` ` ®laad,tseB assaipe p sa}anblj sauajed/wortiane:jed PA-2017-01294 391 E04 CC 8400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 4400 r~=2017-01294 391 E04CC 4100 TRAVISANO JOSEPH A VAN AKEN LOIS E TRUSTEE ET AL VAN DE VELDE BEN 155 CENTRAL AVE 140 CENTRAL AVE 164 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 7400 PA-2017-01294 391 E04CC 5300 PA-2017-01294 WARREN REBECCA WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL 128 CENTRAL 75 HELMAN ST 152 HELMAN ST 8129/2017 NOC ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 35 I i I i I 1 i I i i i i i I i i i E I o9L5a4eidwal>U9nyasfj I 1a6p3dn-dodasodxaoiauil6uoiepuag sajeldwaj/wo:)tiane of OE) ; slagel ssaippV ®laad Ase3 ; ®09 L9 OAdIn5i 1 t ~r { ~ < s. ~ } ,S , ' Fhb 04 I, Y i:-: t Y ` r .jr I J. w-, r i.-~ e, • r, ~1~ r;, ua lip z`s ~,n f.~ t~ al lit t -.7 ..te~rr fa g Id l i it + a. r_~ e qn. K? c-7 it e'~r CI x'41 45 ~ f , H F ~EJ ~ 1_ , t f r- + ~ , I~ 1 r ~ rs>, y t Al, 1 i ..3 f•7 r, , lit 1 1 ~,f { ' Ja rt 61 ~ [1 rr r~ 1 ~°y r ~ 1 } 1 1 L•AI T , - ' 4 ~ :,1 a 1{1 t-' i. i 1 " I r r r t 1 S ( l , 4-4 { ~ rat r ra'} n elf r'' r' + !Il if 1 '1 t. 1 1 X4.1 ill 41 k(1 1.1 s t k"`a 4-6 ate".1 r. ~'t` Y ti - t. } r i a~, t r i i ICI l~) 1 , r y q;"a f C~. L,Y Lit ~ fr, r• i rl ei+ ~ r I Ls i7 1 11 4 I 1..1 `~,y I_1 1~1 111 I f 128 Central Avenue Site Review Eight Unit Six new units with preservation of existing historical, dupl,exed residence ROGUE PLANNING 6 NEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LIG 1 July 17, 2017 AMENDED Multi-Family Site. Review Subject Property Property Address: 128 Central Avenue Property Owner: Robert Baldwin 5243 Pioneer Road Medford, OR 97501 Planning Consultant: Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 1424 S Ivy Street Medford, OR 97520 Building Designer: Peter Cipes 31S N Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Landscppe Architect: KenCairn Landscape Architect 545 A Street, Suite 102 Ashland, OR 97520 Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04CC Tax Lots: 4500 Zoning: R-3 Adjacent Zones: R-3 Lot Area: 16,400 square feet Max Lot Coverage: 12,300 square feet Allowed Density 18.2.5.080: .376 X 20 = 7.5 Proposed Density: Seven residential units; Six units less than 500 sf (6X.75 4.5) Duplexed front Residence Outdoor Recreation - max 8%: 1,312 sf t Page 1 of 24 1 Reguest: A request for a Multi-Family Site Design Review for an eight-unit development. The development will consist of the two-unit residence at the front of the property, and six new units at the rear of the property accessed via the alley. A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District is proposed. The application includes a tree removal request. Property Description: The subject property is on the north side of Central 2400 s 15'0' 0.11 Ac, 7 43004 $ r ' Avenue to the west of the intersection of Helman 0 21 Ac 4400 4 % 8' Street and Central Avenue. The lot has 82 feet of 0.25 Ac. 2500 4500 7 frontage on Central Avenue and extends 200 feet to 0 36 Ac. the north to the 16-foot wide public alley at the rear' 4700 of the property. The alley connects Helman Street F, ~ 01 and Laurel Street. 4600 ,M. The lot is 16,400 square feet in area and is zoned R- 0 16A<:. 4800 009 Ac 3, High Density, Multi-Family Residential. The site 1 ~ w~c slopes approximately four percent to the 4900 north/northeast. 15 Ac 0 The site is occupied by the Historic Contributing, 5900 James Dunkin (Dunkin-Thornton) house. The 2,054- 0.11 A 7501 square foot, two story, residence was constructed in * r`' 5000 1895. The ground floor consists of a 1,286-square 0.25 ~a~. foot residential unit. The second floor is a 768-square foot residential unit. To the west of the residence there is a 576-square foot, two vehicle garage. A tree survey is included in the application. There is a mixture of deciduous and conifer trees. Some of the trees will require removal to facilitate the development. Street trees that comply with the spacing standards will be planted -along the frontage of the property within the parkrow. A tree plan has been provided. Central Avenue is a (Neighborhood Street and has a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Central Avenue its improved with pavement, curb and gutter eight-foot parkrow and five and one-half foot sidewalk along the frontage of the property. The site is accessed via driveway that is near the west property line. There is water service in Central Avenue. The sanitary sewer service and electrical service are present at the rear of the property in the public alley. Sanitary sewer services are also present in Central Avenue. There is no storm drain service to the property. k Page 2 of 24 { F, r f .Y`• , r ~•r ~ arcs. n ~ i 1~- - { . ,L ~ . s r ~ i• rgl .J~ r~~ 1, tir r _ i I> , Proposal: The request is to construct six new units within two, triplex structures accessed from the alley. These units are proposed as two structures consisting of, three, one bedroom units that are 475 square feet in area. Each unit is proposed to have an entry porch and small outdoor storage closet. The existing historic contributing, residence will remain on the site. The residence was dupllexed by a previous property owner. According to the previous property owner (see attached statement) the upstairs unit was present when he purchased the property in 1979. The Jackson County Assessors data from the 1977 assessment (attached') notes the upstairs apartment. There were electric two services to the property and the electric meter base is still present, When a new electrical panel was installed, only one meter was replaced on the structure. The existing, detached garage to the west of the front residence and the driveway curbcut from Central will remain. A Page 3 of 24 1 The proposed development requires ten (10) vehicle parking spaces. Six units less than 500 sf: 6 Front Duplex Residence: 4 Total: 14 The two-vehicle garage will provide the two parking spaces for the primary residence. The upper unit is proposed' to utilize two, on-street parking credits. At the rear of the property, accessed via the alley, there are six parking spaces proposed. An offloading zone for an ADA van accessible space is provided adjacent to the five-foot buffer, along the west property line. The proposal requires ten (10) bicycle parking spaces. A covered rack for six bicycle parking spaces is proposed at the rear of the property in the area between the triplex's, adjacent to the walkways. Bicycle Parking: Structure at rear of property: 6 Garage/Porch Area: 4 Sheltered bicycle parking required: 10 The trash and recycle enclosure area is proposed adjacent to the east property line. No landscape buffer is proposed along the east property line due to the refuse area fencing providing a buffer. A five-foot landscape buffer is proposed, along the west property line. No modifications are proposed to the existing, historic contributing residence. The structure has a large wrap around front porch and a strong orientation towards Central Avenue. There are architectural details such as turned posts, subdued Queen Anne details in the gable ends, spindle bracketry under the eaves, trim details, etc. that give the structure some architectural interest. The garage was constructed sometime in the 1960s and lacks any distinguishable characteristics and is visually dominating. If the project budget allows, the garage may be re-sided to resemble or match the existing residence siding reveal'. The proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by nine percent and requires a Conditional Use Permit for the increased area. Maximum Permitted Floor Area: Adjusted Lot Area: 8,856 SF Allowed MPFA for Fight Units: 4,605.12 SF Up to 25°.f increase with CUP: +1,151.28 SF Total Maximum Allowed MPFA: 5,756.40 SF Proposed new units: 2,946 SF Existing Residence: 2,054 SF Page 4 of 2.4 f 1 Total Proposed MPFA: 5,000 SF (9% EXCESS) The garage is 9-feet, 11-inches away from the residence. The porch cover nearly touches the eve of the garage. The garage is excluded from the Maximum Permitted Floor Area Calculations. The proposed units are small in area and footprint. The units are clearly secondary to the primary residence. The units are proposed to have minor details reflective of the historic contributing structure, have historically appropriate rhythms of openings and windows and door areas. With the number of units proposed within the allowed density and the historically appropriate proposed design, the request for a minor provision of additional floor area is reasonable. The proposed development its similar in bulk, scale and coverage as other multi-family developments in the vicinity. A sidewalk system is proposed through the development in order to provide a safe walking route to the public sidewalk on Central Avenue and from the units to the parking area and to the trash / recycle enclosure area. The required open space area is 1,312 square feet. The proposed open spaces consist of approximately 378 square foot of porches for the triplex units. The historic residence has a 372-square foot porch. There is a 378-square foot deck at the rear, on the west side of the structure for the upstairs unit. A common patio area is between the triplex units and the front house. More than 1,400 square feet in area has been provided in "functional open space. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and other plantings. The landscaping plan provides two new street trees, a shade tree in the five-foot landscape buffer along the west property line, and four new trees in the landscape areas. A detailed survey of the trees has been provided. There are 14 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) on the property. Of those, ten are in the area of development. There are three on the property to the east. There are two trees on the property to the west. There are a variety of large stature trees that have generally been well taken care of. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan has been provided. The property owner is requesting an exception to not plant "trees that will achieve similar size and stature at maturity" to replace the Ponderosa and the Deodar cedar trees, as they are excellent specimen in areas where there is room to grow but not necessarily compatible with six new residential units. To accommodate the electrical site work necessary on the site and provide adequate room for essential functions of development including required separations between buildings, site grading, storm water improvements, a few of the sites trees, and, two of the larger trees on site require removal. Findings address the tree removal criteria are attached. The street tree is proposed for removal so that two larger stature trees can be replanted in the parkrow. Along the east property line there is a power pole that has lines that run parallel to the alley. From the pole near the northeast corner a secondary service pole that feeds the existing residence and the Page 5€f24 property to the west. When the site develops, the electric service is required to be undergrounded. The service upgrades will require a below ground vault. The proposal is to place the vault near the alley and the northeast property line. The neighbors service would be undergrounded to their residence along the similar electrical path as the overhead. The route of the line depends on the service location. The City of Ashland Electric Department has been consulted and has reviewed the proposed layout. The water service will be installed from Central Ave, along the east property line as close to the residence as possible to reduce the impacts on the large cedar tree on the adjacent property to the east. Sanitary sewer service will) go the alley. There is no storm water service on the property. There are also no storm water systems present on Delman. In consultation with the Public Works Department, an appropriate system will need to be engineered that will accommodate storm water drainage. The applicant's engineer has begun those discussions, and initial design work. It is the applicant's understanding that the alley will be required to be paved from the west property line to the east at the intersection of the alley and Helman. Conclusion: In conclusion, the applicant finds that the proposed development complies with the standards for multi- family development and the permitted uses in the R-3 zone. The units proposed are a desirable size for individuals, and some couples comfortable with the small unit size. The property is near downtown, and there is an array of amenities provid'ed' within walking distance of the neighborhood. According to Walkscore, the property is Very Walkable and has a score of 87. [L t I i 1 11, There are six, small, energy efficient units combined with the generous site amenities including mature trees, covered, secure bicycle parking, automobile parking and in close proximity to downtown and within walking distance of many businesses, bus routes, and the ambiance of an established neighborhood. New, smaller stature trees and ground cover landscaping is proposed that is compatible with a multi- family development. Adequate outdoor space exists to allow for tenant outdoor space that is functional to the residents. The porches provide valuable square footage of private outdoor living area that is more than ten percent of the floor area of the new units. The common patio area provides for a common area. where tenants can interact with others or provide a small gathering area. These combined areas encompass more than eight percent of the site area. The existing historic contributing structure will remain as is and continue as a two-unit residence, as it has since at least the mid-1970s. Page 6 of 24 1 The property owner understands that the municipal code allows for other uses permitted outright by the zone, including residential care facility, residential care home, or residential boarding facility. The present occupant (and former property owner) of the front house, said that a needed living arrangement is an independent care facility. The type of place where a caregiver can live in a unit and semi- independent adults can five in the others. This would fulfil a needed housing type, near the downtown, bus routes, medical facilities, markets, etc. There are also special permitted uses that appear to be allowable with some evaluation by the city, such as Home Occupation businesses. The care facility parking standards are the same as the multi-family standards. The multi-family development in the multi-family zoned neighborhood and the City of Ashland should be a welcome addition to the community. The applicant find's that all of the applicable City of Ashland requirements have been met or can be met through the imposition of conditions of approval. On the following pages, the criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it pertains to Site Design Review and Conditional Use permit criteria have been addressed. The City of Ashland criteria are in I'imes New Roman font and the applicant°s findings are in Calibri font. Page 7 of 24 1 1 Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: Ashland Municipal Cade 18.5.2.050 A. Underlying Zone. "1 he proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multiple Family Residential. The parcel is 16,400 square feet (.376 ac) and meets minimum lot area and minimum lot dimensions in the R-3 zone. The proposal is to have a total of eight residential dwelling units. The first unit is the ground floor of the existing front residence. The second unit is the upper level of the front residence. At the rear of the property, to the north of the front residence, accessible from the alley are six units within two triplex structures. There is a detached, two vehicle, garage to the left of the existing residence. The garage structure and the front residence do .not have any exterior modifications proposed. The existing setbacks are slightly non-conforming to the front property line (19-feet, 1 112 - inches fa~ade of the garage). Behind this structure are the proposed units. They consist of two, separate triplex buildings. The structures on the east side is setback six feet from the side yard setback. The structure on the west side is setback nine feet to accommodate the area to preserve the 26-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine tree that is near the west property line. The units are separated from the front residence by more than 12 feet. There is more than 12 feet of separation between the two new structures. The proposed dwellings have traditional styling that reflects the character of the historic contributing structure. Similar siding, reveal, and Queen Anne details in the gable end are similar to the front residence. There are varying roof forms, with the stepping down the slight grade to break up the gable line and the mass of the structures. The proposed porches add architectural interest and add variation to the horizontal plane. There are numerous windows to allow for ample natural light into the units. The porch posts are proposed to be square instead of turned like the historic structures porch posts. The solar setback standards are met with the development because the structures are single story, more than 25 feet from the 16 foot wide right-o, way and there is only a four percent slope. The units will not cast a shadow beyond the width of the right-of-way. Allowed Density 18.2.5.080; .376 X 20 = 7.5 Proposed Density: Seven residential units (6..5); Six units less than 500, sf (6X.75 = 4.5), Duplexed front Residence The required open space area is 1,312 square feet. The proposed open spaces consist of approximately 378 square foot of porches for the triplex units. The historic residence has a 372-square foot porch. There is a 378-square foot deck at the rear, on the west side of the structure for tl7e upstairs unit. A common A Plige 8 of 24 } I patio area is proposed at the junction of the pathways to provide a shared outdoor area. More than 1,400 square feet in area has been provided in ";f'unctional" open space. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and plantings. Lot Coverage: Proposed impervious areas including existing building footprints, proposed building footprints, pathways, driveways, deck (excluding 200 SF) is 9,759 SF of the 16,400 SF lot for a total lot coverage of 59 percent, this is less than the maximum of 75 percent in the zone. Parking The proposed development requires ten (10) vehicle parking spaces. Six units less than 500 sf• 6 Front Duplex Residence: 4 Total: 10 The two-vehicle garage will provide the two parking spaces for the primary residence. The upper unit is proposed to utilize two, on-street parking credits, In accordance with AMC 18.4,3.060.A. for on-street credits the property has more than 44 feet of continuous curb along the frontage of the property. Central Avenue is a fully improved Neighborhood Street with curb, gutter sidewalk and park row. The property is not a corner lot. Lastly, the property is more than 200 feet from downtown and the SCE zone. At the rear of the property, accessed via the alley, six head-in parking spaces are proposed. An offloading zone for an ADA van accessible space is provided adjacent to the five foot buffer along the west property line. Ten bicycle parking spaces are required. There is a six-bike rack near the parking area adjacent to the alley, two spaces in the garage and two on the covered porch. U-shaped bicycle rack staples will be used to accommodate for the six spaces, a wall mounting system is proposed for the two spaces on the porch. See attached specifications for CycLoc. Energy Usage: All of the units within the proposed development will be constructed to the current energy codes and building code standards. A detailed analysis of the actual energy consumption has not been determined but the square footage, use of ductless heat pump systems, LED lighting all contribute to the low energy consumption anticipated in the triplex units. R. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 183). The property is in the Skidmore Historic District. Development is subject to AMC 18.4.2.050. The design complies with the applicable overlay zone requirements. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development B. Historic District Design Standards. Page 9 of 24 1 The property is occupied by a historic contributing, two-story duplexed residence. The circa 1.895, lames Duncan House is a historic contributing structure. It is not proposed to be altered as part of this proposal. The garage structure was constructed in the 1960s. It is also not proposed to be altered. Height: The proposed structures are similar to average heights of structures in the vicinity. The proposed structures ore substantially shorter than the historic contributing structure. Scale: The scale of the proposed structures are within the range of other multi-family dwellings in the vicinity. The limited square footage of the structures at 1,478 square feet is in line with single family residence in the vicinity as well. Massing: Through the incorporation of a stepped gable with a hipped gable over the middle unit the ridge line has been broken up to reduce the mass. The multiple gable ends and the incorporation of a covered porch, the mass of the triplexes has been varied. Setback: The proposed units have an 11.5-foot separation between the structures in the central courtyard. The building is less than 22 feet tall so the separation standard is met. Roof: The proposed pitch is 8:12. The pitch is similar to the various roof pitches in the vicinity. The roof form is broken into a series of masses to reflect the subtle grade changes and to prevent a continuous ridge line. There are smaller gables for the porch roofs that add interest to the roof lines. The roof materials are proposed as composition shingles. Some skylights may be added to the kitchen area of each unit. Rhythm of Openings: The units have a consistently spaced window pattern that is consistent with the rhythm of openings found on the historic residence. The windows are proposed as single hung, vinyl windows. The windows Base or Platform: The concrete foundation stem wall will be exposed for 12" to 36". This provides a sense of a base and makes the structure appear grounded. Unless dictated by code or to allow for the construction of ADA accessible units, there will be a single stair to the deck of the porch. In the event of ADA adaptable or accessible units, the site would be graded in a manner that removes the stair. Though this alters the historic compatibility and reduces the amount of exposed base, the units are in the rear and not visible from the historic street fagode. Additionally, this allows for the adaptability of the units to serve a broader rental market. Form: The form of the triplexes is consistent with multifamily dwelling development and is sensitive to the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The units are small and single story, reducing visual impacts. P'i~,,w 10 of 24 Entrances: The primary residence has an entrance that generally faces the public street. Due to the substantial setback of the triplex units from the public streets, there is not a requirement for a visible entrance. There are very prominent entrances provided on the units. The north units each face the alley with an entry porch. The other units face the internal courtyard. These units also have parches which distinguish the entrance. Imitation: The proposed triplexes have elements of the existing historic contributing structure on the property and brings in the Queen Anne stylings but has a more subdued look vs. the historic contributing structure. The siding exposure and reveal are similar to the existing structure. The color will match or be complementary. The units are proposed to have square posts instead of the turned pasts, the crisscross brackets will not be mimicked but the diamond shingle detail in the gable end is proposed to be carried over to the triplexes. Though there are a variety of housing styles in the vicinity. Vernacular 1-home, craftsman and American bungalow cottage style construction are found throughout the Skidmore Academy historic district. The proposed units have elements of those design styles as well. Garage Placement: The garage is existing, no changes to placement of garage are proposed, C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposed site development complies with the applicable Site Development crud Design Standards of part 18.4, except cis provided by subsection E, beloiv. The proposed layout does not provide far any hidden areas that are not survey able by tenants of the site. The use of low level lighting, low growing vegetation and open space orientation, the design provides areas of safety for the tenants. Building Orientation. Building Orientation to Street. Dwelling units shall have their primary orientation toward a street. Where residential buildings are located within a 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 Central Avenue. A large front porch wraps around the front of the residence. The triplexes are not visible to the public street and are not oriented towards Central. The units are oriented towards the alley upon which they front and towards their shared courtyard. Page 11 of 24 i 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 of the structure in the garage and to the rear of the property. 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. All setbacks are existing for the primary residence and the detached garage. There are no changes to the front yard setback. 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. The garage is existing. New vehicular access to the site is from the alley and not from the street. The property has utilized on-street, garage and driveway parking. There has never been alley access. It is being created to accommodate for the new development. The existing development will remain as is, utilizing the same parking as the historical configuration allowed, and the garage will be retained. Building Mater als. 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 concrete stem wall that forms the base. The units are proposed to have horizontal, Nardi-plank siding with five-inch exposure, with diamond shingle treatment in the gable ends which reflects the treatment in the historic home gable. Square porch posts, and wood and metal railings are also proposed, The roofing is proposed as composite shingles. The structures are proposed to be white like the primary residence. 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 1 8.4.1.030.8. 1 Pm,n ]7. Of 24 I The landscaping plan provides two new street trees. The street trees will be planted in accordance with the street tree standards from 18.44.030, E. 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 adjacent to the alley in the northeast corner. It is anticipated that the electric vault, if in the ground can have the dumpster rolled over it. The property owner would prefer an above ground pedestal to the south of the trash area in a location that is protected from damage and is screened from the alley, while still providing adequate service for the property. This is being discussed with the City of Ashland Electric [division. An electrician has not been selected for the job since it has not obtained approval so the exact sizing of the equipment is unknown and still in the early design stages. There is an 11 foot landscape buffer along the west property line. This will allow for adequate area to provide a large stature deciduous tree to shade the parking area. Open Space. 1. Recreation Area. An area equal to at least eight percent of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the development.. An area of more than 1,400 square feet in area is devoted to the open space areas available for recreational use by the tenants. 2. Surfacing. Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide writable surface for human use may not be counted towards this requirement. The areas that account for the open space and recreation areas are surfaced with decking, porch flooring, and paver / concrete patio area. 3. Decks and Patios. Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space. The open spaces are a mixture of common patio area and semi-private deck and porch areas. 4. Play Areas. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. Play areas are eligible for open space. Pog,c 3 of 24 A play area is not provided in the eight unit development. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location The proposed parking is not located between the building and the street. The parking is located adjacent to the alley. D. Parlung Area Design. Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4.3.080.B. See also, accessible parking space requirements in section 0 4 and parking lot and screening standards in subsection 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet. Three of the six proposed parking spaces are 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Up to 50 percent of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." Three of the six proposed parking spaces are 8 feet by 16 feet. They will be painted "compact car only". 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space not less than 22 feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. All proposed parking has a back-up space of ,22 feet. The alley will be improved to accommodate the backing up dimension of 22 feet.. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. The driveway to the existing street facing garage is a non-conforming situation. The new parking is proposed to be accessed via the public alley at the rear of the property. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate. Page-14 of 24 1, 1 The Central Avenue curb cut is necessary for existing improvements and will be retained. c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. All new access is from the alley. The garage access from Central Avenue is pre-existing non- conforming it is necessary to retain due to the existing garage.. The existing upstairs unit has always utilized on-street parking. The new units will be served by the alley and all new access for motor vehicles will be from the alley and not from the street. 5. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. No new curb cuts are proposed. The existing access from Central is pre-existing non-conforming. The new vehicle access is from the alley. E. Parking and Access Construction. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-grounds, and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, porous solid surface, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. The parking areas are proposed to be paved with concrete, asphaltic or porous solid surface depending on the storm water detention design. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles, and turn-grounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of way, and abutting private property. Drainage for the parking area will be provided to prevent sheet flow or drainage of waters into the public rights-of-way or onto abutting private property. 3. Driveway Approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer, Driveway approach is pre-existing and is concrete. 4. Marking. Larking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. Page 15 of 24 J The parking spaces will be marked with paint or wheel stops. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. Wheel stops, if provided will comply with this section.. 6.. Walls and Hedges a. Where a parking facility is adjacent to a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen between 30 and 42 inches in height and a minimums of 12 inches in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. The parking is not adjacent to a street. A sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge will be provided along the side property lines to screen the parking spaces. A 198 SF landscape buffer is provided.. 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation A continuous walkway system extends throughout the development, and to existing public sidewalks. The walkway provides a safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connection between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. The building entrances are connected to one another to the greatest extent practicable. The walkway connects the on-site parking areas, common areas, and connect to the public sidewalk on Central. 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. The conceptual landscaping plan submitted with the application has been designed so that plant coverage of 50 percent after one year, and 90 percent within five years of planting is met. The eleven-foot landscape buffer will have a larger stature shade tree. A hedge is not proposed due to the presence of a solid panel fence adjacent to, a par* l n p space along the property Page 16 of 24 1 I line to the west. This fence will be replaced as its present location is not along the property line.. Two-inches of mulch will be provided in all non-turf areas after planting. There is a short and scraggly street tree that will be replaced with two new street trees. The street trees will be two-inch caliper at the time of planting. Low level landscape lighting for the paths will be provided throughout the open space. Each unit will have recessed can lights in the porch roof, or a shrouded yard light that provides down- lighting and security for the unit but will not directly illuminate adjacent properties. There is a six- foot fence as a buffer. No plant materials are proposed that prevent surveillance of the open space or the porches. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal. 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection: A detailed site survey of the trees has been provided. There are :14 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. of those, ten are in the area of the development. These trees are found on the Tree Protection Plan The trees along the property lines of the adjacent properties are protected by a six-foot tall fence. This fence will be reconstructed along the property lines following site development. For the trees on the site, six-foot chain link panels are proposed to be installed at the dripline or in accordance with the tree protection plan that's has been provided with the application. Excavation within the root zone area of a number of the sites trees will be necessary so the tree protection fencing is not able to encircle the dripline but will need to follow excavation routes. The project arboris t /landscape professional will be on-site during excavation. A lot of consideration was made as to how to layout and the number of units allowed by code, provide a much-needed housing size inventory, while preserving the maximum number of trees. The proposed layout takes advantage of long linear nature of the property, provides for the necessary parking improvements, and utility installation is accommodated for. The required separations between structures, and necessary aesthetic spacing to not crowd the historic residence though two-story construction or minimum separations. Functional open spaces, provision for trash and refuse areas all contributed to the proposed layout. While two large pine trees, and cedar trees that have the potential to get very large require removal, the proposal preserves a substantial number of large stature trees while accommodating for the density needs in the multi-family residential zone. 18.5.7 Tree Removal.. B. Tree Removal Permit. a. The tree is proposed for removal in carder to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not rimited to applicable fIage 17 of 24 1 Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. There are fourteen trees on site, ten in the area of development. Of the ten trees, seven trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) proposed for removal. The trees proposed for removal are a double stemmed (12"" and 14" DBH) apple, a 24" DBH apple, two, 1.2"" Deodor cedar trees, a 25"" DBH Ponderosa pine, and a 24"" DBH Ponderosa pine. The removal of these trees is proposed to allow for the development of the site with the allowed density, compatible with historic district design standards, in an economical footprint. The development of the site also requires substantial modifications to the site to accommodate for electrical infrastructure and storm water detention and drainage compliance. Tree #5, an excellent condition Ponderosa Pine. The tree is opproximatly six feet from the property line. With narrow lot area, the required separations between buildings, even with a small structure footprint, the tree is negatively impacted by the site development. Though the Ponderosa pine is an excellent tree that does will in the vicinity, preservation of large pines that lose copious amounts of needles and drop cones, creates a maintenance issue which in turn raises rents to accommodate the additional maintenance needs. Tree #9, the Birch is one of dwindling number of healthy birch trees in Ashland. It is unfortunately, in a location that will be substantially negatively impacted by the site development. With the excavation near the trunk, substantial grade alterations within the dripline to accommodate required parking, and walkways, utility installation for sanitary sewer, electrical, storm water detention and drainage facilities. The presence of the amount of irrigation the tree receives will be substantially altered and further its demise.. Tree #10 is a 24" DBH Ponderosa Pine. There are overhead power conflicts with this tree. When the site development happens, at the pole located just to the northeast of the tree, an underground vault is required for the proposed development and excavation to provide the neighbor to the east at 116 Central with underground service. The subject property and the property at 116 Central have a secondary overhead service the follows the east property line through the Ponderosa and the Deodars. This Ponderosa will be netatvley impacted by the substantial amount of excavation that will be necessary to install the required electrical infrastructure for the subject lot and adjacent properties. The two 12"' DBH Decors are both too close in proximity to the proposed units and both are within the foot print. 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. gage 18 of 24 The removal of the trees will not have impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, and protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The structures, landscaping and other site improvements are necessary on the site that will cover the exposed soil. There are no surface waters. c. Removal of the tree will net 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. The proposed layout allows for the preservation of a substantial number of the sites large stature conifer trees. The removal of some allows for better preservation of other trees. 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 high density multiple family residential site has a large number of larger stature conifer trees that do great in open landscapes with substantial amounts of irrigation. Any development on the site will substantially alter the soils porosity, permeable surfaces and in turn have a negative impact on the trees. The proposal allows for many of the big trees to be preserved while achieving desired densities. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.53.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Due to the nature of the development, high-density multi-family, no conifer trees are proposed,. Seven deciduous trees are proposed in the landscaping. The trees 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 drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Adequate city facilities exist to service the new units. Page 19 of 24 I 1 Writer: There is an existing eight-inch water main in Central Avenge that serves the property. The existing !4 inch meter will be used for the residences at the front of the parcel adjacent to Central Avenue, The ureters for the new units are proposed on east side of the parkrow to parallel the east property line back to the area post the Black Walnut where the lines will branch off to service the units. A common area ureter will also be provided. San tray Server: There is a four-inch line in the public alley to the north of the site. This is adequate to service the new units. E,7ectrical. 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. The triplexes will have a three-pack ureter installed on the east side of the east triplex and the west side of the western triplex, Storrs Server: There are no storm sewer services in the vicinity excepting up hill from the majority of the development across the Central Avenue right-of-way. The project civil engineer is working with he public works department to devise a bubbler system that will comply with the building code and the public works standards for storm water treatment and detention. Central Avenue is paved with curb, guttersidewalk and parkrow along the frontage of the property which provides paved access to the development. Street trees are proposed in the parkrow. The 16-foot wide alley at the rear of the property is gravel. If this surface needs to be paved, the applicant is willing to pave to Helman Streets intersection with the alley, The apartment buildings will have Fire Sprinklers installed as required by the Oregon Fire Code and Oregon Residential Structural Specialty Code. 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 tyre stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. No exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards are proposed. Page 20 of 24 1 18.5.4.050 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria The conditional use permit request is to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the historic district by nine-percent. The proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by nine percent and requires a Conditional Use Permit for the increased area. Maximum Permitted Floor Area: Adjusted Lot Area: 8,856 SF Allowed MPFA for Eight Units: 4,605,12 SF Up to 25;% increase with CUP: +1,152.28 SF Total Maximum Allowed MPFA: 5,756.40 SF Proposed new units: 2,946 SF Existing Residence: 2,054 SF Total Proposed MPFA: 5,000 SF (9% EXCESS) 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. The use of the site is residential which is consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan policies and does not violate and city, state car federal law. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property,. As addressed above, there is adequate capacity of City facilties for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage and paved access to and through the development. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18,5,4,050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone, The additional 3,85 square feet will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the site as eight residential units. The proposal complies with the target use of the zone, the proposal complies with the.site desian standards applicable in the zone. ' Page 21 of 24 1 I a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. The proposed triplexes are similar in scale, bulk and coverage as other multifamily developments in the zone. The proposed single-story structures are similar in height as the multifamily development across the alley. All of the separations between buildings including setbacks and lot coverages are met which provides for a reduced bulk and coverage. The b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.. The square footage proposed to exceed the maximum permitted floor area will not have an impact on the generation of traffic. The use of the property is multi ;family as envisioned in the code. The request is to fulfill the allowed density on the property. The units are small and have adequate parking proposed. The property is within walking distance of downtown, grocery and other retail stores, restaurants and bar. The employment center of town and near the bus route on N Main Street. The units are in a walkable neighborhood that has sidewalks throughout. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. The proposed dwellings have traditional styling that reflects the character of the historic contributing structure. Similar siding, reveal, and Queen Anne details in the gable end are similar to the front residence. There are varying roof forms, with the stepping down the slight grade to break up the gable line and the mass of the structures. The proposed porches add architectural interest and add variation to the horizontal plane. There are numerous windows to allow for ample natural light into the units. The porch posts are proposed to be square instead of turned like the historic structures porch posts. The homes in the impact area are a mixture of vernacular, ranch style, bungalow and craftsman. The proposed building has elements of each of those design styles. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. The additional square footage for the development of the site will not impact the air quality in the impact area any more than the allowed multi family development of the site at seven units. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The proposed increase in square footage will not impact the generation of light, glare or noise any more than the allowed multifamily development of the site with seven units would. 7 Page 22 of 24 m I j f`. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The additional 385 square feet in excess of the MPPA will not prevent the multi-family development of the adjacent properties. . Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. We believe that all of the standards for the development of the site have been met,. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. The conditional use to increase the MPPA by 385 square feet is an allowable use in the zone. Attachments: Historic Resources Inventory 1977 Assessors Data Letter from previous property owner re. apartment Cycloc information Site Plan Elevations Tree Plan Landscaping Plan page 23 of 24 1 National Register of Historic Places Skidmore Academy Historic District Inventory 39.0 Sul-i,ev ##692 DUNKIN JAMES W. HOUSE 1895c 1.28 CENTRAL ST" 391E04CC 4500 Other: Vernacular [Queen Anne elements] Historic Contributing Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicated that this dwelling was constructed prior to 1898 and a photograph of the house was published in the 1900 souvenir issue of the Ashland Tidings over the caption "N. H. Clayton House." This was apparently in error, as title search did not indicate Clayton as the owner of the property. Most likely, the dwelling was built during the ownership of James W. Dunkin, who purchased the lot for $400 in December 1893 and sold it in April 1895 for $1500 to F. M. Blevin, the substantial increase indicating construction. In December 1900 Blevin transferred title to J. L. `rhoxnton, who sold the house to J. C. Mitchell in 1901. The Dunkin House is a large two story gable roof volume with the street-facing gable detailed in a. modest Queen Anne style, with clipped corners and spindle work bracketry supporting the eave. An early corbel-top brick chimney remains and the large wrap around porch is supported by turned porch posts. An unfortunately visually dominating non-historic garage is located to the west, detracting from the overall integrity of the site. Despite this intrusion, however, the Dunkin House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. Page 24 of 24 A: Willstatter 128 Central Ave. f N Ashland, OR 97520-1715 I ( s F , , i~ to U _T.. V \A AV \,IIEF (3 QE40 Woo ;Aw k) O~F ILI -anywy A-i-3- r? T-e c~ a . ll till L i ) 0 F SL- { G -F)c~,A05 t .~Goyi~-- FCC CD Y~j CT Lk C 71iA-() A Z , DL ~t A ~ ~-P tiJ ~ Ay ~ c-) 1 4 if CD --o L f\~ > 4-r 0 2~-I L) TI I S ~ O ~J C-0)" -E-tb P 22 C) 0 o t-j F) D A. Willstaitter 128 Central Ave. j Ashland, OR 97520-1715 r t E7 1 .1A National Register of Historic Places Skidmore Academy Historic District Inventory 39.0 Survey #692 DUNKIN JAMES W. HOUSE 1895c 128 CENTRAL ST 391E04CC 4500 Other: Vernacular [Queen Anne elements] Historic Contributing Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicated that this dwelling was constructed prior to 1898 and a photograph of the house was published in the 1900 souvenir issue of the Ashland Tidings over the caption "N. H. Clayton House." This was apparently in error, as title search did not indicate Clayton as the owner of the property. Most likely, the dwelling was built during the ownership of James W. Dunkin, who purchased the lot for $400 in December 1893 and sold it in April 1895 for $1500 to F. M. Blevin, the substantial increase indicating construction. In December 1900 Blevin transferred title to J. L. Thornton, who sold the house to J. C. Mitchell in 1901. The Dunkin House is a large two story gable roof volume with the street-facing gable detailed in a modest Queen Anne style, with clipped corners and spindle work bracketry supporting the eave. An early corbel-top brick chimney remains and the large wrap around porch is supported by turned porch posts. An unfortunately visually dominating non-historic garage is located to the west, detracting from the overall integrity of the site. Despite this intrusion, however, the Dunkin House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. } 22 MAP NO ri RESIDENTS I~ 11C KIRDIE MATTHE /SYLVIA J PmoYo No - CODS No PARRETT M0 TAI D 11A sttR lP~iY ♦;I 4WELLIN6 f -IA"I, R7rLASH#7KNr f4 ' pg GARAQ9 -Sill IAT AKr Kfir MINT ~s ON V-132 i OTHER IMPROV " D R C ~ g ppqq p ~y-(y TOTAL DSPASGIA REPLAW NIINT 000r AR IN a1[R Vgq/f3H IMV Is"ICT IDU?tYBi *N TOTA K N It USY T 8 " T RAWA1, OR9-$a11 T~ APP T[ I YALE AD J4`9 APP DATE APP NOW VALW E Y - i A 41030 , 8-.+~....~..®a.. BATE APPM VAMIS BUILT IB 9'~ RI$NTAI fl.._._,...® RDLD If A 9uNT f---...-.. - - MOT PAIOE i.~ RSMODSLED TtdBKO w taf CONT TRADE ON FAIT 7NT 1101 LCYS4• TrR ;in pwt11A 4r11r.*tT H no OT iTEM- I LUH4OaVs 4LAla YC 8T BASE YAM" S i k 1 i 7 elrApa rACYOR 96 RAN A is IS tL- It- Ir AI MUft lA31ON CC par LK rCK r K ■LK M6 611. rOE SIC"" a RUSTIC VRAT SNAKK w0 A111 CBNrO CCU rRIC14 MEN Ig.LrD 1 WaTY Nr COMO ■LK PT I'UR'D STUCCO ROOF us tflr PLAT PITCNt LOW AVID 11EY &HINSL9 O NFC ALUM 1IAW LT Niy FIVY p1 UR ! ARO ■AR TIL M%R IST L SsL FF SLY C H COW iLS ■ FLOOR IWa - 41 L ! L h W14 PARTITIONS Pl As"m YWALL i0~1M PA Tea rLYwODa YRl M tra PA G OTH11119 CLAr>I, aUILT.IM& F H we ilaT TgPS r rNn 1 iNTlpl;Oii caul APPLIANCIS &T B O RAtaa ps{NWAEM HOOD rAN UAL P O LIGHTING LAaa Low V rR Cuts. L VA Y OTAL4ANOWK1 it K i LL TN s gLI)1~lalli4 11fRTOe ON ni ertD Lwutmity Ae ah ` it EIF rA WAT1k "HAT OR FA AV 1'L 1V OIL a Alp ruaL r #1EApl~#G Nl LJ*N CABLE CLIPFL W rA1 r0HV90 BAD VL CL i t TOTAL ARYA ii 71Tb 74 IT K • ! IeiRI1P1.AGS a PITY 16TT OR MAD 7TKa am Mb sA TNS PLAIN It"O .P" LL K V. Vi It UNFIN WALLS CORD ■LK PL wtiG wore DAR ENT MASS $ATLtONTr FR % 1/8 V. C$IL 064 CAYWALL COEiPO PLVWD WALL CVR r D • DAYVIJV' h C NP WO n" CV1t AA►H MILE MAN LAND IN14 ILAY BATH LuaAY GAR NO FMa, HKkT so FT X ATTIC OR CLA SO • ~l6i It UNPIN rlhl PLO DAVW Comp Api.4PA r WOMES t. k/ . .7 1uppm Pilq OrL N wr r t"i YINYL LILAC ]Maiwr OUaron ONLY 1( pA LL viva, N T Spiggj POitCN• #I" l !t { RATINpr rNr1 iBNA P P 0 FI!!IC u P M A n APrgdRA P P TarA # +11AAKSI I6 YEAR SUMMARY OF 0ML1.tN$ CONIBUYIATION r NO1 yprllp a AoJU.T.ssnT - ; - • ~Ai' ~1o0r DW*N6 19, FT p RE UrOrd ® 131C>- as FT IL.sAs AVi~V w t Af. SASE OW - - - -t CeIT` 3)laOll •_.1`~11s 7t WALITH+Ava i e'Ib »m LMD1Pt~r K KASK cm ~ _ ~S `IOt1+14 IArID11, -W I.V41Cns X % YuriYTwKAL 14eo D IAT >[P~A I MIr vw ftA' wo W VALUE 4*14ANV~ ,~1 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT APPRAISAL IMPROVEMENT 1 02/14/42 ACCOUNT # 1-005012-5 MAP: 39IE04CC TAXLOT 4500 CODE 5-01 13.13.03 Maintenance Area 2 ASHLAND Base Year 19" Reap nisei Schedule Code 4 HISTORIC DISTRICT 1997 Ad dication Property Class 171 RESIDENTIAL USE MULTI-FAMILY ZONE Updated 6/3119 by JMS Factor Book 132 SINGLE FAMILY RES CLASS 3 UPPER LEVELS Appraiser- Jerr Elson Situs 128 CENTRAL ST Inspected 6/ 997 lsr Zoning R-3 Year Built 1900 Status Tice Only I I%, Neighborhood VINTAG Remodel- Bedrooms 3 0 Property Owner WILLST'ATTER ALFRED TRUSTEE Effective Age, 1960 set 2.0 SALES DATA No sales data since 1988 City Permit, Ashland 2002 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION OR ALTERATION BD-2001-00499 Standard Mechanical Permit SASE COSTS Main Floor 1286 39 50,910 2nd Floor 768 32 6 24,624 MAIN ROOF Comp CAR STORAGE Detached Garage 576 Class 3/Comp/Unfinished 13 60 7,631 LCM-O 60 FEATURES Kitchen 1 Flood/fan 130 00 1 dishwasher 395 00 525 Hast/AC/Fireplace(s) Forced air 1 85 3,800 Plumtii~g 2 lavatory 280 00 = 584 2 toilet 2.80 00 = 56 00 1 shower 8 Q 00 1 tublshower 0 00 2,780 QO - 0.00 2,780 TOTAL BASE COSTS 90,410 Local Cost Modifier 93 Book @ 0 94 x5,428 PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS/FLATWORK: Porch 372 Wood/Cum roo /Better quality 10 20 3,794 Deck 378 Redwood/No c er/Setter quality 7 50 2,835 Concrete 400 190 760 TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST 92,431 Percent Good Physical 072 --25,881 TOTAL DEPRECIATED COST z 66,551 Market Modal er 1 13 8,652 75,202 Vintags Modifier 1 77 57,906 133,108 Trends 1996.10 ,b 1997106% 1998.110% 1999105% 20001 % 2001 109% 62,286 Total Trends 1470110 TOTAL DEPRECIAT TRENDED REPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENT VALUE 195,390 Board of ualixation 1996-1997 Adjudicated Improvement Value 100,000 Comm [EN 1 V a f i iJ !'1 :e,y j °j1 E TM 4` t f 1; ) r3 bils.;1 JL .1.13 _s 3tid 3l (Introduction = GYGL4G Store your bike with style G'ycloc's unique ability to carefully combine considered thoLight with a grist of poetic spirit to create a range of s~mpl, playful and practical products has earned it $ gi©bW recgnition With numerous aw4ds and acco- . t ! - lades. Founded in 2006, Gycfoc operates from their design studio in lwondon's creative East End and a manufactur- ing facil€ty in the UK A team of spilled and enthusiastic distributors andxet~ilers provide support globally. 4- SOLO ; _t Horizontal or verflcal,~,,ycle storage Elegant and effortless cycle storage, ideal for home, # office and retail display applications. Store Ukes horizontally or vertically, accessories } # f , in the centre. Secure three point wall fixing, insert parcel hides fixings. Spacer incl ded to accommodate wide bars. v= m Rotate t(O a comrYrodate frame angles. wry ; Rubber contact paints protect fame. s Facility tai ok WWI in place, Available in bright colours, ?.V a r - ~ i 1 A\ 5 b g[ 1 ly r. Versatile - compatible bike styles ter, _ gig 1, Road bikes r JE Town bikes Folding mikes REVISIONS r t i ~ r t 22-6 r "ti Y 1 22-6 I 22,_, f, d I~ d,l I GASMETER ELECTRIC MIETERS - ` DUCTLESS HP G MIA: «u. G Z7Z 6 E E E j f 0 0~ o0 na KITCHEN 00 KITCHEN P 00 KITCHEN U L va D t IT"- e- ~ Z a r I 0 a IT 4 4L. ~ r IFy- i U1CINVTY MAP EYEDRA BEDROQM LIVING RM. LIVING RM. NOT TO SCALE LIMING RM. IL @64t~] OWNER: ANDREW KRUG; ROBERT BALDWIN, AGENT 'I--- AODRE55: 128CENTRALAVE.,ASHLAN:O,0R.9T520 hl d 1 PHONE: 54 b-815-1625 APNr 54 Y E 04 G4 TAX LOT 04500 SIZE: t 16,219 50, FT. p t ZONING: R-5 (CITY OF ASHLAND) PORCH PORCH OVERLAYS; HISTOMI,V15TRICT 6 ve~cRIPTIaN ar PI~aJEGT; ~ > CONSTRUCTIONOPTWOSINGLE STORY TR9-PL8XE5FORA TOTAL OFSIXDWELL:iNGUNITSOFLESS THAN 50050.FT. J p~ a i EACH ~ 43 I fir/ (E) MAIN HOUSE, TO REMAIN - 2 i ^ EST J~/yy J! SIXWUNIT5_OFFALLEY„.„..6 W WEST T'RI-PLEX FLOG FLAN T-o ALDWELLINGUINTS .5 2' K'C SCALE: 3/18'"• 1'-0" 0 10 20 so 40 SOFT LOTGOVERACsk'; TOTAL LOT = 18,40050,'fT.OR 10070 15'-2" L8'-O" (E)HOUSE(FOOTFRBNT) 2,E0050. F7. (E) GARAGE (FOOTPRINT) • 5.7 S0. FT" _ - (N)TRI-PLEXES(FOOTPRINT) 5,5 PT. EXISTING GARAGE 'WI6HE5T 5HADOei PROD. POIN FOR $595 (N)PAVING?PARKIN& OFF ALLEY Y 815 S0 PT, TO REMAIN' ONT DRI'~eW cw d RDSGAPE•• 9 7 S 45 SO. f7,. ELEC,41G METERS HA G DC /ERAGE i 4 ~l 50. FT, OR 59 TOTAL PROr , SEE"L"SHEE75-MIN. 25gmOF 5kTE TO BE6ANDS4APED, x . I. t I`7 T~9,~ lr~ I s 4 TT N, 0 Pl+RKING d ~ 1N ~ .{1/I ~ s Y020ra werer L. Cipes Ire ~ ~ i f I All Ra ^,t6 Reserxsd MAIN HOUSE:45PACE5 REQD 2 TRIPLEX 5: & SPACES RE0'D it 1 I,~ 4 I " ~ TOTAL PARKING: 105PACE5RE0D ~ I r ' I ' t~ v I PARI~INGPRaVI~1EF.t~i7 2 ..'XISTING SPACE5,IN GARAGE, TO REMAIN j 00 8 NENU SPACES OFF! ALLEY MJ 'T STREET NR717 I I~_ yl I f/~ 2 ON TOTAL. F' i0 SPACE u r5 REOUESTED 7 77-71 TOTAL OF' 10 PROVIDED 5LOPE=-.O S;HEBGWT'•i5.58FT ~ ca ( SOLAR SET6ACK a { oa 'I JI I ® I 1~j LU.1 V! N/5 DIM • 30/.595.7 B PT MIN 82 PT ACTUAL +USE A c ' r` 55B • 15.58-6/395.24,25 PT MIN: 51.55 FT PROVIDEV 0 fY. r, LOrAR:BA:L6,400$P (S ADJUSTED LOT AREA: 6,$56 SP' 0 ALLOWED MPPA FOR S UWT5: 4,605.12 51, t p f -r . 1 I, UP TO 259'o INGR~ASE OF MPFA WITH CUP « 1151.:2.8 9F ~ ~ 6 r TOTAL ALLOWED MPFA WITH CUP 3,156,44 5F ~ r, G EXIS7INGSFR: 2,054 SP '1 S 11 _ L 1 PRaa. ±Ew uNirs;. 2 946 ~F.... C7 I t ` 1 y .✓~,'~y i;,~ TOTAL PROPOSED MPfA - 5,000 SF OR 9°/a EXCESS 'p a I } W S { ` n I I l ~ tiff t?`` 1 u+~ Hz Hn --spa I~°fl{l~. rih r r - m-rANT OT EP r I ~ i L_ - SEWER VALID ANON - - • A rr", W 1{` + f lI M IN ALLEY / > 11 , t enGwes~aune aicuee0 * YI4 i✓F SHEETS: 'I f f✓P1~~""'K `i34"«.:I` 199,78' ( r TRASHbColl 1,41 -5 S.P. HEATED LLEC. PEPE5TAL 771o.:°wcaer:pl.G EXISITNGS.F.R,HAS RELOCATE (E) ~p EHGL05 2,65E S,P. HEATED NATURAL GAS UK E SHEET 1 51TE PLAN • VICINITY MAP ! vATE:o,-ta.lro s LAN SPACE (PERCPUNTY) LINE TO HOUSE EACHTRI-PLExHAS TRI-PLEX FLOOR P rr . (w)'WATERMETER ' SPACE ShNEET 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS C TO(N) UNITS AWNING COVERED -=T ~I ELECTR4CMETER5 BIKE PARKING SH=E!T L 1.0 TREE PROTEGTIO`v SHEET L-2.0 PRELIM. IRRIGATION PLAN F. P L A 1 4 SHEET L50 PRE°_IM^ °LaNTIN& PLAN T SCALE: U"= 10.0" d 10 20 50 40 50 80 10 60 90 160 FT (E) » EXISTING '.'.(N:) • NEVN a= 5 6HEETS 1 I REVISIONS i NOTES: 1, IN GENERAL, ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS B COLORS SHALL MATCH (E) MAIN HOUSE. 2. USE WHITE LAP SIDING W/ S" (MAX) EXPOSNR.E ON WALLS. S, USE B XCORNERTRIM, O - 4. USE WHITE DIAMONIP SHINGLES ON GA6LE M ENDViALLS. @, t S. SASIC SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS. i { % r q U III ~I? z I-A -a_-_._ - _ N NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" • 1'-O" d +d ao ed 40 5o Pr dA~~~i~nsk~ese azdpp~/y P ~Y19 ~ a' Y pi N 0 A ~ ti m 1 ~I C 1 Ai1;C i' {III D vaxe:oy iai~ PR~YrN BY':,pLCt FAST TRI-PLEX / ^F-ST 'ELEVATION 5GALEr 1.14 V-0" d io ao so ad so~c I , r kTAi4.r NOTE- SCAI.115~,*S NOTED ONLY V4140H lwltINTEP AT 100% OUL-E S -ERs enCairn Landscape Architecture / O ~ I / ti \ A Ir 11 - - - - 1---- - - r - - - - - - - 777, , 1 I I Ii / I 1 " 1 11 - J ~ - 11 I I II q I t~ A:' ~,,ASahuD,awm Fr' / / l I 7 JJ 1 't ( Q,' SiA7-C, ORIEGO,N' ~ 4 REG -493 I - Ra KI.C.un r T pr N I Drawn By: SGB 1, / I _ ~ ~ I : •.u ~ j -..r. u . I r 1 l I I r 1~ I l1 1 r1o /t Y ~A ~I- C17" r L ~d ~~7 C7 L / s sD cn W r LLI 00 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL NOTES HEIGHT IN CROVM FEET TREE PROTECTION YY}L'ERANCE T6 ~+y 1. PRIOR TODELIVERV40 EXCAVATION EOUIIPMENT OR COMVENOI,NGANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON THE SITE, THE GENERAL UPHILL SIDE. 06 THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE TOPREVENT 50.TATK3Y ANla'CN2 ER051t%Y 1YY(HI,°I THE TREE PR4ITECTYUYZONE . w7 SPE4 IITIQW NOTES LJ CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE: ARCHITECT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTI!ONFEIETING WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND _ .I(INCHES) FEET IN FRADVI7$ N?,'JE RADIUS, IN FEET LQ'V5TF1U4"TIE' ~ z r I EXCAVATIOMdSUPERVISOR PRIOR TOOLYdMJEIiCIWGAHYVN'ORK ON THE SHE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NO71FIfOBY1HE. IZ. BEFOIYE GRADING, PAD PREPARAnD^I,ORE%CAVATIOtI FOR iHEikUNOAiCRGS, FfIRTICAi5,1NALL&.ORTRErCHu!G, MIY 7 REE5 1"nTHiPt 1 I 70 25 13 GOOD :,c..,. Pnn... P'T CONTRACTOR45HR5.INADVAr4CE FOR ALL SITE VIWTS REQUESTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL.Ce TAT%VRILLOTAPPROVAL FROM THE T14E SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION TONE SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED I FOOT OUTSIDE THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE BY CNTTTVRGALL ROOTS. 2 11,14 30 20 IO GOOD 9' p OhNER'Sft LACE UNTIRLL TNTHE PTHAT ROJE%'{6TROYPLEThthY5E0Y{AFTER ALL Of l'HE OESCW$HDF'ENCa~IG i$LIJ PLACE. FEPICING SHALL CC RLY AT A 90 PROOTS VWITHAik A AVI AOF.PITS AS ROOTS TRENCHER WIT t9"11tAR QGGLI ATENGHNN CUTTING L r J REM WHIN PLACE UNTIL PROJECT LS CO!I➢LETED, EXPOSED ROOTS V WITH VYDRATRIG KIT FE, ROCK ROCK SAf'N, NARROW TRENCHER WITH SHARP BLADES, OR OTHER APPROVED 3 .V AB 30 15 22 POOR ~PPU P -l ! ~ J l V ' a I'.sa 2. FENCES IaUST BE ERECTED TO PROTECT TREES TO BE PRESERVED AS SHOWN IN DIAGRAM. FE "OSHALL $E$'TALL TEDPtlRARY ROOT -PRUNING EOUTANEWi. 30 - CHAIN LINK PANELS INSTALLED VATH METAL CONNECT IONS TO ALL PA":E'-8 AREA I,MEGP.r EO, I PENCE$$HALL BE INSTALLED SA 13. ANY ROOTS DAMAGED DURING GRAMNG OR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE EXPOSLIO TO SOUND TISSUE AND CUT CLEANLY AT AW DEGREE 5 I N 24 7U 14 19 G96n Pp'Tt RRI.E"" ~ 00 111, TH T IT DOES NOT ALLOW PASSAGE OF PEDESTRAN'AANr OR VEH''-L-z7HROUGHIT. fEH(L, "ILAS'-_CIMPROTECTIONZOWE ANGLE 70 THE ROOT V,ITHASAW. PLACE DI SOIL AROUND ALL CUT ROOTS TOA DEPIH EOUALkM9 THE EXISTING FINISH GRADE 6 12 35 7 12 MODERr'E I'od V! FIXt EACH TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. FENCES ARE TOR..'::'.I.LidLSITE.15Y7RX HAS BEFN+,. .'PLE D-. NEIICES L+AW NOT BE 4'W1'HUl4HOURS OF LUTEBERLv^rfADE. 7 G2INC, I v~.., 12 35 a 12 IEODERAI -,T FHJTL-' r' RELOCATED OR REMOVED VdTHOUT THE l'Ka'd.OSSIC': OF I-E .SCAPE ARCHITECT. 14, IF IEV.!P(biARN HAU0.Cft ACCESS ROADS IdUSi PASS OVER THE Naar AREA OF TREES TO DE RETAINED, AROAO BEDOF6INCHES gF a CaP[zdN 12 35 G 42 r,ROOERATE 'CPPd RF" c 8. CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS, TRAFFIC AND STORAGE AREA -taXi tlOTS'OE.FY_NGEDTREE IP'~BEOT10Md ZOM&SATACL TFIE&. MULCH OR GRAVEL SHALL BE CREATED TO PROFIT, THE S00L. THE ROAD BED MfATERIALSHAH. BE REPLENISHED AS NECEPSARW'10 8 GelWa syp. B,9 35 14- -9 NwRDERATE EX% RFU•!'VR Far IYL.". JtlB RO. f71tl nYVIITATN A 6 INCH DEPTH 1D F 24 70 13 16 GO r d 4. ALL PROPOSED UNOERGROUN'b HTK'I UDRAI'?R kIL""SSHALL $EROUTED OUTSIDE THE TREE PRONECTON ZONE. IF - - Gout 'r'll(I.I LIN8MUSTTRANSVERSETHE "H.,It ,AN r.IH IU I,LE0UR0OREDUNDER THETREEROOTS. NOTIFYTHE 15. SPOiL FrsDU TREMICIYE5, Bn5ER3ENT5 OR OTHER EMCAWAi10!rSSHALLMOT BE PLACED VNTN'Itli THETREE . PROTEC7KNN, EITHER 11 Ca 12 i, r, rr, n, 14 40 98 14 NBGDERATE REVISION DATE LANOSCAPEARCHI7ECA4MRJEUV,i:C1 -r.'IY Pn~1E_, PLR, LI.I AYrtH THIS REOUAEN41t1Y. 7Er1P0RARILY OR PER4AfRFFITLY. 12 C n,5 18 a B MODERATE Good PROTECT 5, NOMATERALS, EQU.PMENT, SPOIL, OR WASTE OR VAASHOUYFYERMAYBE DEPOSITED, STORED, OR PARKED V4ITH.N PIE TREE 16. Do BURN PRES OR DEBRIS FREE SHALL AL PLACED VOTHIN THEIREE PROTECTION ZONE. NOASHES, DEBRIS, OR GARBAGE DAY BE 13 C 17 ...65 R4 - - 13 GOOD 'GPPd PROTECT PROTECTIONN ZONE (FENCED AREA)- DUMPED OR BURIED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE- 74 Ai I 24 40 35 Y0 GOOD 'OeeliLe PROTECT S. rCi1FY TNELANDSCAPE AHCHtiTECTIIIF TREE PRUMMINOIISNEOV ICEDCOV$TROCmO'a CLEARAM;CE. IT N+NNTIN FlRE~5AFEAREAS AROUND FEMRCEOAREA ALSO,lIOHEAT 5aUiiCES, FLN7ES,IGNRCN SOURCES DR SA10NIrK'i IS ALUD;.'ED / CF 7. AYY HERBICIOE5 PLACED UtIX.kN RAKING HiATERUL5 MUST BE SAKE FAR USE MOUND TREES NE4 LA'l ELRO FOR THAT USE WEAR MICH OR TREES. \i CANOPY . TE2 EE ...-TO TREE 18, DONOT RAISE THE SOIL LFVELIYITHIN THE DRIP LINES TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAWAGE, EXCEPT TO MATCH GRADE$WHH SIOEVAHIKS 1 i TREES OvF.0 BE. TREE PROTECTION TLIJAJN PROTECTION B, IFI!UURY 514OUIDOCCUR MANY TREE OWRItVGCONSTRUQirDN, NOTIFY iEIEIAMI@5CAFc.ARCV#nEGT '.UI IEOIATE&"f, A'LLUM.lAGE AND CURDS, A1701NaHOSF.AREAS, , FEATHER THE ,'+A'UEll TOPSOIL {f4C.NP0 EM157'RV6 GRADE AT R%PRO%'MATELY3:I FA0'P£ / ZONE .-;LM,4AIN ~I'10VEG FENCING CAUSED DYCONSTRUCTION TO EXISTING TREES SHALL BE CaMPENSATm FOR BY THE OFEENDYG PARTY', BEFORE THE PROJECT'VWLL ) ~j PROTECTION BECONSIOER€OCONWLEI'E. REMOVE THE ROOT VVAD FOR EACH TREE THAT IS 4NINCA7ED ON THE THAN AS BEING REMOVED. OX 10, \N'A1EPBriG SCNI€#SULE:1'lAiERIP7G PROTECTED TREES SHALL FOLIO,N THESE STANDARDS, fClNEVER PERIODS OF EXTREME HEAT, VN:YD, 74. EXCEPTIONS TO THE TRIF.E PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS MAY ONLY BE GRITTED III EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTAIJCBSV'WiM YiRlikt! PLAN NAINFAU OR DROUGHT MAY REQUIRE MORE OR. LESS V'MATERTHAN RECCMA ENDED IN THESE NOTES, APPROVAL FROM. THE LANDSCAPE ARCTTECT PRIOR TO ANYV,'ORB COMMENCING. THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE FOR (EACH TREE IS BA$rO ON THE GUMEMN'f$ ESTAI3LI$HED BY.. A MOST SPECIES I TWE PER MONTH INURING IRRIGAHDN SEASON lVSLMLLY MARCH THROUGH SEPTEMBER) NE,G,n5 N'.&CIA", )..1998 7Y1'dl aNu(Ik~:i Cnp .o L"d T,ll nrruP (r n3e 1N PMRr+aNn of Trna`.t CAr,fPg CanJOa¢1PZm mL p-7_>, - B QUFRCUSOAK. DEEP WATER IN VAY AND SEPTEMBER, DO T40T WATER DURING OTHERM,"ONRIS, FOR OAKS ALREADY IN THE 21, AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE TO COVWENSATE FOR CONSTRUCTION HAPACiS, ME TO SIX WEEKS PRIOR TO CO -.TRUCEION ALL VICINITY OF IRRIGATED COdfUIT1ONS,AOTOVATIC SPRINKLERS OR REGULAR WATERIN'GSFMNL MET BE ALLOY"fED' TO SPRAY ON DR RETAINED TREES SHOIAD NA THIS PLARSNAdL RECEIVEAN AMFLICAHM OF MYC'1P'PLYALL PURPOSE SOLOS -PERIJr.'1.%%.-URERS ISSUE DATE: VYFIHIN 3PEE70r THE TRUNW THE }"LATER SHALL NOT DE ALLOWED TO POOL OR DRAIN TOWARDS THE TRUNK. 114STRUCTIONS. THUS IAYCORRLWA€PNOOUGT LSA SPECIAPdY FORMULATED NAL-K.1L ROOT SLOSTLNVLNJTI HFI JULY 18p ~A~2 C. VIMERILLGMETH00. HANDVVATRNG SYSTLM.4S,RECOUVPMED FOR TRFESTHAT ARE PART OF A. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT AS CREME SURFACE AREA OF THE TREES'RO StsTrl:'S, T'I;PR. 'DESA::!r 'YES NOLBErR Alto V/AT ER Ur TAKE MUST RE WATERED TO INSURE TREE SURNVP9.OURPIGTHE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION UNTIL AUTOMATIC ERR1GAT1OW IS CAFACILITIES or THE REMAINNG ROOT STRUCTURE L -I%'U:I IIYC',,,'PLYE': v'-IF I THE ACTIVE ROOT TO"7ETNIv'EG .m.~,,._ INSTALLED PREES.APPL'Y BIT GALS, OF SCILUFOd PER TREE G' PRHA.:^M.r ERAMI -BELUWSOL-SURFACE VIOUAN7101E5OF 12 GALLON ATEACH PQItiFOFARAtK.WRN. LOCATE CI .I 17-PHON ESWITHV, JSCAPEARCHITECT PRESENT. , 11. BIROSIOVC011TROIL DEVICES SUC41R,5$ILTFENCING,DEBRtlSBASBISAD,Y7WATER DIVBRSNShSTRUCTURES SHALL BEINSTAt.LEDONnIE MYCOA YCOAPRLYISAVARABLEPMCOUrR1CORItH!2ALAPVLtCATECATILr.I',ICpPgPEQS411 4ry3Ya5, SCALE 1"=1A'•A" D Mmm%M=NMNMNMM% ~ L 10 A ' 5" 10' 20' 00' KenCairn Landscape Architecture 1 i f Eria63 1 r. k bTATEOF UI" OREGON i REb. H 493 H - .t Y I Keay Ku,''-. ~G PE Ii I Drawn By; V SGB r - 1 1 1 B i N 9.4 MP ROTATORS 1 r t 1 i I " 4 2 3.D , IN-LINE DRIP C --m W I . y AIIIr t P. 0..4. EXTERVOR WALL MC' NT-j 1.76 Uj LU 5 2,75 CONTROLLER 1 MP ROTATORS ~ Z) C? (".)MP ROTATORS Z LOCATE ALL IRRIGATION A \ N/A rn ti VALVES IN LANDSCAPE IWL INL3RIP IRRIGATION LEGEND (y CII SYM ...................IH NETERICV-101G (SPRAY) ........._v-.,. r z 7- - HUNTER PCZ-101 (DRIP) W 7- - MAIN LINE! SCHd9PVC (1l") - LATERAL LIN'ESSHALL BE SCHEDULE 40PVC. (1") IRRIGATION HEAD LEGEND Q Gel T_ SYMBOL DESCRIPTION RAp. PLOW RATE Gf'M SLEEVES -SCH,40, MIN SIZE SHALL BE 2xDIA.OFPASSING PIPE. 114,if2,FULL -inleVG J L-Fo1"'? 0.96,032,9.83 ISOLATIONGATE•:VALVE.-LINE SIZE dWeeoviu-- . - 114, 112 314, FULL HunterPRS30 _._MP ILa(or100 8 911,,-021 W44 REVISION DATE QUICN.COUPLING VALVE: HUNTEA44RC 1 END, CENTER HunlerPR540 MPRotalorSlrip SGIp 919,0.38 CONTROLLER: HUNTER IC-M SERIES WITH SOLAR-SYNC .-...'...w-"'.- ZONE I.D. 1 15,0 GRAI PRELIMINARY 5 Shrubs-,.. APPLICATION IRRIGATION VALVE. SIZE PLAN P.d.C. POINT OFCONNEC'rION ISSUE DATE: FLUSH VALVE JULY 18, 2017 j DRIP IRRIGATION: HUNTER PLD 04.18 SCALE 1'"-16' 0° ~ L 2.0 m... a' S' 10, 26' 36. enCan Undscape Arcllileclurc Taxes • 14 ZelS • 1 Calo-4 ORGANICMULCH - _ a Gare-2' - THROUGHOUT Gara-2 SI1N.8 r ANTING C 9 IS C u ..i ° ° \ 5 l u^ A cE 5 1-0 REMAIN S aai l I S-3 .T _ Na 1 I.n p -v ! 5I1153 I I UNt1gPn7 Dapa 1~ m~ r~s~ Chat -1 Crad.-1 I sT,tie©r 'C T I' Skit • 2 OREGON 1 Ghat-2 KFG.C491 III a Lore 1 AgaB.Bp U Acec -1 Dapa 1 NanS -1 i 5nx f~ aec Cara 3 w.-. Y 1 Viba-1~ I t:a C 1 AbeR-2 Miso 1 a . - V Oaw• 1 1--- i= Sarr-1 - u 9pD~ Gars • 1 Carl - p R Y t NanS3 Da 9 C rt-3 TavaByn /IStING L6, Lav;-2 o LaB FI ITr,R gN-3 SGB 10 LI.V'4 IN © LAWN C MagL 1 r :-1-11111- - Hemp • i ~,ul - i Phiv • 1 Mist-2 Gars 1 ° ♦ LANVN ' 1 Palm 3 0~ LAWN - - I Dapa-1 o la.~ n x w E.J-- ~ A B R ~i -BgxM ° 3" rn~, LauH-2 5 hisY-1 a 5 CVO _SpiG-2 r CroL -1 PenH -1 F I a SP19 G LavH-8 Ca t•1 p~ Nan5-1 WelD-2 SniN-2 - •2 MisY•2 Abel PerIH-1 x C•1 Chot-1 CroL enr Wlha•1 L .TIt:G SptN.2 'XI Chat-2 `l AaeB-1 Mist-1 Tf u LHrI i =1t. ° „Cf. IA.IN I Palm-1 Mahr.3 * Nan5-2- A _ae.-I Ph1w-1 AgaB-3 - ~ ; ILh T _ I / ryas u. 1nNrmr,TDRi'r11IN I, ~ C~ ~ I~~~.. s1 o I Gare-2 ORGANIC MULCH - Gare-2 Uj LU Cala-3 THROUGHOUT Dapo-1 :3 Q Taxes ° 14 ~ ~ LU > I Z<0 PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL BOTH L CL ME CC J"7 ARE SIEE y z z. TREES A aanPnr; LMAPLE 2 h1r n `Ym. a III f IR PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE NOTES geed LLB I CFEE:I ! N .IA 961 .:I~. I f. I n rlaal - !M1A r°•V rI .F s^'•~- C .+r?r C- 19x1 I. All landscepe pl bug areas ahal rerzve elem. sandy toam iopsad to a rNe-um depth of 12'or as paled' on gee pan AddCfona`IY. M Oantng areas 411 E,d n ^.slt I b.l..,a II -flf >Ir. !Ir I 39x1 be prepared per the procedwesa tl d k h. D.na%p-nf Cade.$ectan 10.7&%Gg9)(b). L-_1! 1Lc _-r.r, ~'.a <f ;rAlr r 1gal 2, All proposed el-I I trees wil have,arHmmsmef(2)cuN feet of sob vo!ume for each square iaA of use canopy at malunly. Sol va'-oat be 2 ^ gal arheived means atlspsal in planters and structural amt unde, hrr dacae Ze-.CI;: ze ,umv a. th i11 r. a::~•';.r 2' cal e 1 n ho FEa, _ lgal 4, ATM3prop sod areas shot Yaanaraacshah isve nofbattled org r0cnVr~shaa"e o:er ~us su, _ anlred fescue wed mix JOB HO, 1710 . SHRIIaS r IJ.- FI 1„ I :,g 39.1 5.A0planirgareas shah be served try a designated I/" dwnesbe eater meter and a Qty off4edfardapproved harxBaw prevenl- devlca. REVISION DATE Al,", Abara x'RaseQ II; f 1 1', f.'11=1A. fkF'vf': PgaM 6. The Wi lbn sysl-911 provldea Uly.etemaGa 6dgs6in cmd.",er thatwi?trneet the nose remonts as noted snthe Vedferd aevobtlmeni Code, Searron Spi- _a h_ a F 1 aLUe F I i HY"- as LThe preROSed&dgallnns,YSle~m wircpnsfsbo{la~weilwno d~s1nbut'wn. A e 19 -.rpsr 1 c1 11 1 : 1 , MITA 1 gal Sd`r c 14.780jHj(4). . . ..--..m.m_._.._. Bao.'A 9e ran GREG°I rdJ:~ll6 '•YC+OD 2ga1 TaxM i in~13x M.KS Yt 10 0-j -n (:.'.r r",ALI 5 g"j wE"d nri:,: L:1:e~'. dr illl•,i 161 . n' ~m Cad Cs -i `6 LS -SCSE 19.1 PRELIMINARY Cenr I r h., _hr e>p 1 iAN agal :II! r l r Y,a 1 1 1 _ri e. 3 al Choi C 1- t 5gai ar I,:<h Ir t f I,u[- E A a9a1 Cml b. I IANCYROCKROSE 5gai ` Y Crsa PLANTING F1 1n nsaiA lgal Dapa 0 na' UlwutiEtUePHNE 3- PLAN Ld d JC m ..P oapls I : Ea Rt KI aArliNE 29at t'. I r 11 - p , I -IRA lA 0i r I Gore T SOD ISSUE DATE; Gaup C ii'- rv BI 5h :'0' 1 4 - 6 flevp En. l~AH I-L 10 t JULY 18, 2017 - , BAk~,.-: i 'NCBEkRY iCAL@ 3 4svtr1 L ng - r., - - HIOCOTCtAUEaUEh snr Tr np vra 3CAI F: 1" =18'•0' 3.01 8' 5' 1G' 28" 38. 1 Maria Harris From: Army Counter <armygunter.planr'rig gmail.com > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:50 AM To: Maria Harris Subject: Re: 128 Central Hi, I'm going to amend the findings today (we were trying to save a tree and the findings reflect this but it won't work). The site plan stays generally the same. The landscape, tree protection plan have errors that will also be amended tomorrow. No substantive changes (there are typos and north is wrong, plant material changes). Amy On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:37 AM Maria Harris <m,'a.:.. u s> wrote: Hi Amy, I wanted to check in with you. U didn't see that anything anew came in. Do you anticipate it changing still or should I move forward? Thanks, Felt, Maria Harris, AiCP Planning Manager City of Ashland, Community Development Department 20 F. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 541.552.2045 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This emall tronsmission is official business of the City of Ashland and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2045. Thank you. 1 From: Amy Gunter [mailto: uir : r, °rrr7iN nail.~:onil Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 201" 1:22 PM To: Maria Harris nl„or.us> Subject: 128 Central Hi Maria, 1 will possibly be making edits to 128 Central Thursday. Could you hold off on reviewing. I'll let you know } ASAP if there will be substantial changes that would trigger withdrawal and reapplication. i Thanks ! Array Please forgive the brevity & typos. Response is from an Whone. Amy Grunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 541-951-4020Roguueplanning.com Please forgive the brevity & typos. Response is from an Whone, Amy Grunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 541-951-4020 RogLaeplanning.com 2 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division C 9 r V OF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 , f'"` -AS H LA lit D 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FfL ~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Site Design review for multi-family development, conditional use permit to exceed MPFA, tree removal DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Cediiication? ❑ YES NO Street Address 128 Central Avenue Assessor's Map No. 391E 39 1 E 04CC 'fax Lot(s) 4500 Zoning R.3 Comp Plan Designation High Density Multi-Family Residential APPLICANT Name Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services Phone 541-951-4020 E-Mall amygunter.planning@gmail.cam Address 1424 S Ivy Street City Medford Zip 97501 PROPERTY OWNER Name Robert Baldwin Phone 541-613-7625 E-Mail baidwin2727@hotrnail.com Address 5243 Pioneer Road City Medford Zip 97501 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title _ Building Designer Name Peter Cipes Phone 54 Y-4RA_ B ftQPs E-Mail hnrr edesignGr- com Address 315 N Main Street. City Ashland Zip 97520 Title Landscape Design Name 1renCairn Landscape Architect Phone 543-488-9193 E-Mail kerry@kencarin.com Address 545 A Street, Suite 102 City Ashland Zip 97520 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 fligir location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. t 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 i 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. u;,_ Failure in t ' regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being hultf in ; I a; e R)e eot beir o requlred to be remav at my axpens If I ave any doubts, l an) advised to seek competent professional advic and assistance. a gna ure Date ~ (4~ As owner of the properly involved in this request, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a properly owner. , Prepeny OWner'a Signaturo (required) Date ~o coffyla1ed by ciay Staff] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee l OVER 0 G:'tc4rnrn-elev"y~lannin~;.4Farms. & llandoulstiZoninsg Peimit Applicalion..doc 128 Central Avenue Site Review for Eight Unit Development Six new units with preservation of existing historical, cluplexed residence ~ ~ aE ~ Ali f ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC f I July 7, 2017 Multi-Family Site Review Subject Property Property Address: 128 Central Avenue Property Owner: Robert Baldwin 5243 Pioneer Road Medford, OR 97501 Planning Consultant: Array Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 1424 S Ivy Street Medford, OR 07520 Building Designer: Peter Cipes 315 N Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Landscpae Architect: KenCairn Landscape Architect 545 A Street, Suite 102 Ashland, OR 97520 Map & Tax Lots 39 1E 04CC Tax Lots: 4500 Zoning: R-3 Adjacent Zones: R-3 Lot Area: 16,400 square feet Max Lot Coverage: 12,300 square feet Allowed Density 18.2.5.080: .376 X 20 = 7.5 Proposed Density: Seven residential units; Six units less than 500 sf (6X.75 = 4.5) Duplexed front Residence Outdoor Recreation - max 8%: 1,312 sf p 1 ~k~ st A request for a Multi-Family Site Design Review for an eight-unit development. The development will consist of the two-unit residence at the front of the property, and six new units at the rear of the property accessed viia the alley. A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the Skidmore Academy Historic District is proposed. The application includes a tree removal request. Property Description: The subject property is on the north side of Central :)tb 2400 Avenue to the west of the intersection of Helman 4.2i 00 Ac. 4 , i 4 s 17507 0.11Ac. ~a 4400 ~ a Street and Central Avenue. The lot has 82 feet of 4400 2500 'P a 4500 0.11 Ac. frontage on Central Avenue and extends 200 feet to 0,38 Ac" the north to the 16-foot wide public alley at the rear 4700 'ter, of the property. The alley connects Helman Street A A SAO. and Laurel Street. A ~600 The lot is 16,400 square feet in area and is zoned R- 0.i6Ac. 4800 3, High Density, Multi-Family Residential. The site a 09 Ac. s slopes approximately four percent to the k) 000 4; °5> north/northeast. 4900 0 5 1a O.15 Ac, a. p, The site is occupied by the Historic Contributing, 61 M ""5100 James Dunkin house. The 2,054-square foot, two s , 707) 0111 Ac story residence was constructed in 1895. The ground 7500 X5000 a . floor consists of a 1,286-square foot residential unit. 0.25Ac The second floor is a 768-square foot residential unit. To the west of the residence there is a 576-square foot, two vehicle garage. A tree survey is included in the application. There is a mixture of deciduous and conifer trees. Some of the trees will require removal in order to facilitate the development. Street trees that comply with the spacing standards will be planted along the frontage of the property within the parkrow. A tree plan has been prolvided. Central Avenue is a Neighborhood Street and has a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Central Avenue is improved with pavement, curb and gutter eight-foot parkrow and five and one-half foot sidewalk along the frontage of the property. The site is accessed via driveway that is near the west property line. There is water service in Central' Avenue. The sanitary sewer service and electrical service are present at the rear of the property in the public alley. Sanitary sewer services are also present in Central Avenue. There is no storm drain service to the property. i C"' 2 r 'l J !p•.,i ! f r t ' l , J ~ ~~!'~\C>~ I~ r^ ii~l~~.`JE~ .f~l 1r``" ~•~~u I ?;t r• '';r . ,~r J rI f ~ ~ 1 I! .J _ '31 r i ~ {~C•1 rrtcj I; tr ref ~j t} s Proposal The request is to construct six new units within two triplex structures accessed from the alley. These units are proposed as two structures, consisting of, three, one bedroom units that are 475 square feet in area. Each unit is proposed to have an entry porch and small storage closet. The existing historic contributing, residence will remain on the site. 'The residence was duplexed by a previous property owner. According to the previous property owner (see attached statement) the upstairs unit was present when he purchased the property in 1979. The Jackson County Assessors data from the 1977 assessment (attached) notes the upstairs apartment. There were electric two services to the property and the electric meter base is still present. When a new electrical panel was installed, only one meter was replaced on the structure. The existing, detached garage to the west of the front residence and the driveway curbi-ut Fro r Cf iitral will remain. 3 The proposed development requires ten (10) vehicle parking spaces. Six units less than 500 sf: 6 Front Duplex Residence: 4 Total: 10 The two-vehicle garage will provide the two parking spaces for the primary residence, The upper unit is proposed to utilize two, on-street parking credits. At the rear of the property, accessed via the alley, there are six parking spaces proposed. An offloading zone for an ADA van accessible space is provided adljacent to the five-foot buffer along the west property line. The proposal requires ten (10) bicycle parking spaces. A covered rack for six bicycle parking spaces is proposed at the rear of the property in the area between the triplex°s, adjacent to the walkways. Bicycle Parking: Structure at rear, of property: 6 Garage/Porch Area: 4 Sheltered bicycle parking required: 10 The trash and recycle enclosure area is proposed adjacent to the east property line. No landscape buffer is proposed along the east property line due to the refuse area fencing providing a buffer. A five-foot landscape buffer is proposed along the west property line. No modifications are proposed to the existing, historic contributing residence, The structure has a large wrap around front porch and a strong orientation towards Central Avenue. There are architectural details such as turned posts, subdued Queen Anne details in the gable ends, spindle bracketry under the eaves, trim details, etc. that give the structure some architectural interest. The garage was constructed sometime in the 1960s and lacks any distinguishable characteristics and is visually dominating. If the project budget allows, the garage may be re-sided to resemble or match the existing residence siding reveal.. The proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by nine percent and requires a Conditional Use Permit for the increased area. Maximum Permitted Floor Area: Adjusted Lot Area:.. 8,856 SF Allowed NIPFA for Eight Units: 4,605.12 SF a. , Up to 25% increase with CUP: +1,151.28 SF Total Maximum Allowed MPFA: 5,756.40 SF Proposed new units: 2,946 SF Existing Residence: 2,054 SF 4 Total Proposed MPFA: 5,000 SF (9l EXCESS) The garage is 9-feet, 11-inches away from the residence. The porch cover nearly touches the eve of the garage. The garage is excluded from the Maximum Permitted Floor Area Calculations. The proposed units are small in area and footprint. The units are clearly secondary to the primary residence. The units are proposed to have minor details reflective of the historic contributing structure, have historically appropriate rhythms of openings and windows and door areas. 'W'ith the number of units proposed within the allowed density and the historically appropriate proposed design, the request for a minor provision of additional floor area is reasonable. The proposed development is similar in bulk, scale and coverage as other multi-family developments in the vicinity. A sidewalk system is proposed through the development in order to provide a safe walking route to the public sidewalk on Central Avenue and from the units to the parking area and to the trash / recycle enclosure area. The required open space area is 1,312 square feet. The proposed open spaces consist of approximately 660 square foot of porches for the triplex units and an area at the rear of the front residence, between the triplex unit on the east side. The historic residence has a 372-square foot porch. There is a 378 square foot deck at the rear, on the west side of the structure for the upstairs unit. More than 1,406 square feet in area has been provided in "functional" open space. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and other plantings. The landscaping plan provides two new street trees, a shade tree in the five-foot landscape buffer along the west property line, and four new trees in the landscape areas. There are ten trees on the subject property and three on the property to the east. There are two trees on the property to the west. There are a variety of large stature trees that have generally been well taken care of. There is a 30-inch in diameter at breast height (DBH) Deodar Cedar, an 18-inch Walnut, 26-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine and a smaller Deodar proposed for preservation. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan has been provided. The property owner is requesting an exception to not plant "trees that will achieve similar size and stature at maturity" to replace the Ponderosa and the Deodar cedar trees as they are excellent specimen in areas where there is room to grow but not necessarily compatible with six new residential units. To accommodate the electrical site work necessary on the site and provide adequate room for essential functions of development, a 24-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine, two smaller stature, 12-inch DBH Deodar°s and two apple trees are proposed for removal. The pine is in fair condition, the Deodar's are in good condition. Findings address the tree removal criteria are attached. The street n eu is pn-q-,e sec{ for removal so that two larger stature trees can be replanted in the parkrow. o ,q i 5 1 Along the east property line there is a power pole that has lines that run parallel to the alley. From the pole near the northeast corner a secondary service pole that feeds the existing residence and the property to the west. When the site develops, the electric service is required to be undergrounded. The service upgrades will require a below ground vault. The proposal is to place the vault near the alley and the northeast property line. The neighbors service would be undergrounded to their residence along the similar electrical path as the overhead. The route of the line depends on the service location. The City of Ashland Electric Department has been consulted and has reviewed the proposed layout. The water service will be installed from Central Ave, along the east property lime as close to the residence as possible to reduce the impacts on the large cedar tree on the east property line. Sanitary sewer service will go the alley. There is no storm water service on the property. There is also no storm water systems present on Helman In consultation with the Public Works Department, a bubbler system will need to be engineered that will accommodate storm water drainage. The applicant's engineer has begun those discussions and design work. It is the applicant's understanding that the alley will be required to be paved from the west property line to the east at the intersection of the alley and Helman. Conclusion: In conclusion, the applicant finds that the proposed development will be a welcome addition in the neighborhood and the City of Ashland. The units proposed are a desirable size for individuals and some couples. There are six, small, energy efficient units combined with the generous site amenities including mature trees, covered, secure bicycle parking, automobile parking and close proximity to downtown and within walking distance of many businesses, Ibus routes, and the ambiance of an established neighborhood. The existing historic contributing structure will remain as is and continue operation as a two-unit residence as it has since at least the mid-1970s. 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. On the following pages, the criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it pertains to Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit criteria have been addressed. The City of Ashland rritt ria 1-0e in limes New Roman font and the applicant's findings are in Calibri font. i 6 1 Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: Ashland Municipal Code 18.5.2.050 A. Underlying Zone. '1'he proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multiple Family Residential. The parcel is 16,400 square feet (.376 ac) and meets minimum lot area and minimum lot dimensions in the R-3 zone. The proposal is to have a total of eight residential dwelling units. The first unit is the ground floor of the existing front residence. The second unit is the upper level of the front residence. At the rear of the property, to the north of the front residence, accessible from the alley are six units within two triplex structures. There is a detached, two vehicle garage to the left of the existing residence. The garage structure and the front residence do not have any exterior modifications proposed. The existing setbacks are slightly non- conforming to the front property line (19-feet, 1 112 - inches fagade of the garage). Behind this structure are the proposed units. They consist of two, separate triplex ,buildings. The structures on the east side is setback six-feet from the side yard setback. The structure on the west side is setback nine feet to accommodate the area to preserve the 26-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine tree that is near the west property line. The units are separated from the front residence by more than 1.2 feet. There is more than 12 feet of separation between the two new structures. The proposed dwellings have traditional styling that reflects the character of the historic contributing structure. Similar siding, reveal, and Queen Anne details in the gable end are similar to the front residence. There are varying roof forms, with the stepping down the slight grade to break up the gable line and the mass of the structures. The proposed porches add architectural interest and add variation to the horizontal plane. There are numerous windows to allow for ample natural light into the units. The porch posts are proposed to be square instead of turned like the historic structures porch posts. The solar setback standards are met with the development because the structures are single story, more than 25 feet from the 16 foot wide right-of-way and there is only a four percent slope. The units will not cast a shadow beyond the width of the right-of-way. Allowed Density 18.2.5.080: .376 X 20 7.5 Proposed Density: Seven residential units (6.5); Six units less than 500 sf (6X.75 = 4.5) Duplexed front Residence The required open space area is .1,312' square feet. The proposed open spaces consist of approximately 660 square foot of porches for the triplex units and an area at the rear of the front residence, between 7 the triplex unit on the east side. The historic residence has a 372-square foot porch. There is a 378-square foot deck at the rear, on the west side of the structure for the upstairs unit. More than 1,400 square feet in area has been provided in "functional" open space. Other landscape areas are provided that will have shrubbery, bark mulch and plantings.. Lot Coverage: Proposed impervious areas including existing building footprints, proposed building footprints, pathways, driveways, deck (excluding 200 SF) is 9,759 SF of the 16,400 SF lot for a total lot coverage of 59 percent, this is less than the maximum of 75 percent in the zone. Parking: The proposed development requires tern (10) vehicle parking spaces. Six units less than 500 sf ° 6 Front Duplex Residence: 4 Total: 10 The two-vehicle garage will provide the two parking spaces for the primary residence. The upper unit is proposed to utilize two, on-street parking credits. In accordance with AMC 18.4.3.060.A. for on-street credits the property has more than 44 feet of continuous curb along the frontage of the property. Central Avenue is a fully improved Neighborhood Street with curb, gutter sidewalk and park row. The property is not a corner lat. Lastly, the property is more than 290-feet from downtown and the SO zone. At the rear of the property, accessed via the alley, six head-in parking spaces are proposed. An offloading zone for an AAA van accessible space is provided adjacent to the five-foot buffer along the west property line. Ten bicycle parking spaces are required. There is a six-bike rack near the parking area adjacent to the alley, two spaces in the garage and two on the covered porch. U-shaped bicycle rack staples will be used to accommodate for the six spaces, a wall mounting system is proposed for the two spaces on the porch. See attached specifications for CycLoc. Energy Usage: All of the units within the proposed development will be constructed to the current energy codes and building code standards. A detailed analysis of the actual energy consumption has not been determined but the square footage, use of ductless heat pump systems, LED lighting all contribute to the low energy consumption anticipated in the triplex units. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal compliies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 183). The property is in the Skidmore Historic District. Development is subject to AA,1C 1~ ~1.~.0C50. Fh design complies with the applicable overlay zone requirements. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development ~d 8 w B.1istoric District Design Standards. The property is occupied by a historic contributing, two-story duplexed residence. The circa 1895, James Duncan House is a historic contributing structure. It is not proposed to be altered as part of this proposal. The garage structure was constructed in the 1960s. It is also not proposed to be altered. Height: The proposed structures are similar to average heights of structures in the vicinity. The proposed structures are substantially shorter than the historic contributing structure. Seale: The scale of the proposed structures are within the range of other multi family dwellings in the vicinity. The limited square footage of the structures at 1,478 square feet is in line with single family residence in the vicinity as well. Massing: Through the incorporation of a stepped gable with a hipped gable over the middle unit the ridge line has been broken up to reduce the mass, The multiple gable ends and the incorporation of a covered porch; the mass of the triplexes has been varied. Setback: The proposed units have an 11.5 foot separation between the structures in the central courtyard. The building is less than 22 feet tall so the separation standard is met. Roof. The proposed pitch is 8.12. The pitch is similar to the various roof pitches in the vicinity. The roof form is broken into a series of masses to reflect the subtle grade changes and to prevent a continuous ridge line, The roof materials are proposed as composition shingles, Some skylights will likely be added to the kitchen area of each unit. Rhyth n of Openings: The existing structures window and door placements are sensitive to the lot layout, the adjacent property layouts, functionality of porches and open spaces. The windows are proposed as single hung, vinyl windows. They are consistent with rhythm of openings found on residential structures in the vicinity. Ease or Platform: The concrete foundation stem wall will be exposed for 12' to 36". This provides a sense of a base and makes the structure appear grounded. Form: The form of the triplexes is consistent with multi family dwelling development and is sensitive to the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The units are small and single story, reducing visual impacts. Entrances: The primary residence has an entrance that generally faces the public street. Due to the substantial setback of the triplex units from the public streets, there is rot a rec;oir( rnent for a visible entrance. There are very prominent entrances provided on the units. F~ f)c north units each m9 I face the alley with an entry porch. The other units face the internal courtyard. These units also have porches which distinguish the entrance. Imitation; The proposed triplexes have elements of the existing historic contributing structure on the property and brings in the Queen Anne stylings but has a more subdued look vs. the historic contributing structure. The siding exposure and reveal are similar to the existing structure. The color will match or be complementary. The units are proposed to have square posts instead of the turned posts, the crisscross brackets will not be mimicked but the diamond shingle detail in the gable end is proposed to be carried over to the triplexes. Though there are a variety of housing styles in the vicinity. Vernacular 1-home, craftsman and American bungalow cottage style construction are found throughout the Skidmore Academy historic district.. The proposed units have elements of those design styles as well.. Garage Placement The garage is existing, no changes to placement of garage are proposed. 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 layout does not provide for any hidden areas that are not survey able by tenants of the site. The use of low level lighting, low growing vegetation and open space orientation, the design provides areas of safety for the tenants. 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 Central Avenue. A large frontporch wraps around the front of the residence, The triplexes are not visible to the public street and are not oriented towards Central. The units are oriented towards the alley upon which they front and towards their shared courtyard. 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 of the structure in the garage and to the rear of the property. 10 1 I Build-ter 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. All setbacks are existing for the primary residence and the detached garage. 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. The garage is existing. New vehicular access to the site is from the alley and not from the street. Building Materials. Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colons, which attract attention to the building or use, are unacceptable. The building materials are compatible with the surrounding area. The materials are mixture of modem with classic elements. The units are proposed to have concrete stem wall that forms the base, horizontal siding with five-inch exposure, diamond shingle treatment in the gable ends. Square porch posts and wood and metal railings are also proposed. The roofing is proposed as composite shingles. The structures are proposed to be white like the primary residence. treetscape. 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 18.4.4.030.1. The landscaping plan provides two new street trees. The street trees will be planted in accordance with the street tree standards from 18.44.030. E. Landscaping and RecyclelRefuse Disposal Areas. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 113.4.4. A common refuse area will be provided in a screened area adjacent to the alley in the northeast corner. It is anticipated that the electric vault in the ground can have the dumpster rolled aver it. This is being discussed with the City of Ashland Electric Division. 11 I I 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location The proposed parking is not located between the building and the street. The parking is located adjacent to the alley. B. Parking Area Design. Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4.3.080.B. See also, accessible parking space requirements in section 1,81 i. 3.050 and parking lot and screening standards in subsection 18'4,4, 030Y. 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet. Three of the six proposed parking spaces are 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Up to 50 percent of the total auton-robile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the wards "Compact Car Only." Three of the six proposed parking spaces are 8 feet by 15 feet. They will be painted "compact car only" 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space not less than 22 feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. All proposed parking has a back-up space of 22 feet. The alley will be improved to accommodate the backing up dimension of 22 feet. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts, The driveway to the existing street facing garage is a non-conforming situation. The new parking is proposed to be accessed via the public alley at the rear of the property. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development, Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, ,gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate. The Central Avenue curb cut is necessary for existing improvements and will be retained. c, if the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles mii:,1 ron t11t is s or alley and not from the street frontage. 12. 1 All new access is from the alley. The garage access from Central Avenue is pre-existing non-conforming it is necessary to retain due to the existing garage. 5. Alley Access. 'W'here a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley and. driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. No new curb cuts are proposed. The existing access from Central is pre-existing non conforming. The new vehicle access is from the alley. T. Parking and Access Construction. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-aronnds, and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, porous solid surface, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. The parking areas are proposed to be paved with concrete, asphaltic or porous solid surface depending on the storm water detention design. 2. Drainage, All required parking areas, aisles, and tarn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on- site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of- way, and abutting private property. Drainage for the parking area will be provided to prevent sheet flow or drainage of waters into the public rights-of-way or onto abutting private property. 3. Driveway Approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. Driveway approach is pre-existing and is concrete. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. The parking spaces will be marked with paint or wheel stops. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buik1,1 idsc-Cahin.''.. ~~IIJ 310 vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. 13 Wheel stops, if provided will comply with this section. 6. Walls and Hedges a, Where a parking facility is adjacent to a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen between 34 and 42 inches in height and a minimum of 12 inches in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of=-way line. The parking is not adjacent to a street. A, sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge will be provided to screen the parking spaces. A 40 SF landscape island is provided. There is another 40 SF of landscaping between the parking spaces and the walkway. 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation A continuous walkway system extends throughout the development, and to existing public sidewalks. The walkway provides a safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connection between primary building entrances and aU adjacent streets. The building entrances are connected to one another to the greatest extent practicable, The walkway connects the on-site parking areas, common areas, and connect to the public sidewalk on Central. 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. The conceptual landscaping plan submitted with the application has been designed so that plant coverage of 54 percent after one year, and 90 percent within five years of planting is met. The five-foot landscape buffer will have a columnar tree. A hedge is not proposed due to the presence of a solid panel fence adjacent to a parking space along the property line to the west. This fence will be replaced as its present location is not along the property line. Two-inches of mulch will be provided in all non-turf areas after planting. The surface of the five-foot buffer will be walkable plantings, or a permeable turf material, There is a short and scraggly street tree that will be replaced with two new street trees. The street trees will be two-inch caliper at the time of planting. Low level landscape lighting for the paths will be provided throughout the open space. Each unit will have a shrouded yard light that provides down-lighting and security for the unit but will not di,,c tly illw' f rrrte adjacent properties. There is a six-foot fence as a buffer. No plant materials are propoc d ?hat pre vc,ilt surveillance of the open space or the porches. 14 Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection: A detailed site survey of the trees has been provided. The trees along the east property line on the adjacent neighbor's property are protected by a six-foot tall fence, For the trees on the site, six-foot chain link panels are proposed to be installed at the dripline or in accordance with the tree protection plan that's has been provided with the application. Excavation within the root zone area of a number of the sites trees will be necessary so the tree protection fencing is not able to encircle the dripline but will need to follow excavation routes. The project arborist f landscape professional will be on-site during excavation. Much consideration was made as to how to layout the number of units allowed by code, fulfilling a needed housing size stock, and to preserve the maximum number of trees. The proposed layout takes advantage of long linear nature of the property, provides for the necessary parking improvements, and utility installation is accommodated for. The proposal preserves a substantial number of large stature trees while accommodating for the density needs in the multi family residential zone. 18.5.7 Tree Removal: B. Tree Removal Permit. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and. Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental. Constraints in part 18.3.10. There are six trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) proposed for removal. The trees proposed for removal are a double stemmed (12" and 1.4" DBH) apple, a 24" DBH apple, two, 12" Deodor cedar trees and a 24" Ponderosa pine. The removal of these trees is proposed to allow for the development of the site with the allowed density, compatible with historic district design standards, in an economical footprint. The development of the site also requires substantial modifications to the site to accommodate for electrical infrastructure and storm water detention and drainage compliance. The double trunk apple is in good condition and was proposed to be preserved with the removal of tree #5, an excellent condition Ponderosa Pine. With a three-foot shift of the structures to the east to preserve that Pine, the apple tree is then too close to construction and will be substantially negatively impacted. Tree #9, the Birch is one of dwindling number of healthy birch trees in Ashland. It is unfortunately, in a location that will be substantially negatively impacted by the site development. With thr c.- emotion ocorthe trunk, substantial grade alterations within the dripline to accommodate required parking, and walkways, utility installation for sanitary sewer, electrical, storm water detention and dmio(ige fucilities. 15 I The presence of the amount of irrigation the tree receives will be substantially altered and farther its demise. Tree #10 is a 24' DBH Ponderosa Pine. There are two on the site and this one is in Fair condition when compared to the other that is in excellent condition. There are overhead power conflicts with this tree. When the site development happens, at the pole located just to the northeast of the tree, an underground vault is required for the proposed development and excavation to provide the neighbor to the east at 216 Central with underground service. The subject property and the property at 116 Central have a secondary overhead service the follows the east property line through the Ponderosa and the Deodars. This Ponderosa will be netatvley impacted by the substantial amount of excavation that will be necessary to install the required electrical infrastructure for the subject lot and adjacent properties. The two 12" DBH Decors are both too close in proximity to the proposed units and both are within the foot print. In order to preserve the Ponderosa on the west property line the east property line must be held to so that the required separation between buildings is met. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, sail stability, flog of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The removal of the trees will not have impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, and protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The structures, landscaping and other site improvements are necessary on the site that will cover the exposed soil. There are no surface waters. 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 .2007 feet of the property. The removal of the three trees will not have a negative impact on the densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity. The proposed layout allows for the preservation of a substantial number of the sites large stature conifer trees. The removal of some allows for better preservation of other trees. 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 high density, multiple family residential site has a large number of larger stature conifer trees that do great in open landscapes tvith tir,h5tanticrl amounts of irrigation. Any development on the site will substantially alter the, soils puro.sil j, Fierrncahie .surfaces 16 and in turn have a negative impact on the trees. The proposal allows for many of the big trees to be preserved while achieving desired densities.. 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. Clue to the nature of the development, high-density multifamily, no conifer trees are proposed. Seven deciduous trees are proposed in the landscaping. The trees 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 1$,4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, .sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Adequate city facilities exist to service the new units. Water: There is an existing eight-inch water main in Central Avenue that serves the property. The existing X inch meter will be used for the residences at the front of the parcel adjacent to Central Avenue. Thee meters for the new units are proposed on east side of the parkrow to parallel the east property line back to the area past the Black Walnut where the lines will branch off to service the units. A common area meter will also be provided. Sanitary Sever: There is a four-inch line in the public alley to the north 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. The triplexes will have a three-pack meter installed on the east side of the east triplex and the west side of the western triplex. Storm Server: There are no storm sewer services in the vicinity excepting up hill from the majority of the development across the Central Avenue right-of-way. The project civil engineer is working with he public works department to devise a bubbler system that will comply with the building code and the public works standards for storm water treatment and detention. Central Avenue is paved with curb, gutter sidewalk and parkrow along the frontage of the property which provides paved access to the development. Street trees are proposed in the parkrow. The 16-foot wide alley at the rear of the property is gravel. if this surface needs to be paved, the applicant is willing to pave to Heiman Streets intersection with the alley. 'R 17 The apartment buildings will' have Fire Sprinklers installed as required by the Oregon Fire Code and Oregon Residential Structural Specialty Code. 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. 18.5.4.050 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria The conditional use permit request is to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the historic district by nine-percent. The proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by nine percent and requires a Conditional Use Permit for the increased area. Maximum Permitted Floor Area. Adjusted Lot Area: 8,856 SF Allowed MPFA for Eight Units: 4,605-12 SF Up to 25% increase with CUP. +1,151.28 SF Total Maximum Allowed MPFA: 5,756.40 SF Proposed new units: 2,946 SF Existing Residence: 2,054 SF Total Proposed MPFA: 5,000 SF (9% EXCESS) 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or, Federal law or program. The use of the site is residential which is consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan policies and does not violate and city, state or federal law. 18 1 1 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. As addressed above, there is adequate capacity of City faciities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage and paved access to and through the development. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact. area when comparod to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 1 8,, , A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. The additional 335 square feet will not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the site as eight residential units. The proposal complies with the target use of the zone, the proposal complies with the site design standards applicable in the zone, a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. The proposed triplexes are similar in scale, bulk and coverage as other multifamily developments in the zone. The proposed single-story structures are similar in height as the multifamily development across the alley. All of the separations between buildings including setbacks and lot coverages are met which provides for a reduced bulk and coverage. The b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. The square footage proposed to exceed the maximum permitted floor area will not have an impact on the generation of traffic. The use of the property is multi-family as envisioned in the code. The request is to fulfill the allowed density on the property. The units are small and have adequate parking proposed. The property is within walking distance of downtown, grocery and other retail stores, restaurants and bar. The employment center of town and near the bus route on N Main Street. The units are in a walkable neighborhood that has sidewalks throughout. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. The proposed dwellings have traditional styling that reflects the character of the historic contributing structure. Similar siding, reveal, and Queen Anne details in the gable end are ~ 19 1 ~ similar to the front residence. There are varying roof forms, with the stepping down the slight grade to break up the gable line and the mass of the structures. The proposed porches add architectural interest and add variation to the horizontal plane, There are numerous windows to allow for ample natural light into the units, The porch posts are proposed to be square instead of turned like the historic structures porch posts. The homes in the impact area are a mixture of vernacular, ranch style, bungalow and craftsman. The proposed building has elements of each of those design styles. d. Air duality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. The additional square footage for the development of the site will not impact the air quality in the impact area any more than the allowed multi family development of the site at seven units. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare, The proposed increase in square footage will not impact the generation of light, glare or noise any more than the allowed multi-family development of the site with seven units would. f The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The additional 385 square feet will not prevent the multifamily development of the adjacent properties. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. We believe that all of the standards for the development of the site have been met. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance, The conditional use to increase the MPFA by 385 square feet is an allowable use in the zone. Attachments. Historic Resources Inventory 1977 Assessors Data Letter from previous property owner re.. apartment Cycloc information Site Plan Elevation 20 Tree Plan Landscaping Plan 21 A, Willsstatter 1.28 Central Ave. " C Ashland, OR 97520.171:5 ~ - x V I p 1 r -D_ ~4 ~-t ~ n L) Hpo CIS - 13~ j? INT ro 9AV 2 0-- N3 F -PL) c2 12- a A j~> FLU, _a_......_ u.__ UA, A J\3 - - 1-- . m rat . Ve- '-V P,7 F ___......___..m..... A. '1 illstatter 128 Central Ave, Ashland, {}&1 975211-1715 1 J National Register of Historic Places Skidmore Academy Historic District Inventory 39.0 Surmy 4692 DUNKIN JAMES W. HOUSE 1895c 128 CENTRAL ST 391E04CC 4500 Other-: Vernacular- [Queen Anne elements] Historic Contributing Sanborn Fire Insurance gaps indicated that this dwelling was constructed prior to 1898 and a photograph of the house was published in the 1900 souvenir issue of the A.shlcind Tidings over the caption "N. H. Clayton House.' This was apparently in error, as title search did not indicate Clayton as the owner of the property. Most likely, the dwelling was built during the ownership of James W. Dunkin, who purchased the lot for $400 in December 1893 and sold it in April 1895 for $1500 to F. M. Blevin, the substantial increase indicating construction. In December 1900 Blevin transferred title to J. L. Thornton, who sold the house to J. C. Mitchell in 1901. The Dunkin House is a large two story gable roof volume with the street-facing gable detailed in a modest Queen Anne style, with clipped corners and spindle work bracketry supporting the eave. An early corbel-top brick chimney remains and the large wrap around porch is supported by turned porch posts. An unfortunately visually dominating non-historic garage is located to the west, detracting from the overall integrity of the site. Despite this intrusion, however, the Dunkin House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. f 22 MAP NO IDEN T'IAL4 MC KIRDIE "AYTHEW/ YLVIA4 J P I1 No CODE No . PARRETT U04JUTAI D F I.z,r 1~ VALWIN RU Y DW6LLINr4 - P..[iIIIATRP RNPL EMONY 695+ K QVYPIII~ vD61i'.IASi:F 9RIPL11~6NNT {q~T 6 a Y~f{~4i1_d'Rl.1f O 132 OTH911 IMPJIGWOW,~' 0 R G 1 ~ TCJTAL 4040116r.l PIEPLA.NSNr COW a VP,11'f1aN06Ill 1 V `T ,.......-.,9~ _ IGTpIQT TYipY19GiIl,ATRLILI ,.-...Y.-«»,1R~ 34 T4TA Erwg 71C Afll1l9T 7 9 ~r rir{yµ r vr' T / RA~46AL. {SPIN O5 3' 6 APP t w IN a= RAI VA'L1A ~„ryy ter.. SP'k/ µ#~PJ'~F' ~5 AP~~ T6 -~+w APP ItIMU VA LP( IFS, I 7300 At- I DAYR APPtAA ~ D VAS x+:i Y+o•MA s'rmrS4:-,_ _ - c... ~~rr ~ pu1LT 11LAff„r "NTAL 6+ AOLt! t'# A OUNT m.+ MOT FAICF Ammo"LKG 1P-. CIO of CGNT TO I1 ON r1IT 4 - - _ 1HT' 1PECTID- YII WD IIwnn YNkw4'1 ~:,~,sr ■ PT' ITEwr I il.ualsE~~■ IE CVffi To j j `t IAE9, P ® r pl A. b y x P ~/`I i i /r., a''~:.~ rwwA<R aAaTwbw. 46 FOUN TION Qa NC X115 (~rcr -elan rR t, )sc: at~K TA6 [IaL 141 SI'~NQr A tIW~TIG :J VMA4, bNAKK Wo A1YE CdrM C I , -!£A CCO ORION LEN t1LID 1 r OTT N6 COO. D'LK PT PUp°b STtICCCR - '(1A J#HP PLAT PITC"l LOW AVG TX EHINULE& OD SIN ALUM Hoop F ile KtrlJt` LT WIG NVY El u► I ALPO ■AN TiLR AIXP w trrc L;-~ L rl PLY Wa H. Co If r AP FWOR r?MI L F L A anw PART4TIQN ®LAIT6A V LL 900" PA Too PLVWOOD 1N wo PAN +G OTM6R "A991 IURLY+1 P6tC F9 MH wI NET rC4PI W.A 471 L'r'Q T LIATrSGEB ,fiL~C4 Aw6E1_tAml 5g1AG FAiG LIGHTING- #AAss 4/° L VA Y '1WtA LL 9H9gp EI f ~K I Lt,,.-.r~STw . G rl LAU~T A Yati^i' IALIMtll4q Txlu oh. A. ®AT. W TEE NEATEp f , ~r UR PA AV n W GAL E Apo PuE6 HKATING. - HI n m CANE cuw FL E GowV60 IAa PL aLS,S~ Alt, TOTAL A}S6A N li$'D 7, P°1 n _ r'\C. PI'IPoR. C19 e,AD rrx E s/ rrlD aTKG CIR w0 EA He PLAIw ILAP N 'LL TIPr V. V. p UNPIN WALL9 CONC ILK PL. CONG WOOD RAC KW CLAII DAYLIANT, FR VO I/# V. CEUL PLO DRYWALL CONPI PLYWC 'TALL, G'V11 P11z B • 014V L C P' WI PLR C wpPH TILL COwR IND Mktg FLAT J11 PATH LWDR4 GAMY NO pmol . NIAT - so WLA99 r 1 JH % V. #14 2. A 5 ry, ."IN PIN PLO QPI t_.!t C9 NP Lq~IAA 31 A I T1C OR L1PIp Pik 1 R*ZL r.' 14 Wk, I VINYL LINI CAR'PE'T a l-LOUX 0),LV all ATOPq ~r . pq f yJ; 43PEGAL CN« at cQ}s N°' ~ tiro- 3>L t~~ ' 2 ~ 1 ~~,11 RATRNDI PNYE D ! P D TtrL 0 uTl p p A t4 APTCttAArr P u 8 + r 1 lJ TWAL9I 4T LLAI4I4Rt fi5 ~1 rca 6 Wit RF~P4AI GLI :.,AVY OF I,WrtL1 INt C;Ok4MTIM111A1a T~1Wii} ~ NET I~NF EV i+ AWIAOTNeHY .o..v 9 pp y1~~~,C1~ 1o1 f- %t7Y Dw N6 EI. TM M R6 1Aw1T6 .•••..so FT 1~»r P m IV 0_ w s « I , }fPTA16 (DARK OOPT lo'r~. IP„L:~*+ DGOT 114011 X I.ALTPT AOk A', NOAYP is BAS i:R$;y( n rcl RrP 9NKNT COSY..M....w.-.....»..v..«.«..,.«....a»««.».~«w.. rC,Ep R:'91AT7$'Ne -_..._~1, Fw'09rCAL. k ,.~.41M tr1H+.T1GwAL o YioaO A ~a rsm DK'rINYE~ 'NA 'LMS'I' IPW l1A E T4 YAW.Z 4{'}b11Ap'II S ~ . f RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT APPRAISAL IMPROVEMENT # 1 02/14/02 ACCOUNT # 1-005012-5 MAP: 391E04CC TAXLOT 4500 CODE 5-01 13.13:0 Maintenance Area 2 ASHLAND Base Year 139Reap aisai Schedule Code 4 HISTORIC DISTRICT 1597 Ad dtcation Pro erty Class 171 RESIDENTIAL USE MULTI-FAMILY ZONE Updated 6/3/19 by JMS Factor Book 132 SINGLE F'AMILY RES CLASS 3 ZIPPER LEVELS Appraiser- Jerr Nlson Sttus 128 CENTRAL ST Inspected 61 997 Zoning R-3 Year Built 1900 Status Tice Only ~ < Neighborhood 'VINTAG Remodel- 8adrooms 3 v - Property Owner WILLSTATTER ALFRED TRUSTEE Effective Age- 1960 Bet 2.0 SALES DATA No sales data since 1995 City Permit, Ashland 2002 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION OR ALTERATION BD-2001-00499 Standard Mechanical Permit f ASL COSTS Main Floor 1286 39 50,910 2nd Floor 768 32 6 24,624 MAIM ROOF' Comp CAR STORAGE Detached Garage 576 Class 3/CompiUnfinished 13 60 7,831 LCM,O 60 FEATURES Kitchen 1 hood/fan 130 00 1 dishwasher 395 00 525 Heat/AC/Fireplace(s) Forced air 1 85 3,500 Plumbing 2 lavatory 280 00 = 560 0 2 tnrl'ot 250 00 = 56 00 1 shower 8 a 00 1 tubs/shower 0 00 2,780 00 - 01.00 2,780 TOTAL BASE COSTS 90,410 Local Cost Modifier 93 Book 0 945,428 PA1T IDS/PORCH ES/DECKSJFLATWORK: Porch 372 Wood/Com roo /Better qualityy 11020 3,794 'Deck 378 Redwood/Io c er/Better quality 7 50 2,835 Concrete 400 190 760 TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST 92,431 Percent Good Physical 0 72 -25,8'81 TOTAL DEPRECIATED COST 66,551 Market Modifier 1 13 6,652 75,202 Vint Modifier 1 77 57,906 133,108 Trends 19'96.10 rb 1997" 106% 1998,110% 1999 105% 20001 % 2001 .109% 62,286 Total Trends 147% TOTAL DEPRECIAT TRENDED' REPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENT VALUE 195,390 Board of ualizatlon 1996-1997 Adjudicated Improvement Value 10+0, Comm EN ' nr ~qAi 4-A 1 / RiV I r ~ I 1 r~ v r Introduction CYCLOG Store your bike with style Cycloc's unique ability to carefully combine considered thought with a hoist of poetic spirit to create a ranee of simple, playful and practical products has earned it global recognition with numerous avfards and acco- lades, Founded in 2006, Cycloc operates from their design studio in London's creative Fast. End and, a r nanufactur- ing facility in the UK. A team of skilled and enthusiastic t . r t , distributors and retailers provide support globally. . f ` ~/j SOLD? r k horizontal or vertical cycle storage r. f, f . ! ` Elegant and effortless cycle storage,, ideal for home, office and retail display appalication& Store bikes horizontally or vertically, accessories in the centre. Secure three point wall fixing, insert panel hides fi;cings. Spacer incl = den #o accornrrsodate wide bars. k Rotate to a cornrnodate frame angles. Rubber co itact points protect frarne. 1 1 rrt ri,a . ~,~4L k' Facility to loch bike in place. ' available in '7 brigh colours. A... Lt 9 TM Versatile - compatible bike styles Road bikes 't. j,. s f Town lakes f=olding mikes t i15 1 JI _~;i I J R afa i I i I • l A ~ ' I & L _ Y Pli~lI 1 MAP Z r z ~ I1 (l ~ ; an ADRdnRRVAIR06dR I ~ ( TBA'LDPm~AalAP { 'ti n f. I. ADf Rl69 Nab LdtiTRAL AVa„ARkLA.ti a.aM1. W1 R:a i w ~ I. A ~ I' f Ari?hA~AA p.b IA-td7tl dl ~ AAPo A1 1d96 GG TAM Lai.46aa 4 d~ S i.. dSANl a,xiA to. PT. p lq 'GN'V• 'I( aNRRLAMd hV6daR!a CATR!afT 1" ' A 1 ~f l u ~SGA."tT'CIMdPPRNILE fir ~ Vk L4 RIJdTa4?r -D eclat 01 AS% TAI P900 araRA 1 Tol- AL GP tli%ahE.ltr^Vx9 aP4eap T!1A44a?BP.PT,. I ~ kf F IA•, w, .._j ! ; ~ EAST Tgk-FLEX FLOOR PLAN. aT o,vA •a Z cclrfzeGl't ~ TDTAL aI ItrA?o ep r.?R Ito% TMl RhTJ tl1e AKrv6 f i/P'ATl 1Ab2 'All T a aa Pr _f Aa IaIY7Y1 M1 ~A kA al Cler ra T1 lA 0'<d PFSRR 6PTaeR1RACRa CR NAIWRAL AAa , ! AG(N) 6 PE !clCTRK, WA I4A {d! J daFA Ay4A 16f Q6 Al ALL 1'ol t :xaer" uaeTo Pp4d.... ----exBn ,-RA 13 fir yu._rAatl 1e¢~ caxA•, T, I RaLrcue r 1 1aR r+ ewuaaeRd ` " rt kt d :tl%6r avid is aB.LAM68LAPED. 1 a!n T a ,w.xxS.r. f a. wmrewr . u.:... ~J!•" 1.. sre"° Ql 1 CAklrvarar yC~ ~ ~ ( r.n a Na..maq. to ulo Nt4 -NrG Nro yap Nlm- ~A, A ,uaRdo® f r .-.N ;04 1 B' 9Ti o ,rte + + M1~p'~? IF da Reav 0 ~+j~RKV PROM dpi ~ III _ r ~ 11 c w r WF r i ntC dnRtAD.arakn'c:EdTaxrtl C'.°,~ ,y" ~ PS :FR01%P vRE I601.$25: I U.'" 'I as • ~1' ,,Ty,,,, q _ k .Ct.......... ,i f ;::.Ifs 2faTA l P 1 ,L i a .~P~ 1 . a~ C 1 ~ 1 i J ~7 'I ~ AI A! III( , IN EX OF SHEETS: ; f i•a P_. In. G rA ~ t na sVx'eU SHORT1 SITpPLAN V1tMTY MAP'S TRbPLB%PLOOR AN SHEET 9 &%T@R pR k4XVATIXANO 1 SITE PLAIN 6GALEi i`a 101.0" ? 1tl 20 a?- is D~~ i??PT I • pxor'No 1 _I - i 1. IN GENERAL, ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS I OOLORB SHALL MAYGH (E)MAIN HOUSE. 7. USE WHITE LAP SIDING W/6'(MAX) EXPOSURE OH YVALLS. ,y . B UBE AHMN p1AMON17 6NING6E5 ON GABUR 04 END i4ALLb, ~ ! ~ 4. BABIG SINGLE NUNG WIHpOWb. ~ ~ h' a c, ~ ~ III o ` I ~ 1 ~ w<t E T ! u I I' I I f I z fil > ! L u 01 i rn 1 V q II I G sr. 61F; I~I1 ;ham FAST TAI-FLEX ^V-5T F-LEVATION P I sr 1~1 % ( uv~~ ,I x•»~n, 5~ Ken+ airn Landscape Architecture 1 ; ~I Gore 214.. ORGANIC UL H Gore C ~~_~~~J a I 77 ~ NA Cap NanS-3- y Task 3 Acec11 Ghot•pi j CroL 1 I ~4oltL~xiMp L f ll 1' SkIr3 { { lG 5` AAco--` I RIINI.Adal pB 1 t , ~ ~F I LOW-2 Chat -2 A ~ I papo - 2 Nags d„~III , yta ~i I_ r'~i I. ~alf1 .,1~ to AF` I'hp4.1 Cabo-9 3G r - a ~nH M Qar1 • S Drawn By: r 7 HI SCD Cap - 1 ,.AWN dagN.3 SW - 2 66 S CIa9.2 0 7 - u- GALE 1 H9DrLAWN I 0 o AN I Palm •A° " hi- F rl I ( /~I j u~ r7 u~ LaSN-S U ~ ~ \ Acoc,1 . L.avH 5-1 -j 1 c;r A D 2 L L o 'I{.~' mSpIG.2 Lj „I r I' u SpEp ca -ter„ ~ FbIV 1 f 'SPIN 3 y SpYN 2 d CroL 1 vft- AaeD 1 C hat • 3 r papo•2 _ Clot 1 MlsY-1 i Pldv•3 Crnr 2 polm 1- MIsY Mohr -3 Nans-3 - Aga9.3 i c c c Garb 2 ORGANIC MULCH Cale • 2 ~ ✓ O ' Ilo 4 papa -1 7axH • U4 THROUGHOUT ZeIW - 2-- ~ mm Z LO LLJ 0-) L] c{ _..~.-.______m..~. Nang Nandlna dwr Sienna S-rhe "CNNASUNRISE HEAVENLY 01WBOO 3giY wA di "y MF IMINA R PLANT LEGEND Panrl aennl., .ean s'HA-W DiYARF FOUNTAIN GRASS 10 _J y ~ ~J f f r P0 :'V IS-11a4 DNARP MOCK ORANGE 3,4 X r E~?;^d u. I. pCC '•n! " Phiadelplru9 I pr < w P'n ply,;„49iCdiDFERy l Sef //pp uJ Snrr 8nrc F(EAGfiANTyV^IEET af7X 3011 L I{ rul~`GdSmay BL :fIC7GD JAPAML$E 9~sA1'LP, Y'Hrl p ~ D SF''-s to NEON NEONFASH SPIREA B _ - KEII.,aINNELLa6'At°K10D N Tne? 38-5. ~FlaeLt FIASHaPIREA 59a1 1D0 Plu LapN 1.3", I d^, Wl;;,L;• ! I f'%dEr litF I - ,.}I Ems nlmMpwt d' HICKS YEW YOaaI YePA +d Vihumdlmdm.. REVISION DATE DAVID VIAOUriNUM ago SHRU84 V:n Vlllwirsm nlypVua oa iMpa6M1l WIPACT CRANDERRYBUSH 60rd AboR Abda a'Re! a Cre,:W RO ML , V1001 h'OarkHead DARK HORSE WEIGELA app gad AD Ma AOaalav- BuM!Farture BLUE FDtkTUIMe i{YSSO" 1441 1 t y i C_ Ad01UEr 4ME EGELA 3 EW," Dous x'Ore-n M-WA' MEN M,DUNTAIN BOXWOOD 70u1 Carlo CN'icarlOws o.Ndcwla% CALIFORNIA.SPICEBUSH 500 r _ Catl CnroMlpedcnA NEIAdEAILANO t§'BDGE 1@iW TREE Com DmNiaro4nr§wbea REDVALERIAM .LIM LRlppeVU IGAL5WOC Chot CMRyal.".0 NAMOANGRhVGC Seed PROTECTION Cfsp G61u8x't9dYfantV BRILLIANCY ROCK HOSE 5031 ~ LAWN LAWN SOD Cwt C-,a&N'LuCrlad LUCIFER CROCOSAITA 10,y _ PLAN D2pm Baphr,aodnra'Marg4Ma',H" VARIEGATED WNTER DAPHNE 3031 ,n; 1GALok3"OC~ DaPD D3pN,w xkiwk wdo Ic -A SlxcAL" CAROL M1AC'KI DA-HNE 0ON 03M Gl"Yaolglsa COAST6ILKTASSEL bear ISSUE DAT! DndC Dawa lnAha7menl95 S_-Is D!3sh' PASSIONATE BLUSH LAURA Ibaa JUNE 26,2011 Heap 148.,.h rax'P, ill PEACH FLANSE CORAL BELL 10d La,fi Leven anq HIDCOTE LAVENDER 1Dal Lap Lwm000d e IPu le F'ir4a' PURPLE PMRIE. FRINGE FLOV,ER SOad Ilya M,hmh spans CREEPINt3 MAHOMA 100 Pr Ley A95rarfhus 5aku.h'roa DMAHF PAVDEN GRASS 1DH ° Landscape Architecture T I h• 1 w q , , -7- 1 s i , 1 ~ N N I P u I ~ I =r 1 ORE GI N R1.0 V 493 ~IU° enC alen ry nn u 111 A ~X2'1 fi4 a k ~ ~ I X` I ° Drawn By: BOB SCALE: V-161-011 r 1 I P r „ t r n.:- r w Ij I ~ 4- -A l • _ .f 1 I t R I I9 f ~ a , R 1 I~ d i I I !I liIl I ~ ~ ~ _1 l I r 1 3 I Lo Uar _f d JCr. TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL NOTES ~ TREELEGEND N SPECIES DBMd 11EIGhT 6Y CVttl6'N FEET TRF;E F7i©TECTtojN i P'U FT,- ,IYL.'1 'd NOTES ti, F ffl l:. P', ",lAn"''I EO: Y" vi LP !!R' Y :;,iR' 14tN ACfI1N .ES n+ll l : f. 'HF. GEPIfRAl UPHkL 9li7E CA TN-i!l6 PROTECTIO'{E(J',E TO PI7EVFPfF S&TAiIOtCA',ro70Yi FR{O51U!dV',71TUY THE Y'.-1. mROTECfiCdIGiNBE': 1 7 QN0HE5} FFLA tlN RMYIIyS E4MG Rdu11U51N 1,T 1 flu I,• ,1 :^TLn_ U• 1 t 1 ok16 Y- 1 c- Hl o-.sANO Z 1, 1 0. I a ,:t YRG1I1 I. 1L1:E'„II'I_]fl, 'hE 12ELF ,-:•1R5TIb'B,OREXCAVfI?4 FQR.THETCV,'NCATICC{%,F60TNRG31A la ,1.F'Iti,. 3, ME( 71aE^u YdTY1P,1 ,,,,,,,,,rrr+++ i CUUIUSU'.GM4m d4 70 _ 25~ 23 E• , 1 Y<IOC¢~ o f• w I,~ 2 EfOus ELF,, 12,14 30 20 14 GOOD E ; I M C 1,, 11 , r "t< ! 1 1 +^.r I I I.+nl'; III 1 1,111E THE aPI PI_ I l l 17"IP SHAA BE R-:O' "I FOOT OUISL',)Sl--TR£E RRIi I RY LVf f1YG ALL ROOT R .-(ALL CLEJNLI E10 A 11! MOF!1' 1 -',)TS SXNI COT HY IfAAO~ +O LiN\O C'_' ".O d JIIT~RR414 YB 30 lfl 12 Pon C:: F ,W{I '.:'I RI': f E7tP 19EG I •UI F, 1Afl101'. :GId'Ell l"i17115tiAHN LAO L''.:1 APVrAO t' 4 PTO"$6 24 30i is 1s GOGU G!d REIAquE RtlOT.6f a 1.r y P mf n 25 $ 4 9 70D Es'b!Y REL!A 2 VI F n r.T 1 1 ul vJ P e l r I I n: r ) - I I .-3 r 1 1. P:' 1 "ly fb AVYRO c. 1. ALr-I [ c'050UIIOTISN Y 1 + :IrH c & C•hCCAm'^'. ~e^= 12 US 7 42 L'00FRATE Gp~ REVOVE 1 to' 'r .1:. c ln!1, -,i in Cro1+, ,I V!.:+'v aTtL(,1.1F 1,FOAOEDTNE,.WL n'ql P '.I, r.1, R°LQ I 1 'rl1 7 C ' Ed t2 35 d 47 AtGPERATE OaNI . , . U ~ id IF I. r V TfII:IYI?Ati$6/F1t TYdP.IUYfYT pRI AOi YRtLS.TOHF. r OpF 191'+!! 'OF r^ -,171 I• IIIN C' ryd• !s 42 5S R I,AODERATE C.. REMOVE 9 B.'JA:'.'' 0,0 SS 14 ® MODERATE Y REPdNN1'YE 11U1. I. 1t TH YWPROTEOTFr1@SONL, Tit! 6PA(D IdEG11NA9EHIkJ.bt!. d51,ECt.flHM1Y'IB ull Ir' oaN rnEIISIOIt7Ai: L. zs rq IT d GoGla r k:J 1. 1,ta t ~.:1 ri IG'.I li,l ~.1n1 1 uc-n:: r.,WE tN VOV 1'1 r,ll l.EXCAVATIONS ERIalLNar UH: RN.NOE©V41N{IOI rr+Y,n rt,.07EOtlfu'I EOIi!?~III"HYifii '.T, TEU _ I rY \ TREE CANOPY OF TREE 2011E REMAIN Pgiu, OR1'r5r~ 3YtlIREO, ORPARWrtRN➢11VIN THE TBF:Ip 40 NOOUN L1 0- j rvELI,S 1 IF YdTIII+dTHEIMEE:PROT ECTIONZOUC. NO A,H0,R,WS,„ OR GWIBM3r MAY BE ~pq TREES TO BE RRC)POSE'p b: NCNAA RI d } PROTECTION TREES Td /M f#EYdOV'E® FENMG VON CONTOURS PROAECI1. AREA'1. RNJ4 Eb plln l l ,,141 TR naAZONE. - F NCPA'G 1 l NEb REY THE LAN, WPF A,Iq(!IIIIEOTIF IF FE F'RIII - 'FIAIJ'. r. tF p1A1NTMY1 •I EANeR.R b11QU }J Rcr ewA..;„pk°$'0, NO HEAT 6OV dCh-k. FIhUE$,IORl7 vON Sl7JHLE5.flSi S1KWJ•'+i}NSNW.LC7NGY7 EAR VUL(l':OI,1 REF.5'+ ATLYRrR#IhCIOF,'I,,EO UPICTRPAbii0 MA1 U„' EFd Mf)LN3ERER FOT{iMAT USE. PROTECTION IF...LF;OTECTIC14 ZONE FOR EACH TREE IS BASED ON THE GUIICELENES ESTABLISUED BY: 18MN©T RM5F THE 5O:L LEVEL 7.1 THNI TI O AN OA.MEVEPOS^r Er EEAflJ'1 TtlNYAYG710ttA6E5 YIVTrl d'LrEY;ALM9 S I 1.'19Rd. 7YLd ilr,/D,~pW n-mY:':97erhn tul GnM1PP hl dSkxrru!D!1n n(Ir[i3OndnR d:m~l0nrlmp":Arf. R. it, 5. IFPIlURY511OULVOCCUVITOAMY1RE'E CUR] 0 1 EC! "1LONTELY. ALLUAUAGE AND CURTIS AND N THOSE AREAS FWi U1C+F50d.dAC'. iU '!.,i ATIFFROVATELY3'.15LCPF. f - CAUSED flY C)95Tn.UCIICNTOEXISLTNCTRE ESH ;:P ,.Y, ET:FCRE THE PRCTEki Y4Yl4 EEC OCb19. REMOVE TILE ROOT WAD FOR EACH TREE 11 ITIAI`v ATEOtl4THEP.,',.IAS.-I•.:SMMOWDr PLAN iQ VYAT2RIN llI-I7F NfA7:.HVW "GOi '1 r I :IFVERPEry7Q09pF [%TREAI MEAT, J+I!ILY, 20.. E%CENHWi9TN TOk Tft'EE'PRQ"FCTIU7M5REGYf 'INNLY RE URANTFR IN ESTRAOPi:VMY CtRCU'd3TANCE.5 V.10i V.114HN P IAE Y'll, 1: 1 11 1 II 'I~:1FF APPROYALFRVITHELAtO5CAPEARCIIVYE )lNORKCOLIVEW, G. A r.fx1 T r . I. ;r I ! l l + r..'1 1 1 : r- 1+ TEeR t$611. ®RT', B OI ,1 T 1 ',nll T ',l l RC°1q5 AlREAW 0'4 THE 2t AS APROTti. F1 TO CC '@I, : ON l""ACI~B, TWO TO SIX VYEEN6 FRIO 'o caNx A rv AA I, 'I ,n 1I-t 1 I I L [ V.n : 1 AED LC VRAY ON OR RETAIdEEIIri ES, 1'15F UV' LL" liOFIAYCOA-PLYALLPVRPO 6Ql! £ VF dC0U E,N'S Ju;>',026,2017 1I E 1 u LATER Sr1A 1 I'cr 1 II u 1 t, '.~i^. 1 :'[T i[ t - 1LZTrO PIARPRAI°RQO?tl ."t .I ;nl I:I :nE e r s 11 A N'I 8YR cr 11 I I,AL L 'It'>pAT -Ti1SAi m0.T BY' AND IUPTN7'I'E51 UTT n X1:1 L t •OMboikA I I '.;t ION I@ JI_I I .IRU(JTf.',. F, OI i, UUC xEV6`ltl,Yi'('PHIN iVEJ I {d94 ' -O. TRELB C IGPI OF&It'Ut10 "RTHE r , ZON AWW CC%RCJ 1fif11 RI I''!~1d1 sA ,QT %Ii LARDSW;0.NOAPEAP AAO lcr_ I PRE'- "1 l;- iPl^ IO AF9 -710;4 1 i1G{ LOCAl ll7GA1EiHEf IVF 0 TOY ,,FSth7 GAU.O Pl it, EROSIONCO.NTROlf -:SSUCHA5 ER.T FLNCIN'G, O 'FI`EA '.A'„)YlATfRri AMNSTRUC,TVR' SPALLEISTA11EUCNIIIE MYC01 LYISAVAIL.,....E 1{'.; IRNYEALAPPUCATC.SI ~HOtit 16511br&2935: »l 1.0 KenCairn Lr: ipe Architecture I-._ „ Yr F_ '-y~ i Gab M1 4T 5.f1h A f .GP9~i,i 1 i + r ~~h AIl'r. 3s P v 5V I ~ li p i ( fl ( G a I Drawn By: 6 C ( GU i l r 9 SCALF,1=16',0" I j r ....__.._...~II r I ( it I I li i 15.0 I I SP 1y I N LEGEND I IRRIGRM.. _ nH . . n _.m, . ~ _..1~.m _ I SYh~ ITEM Shrubs . HUNTER ICV 101G (SPRAY)' W I HUNTERPCZ-101 (DRIP) - w MAIN LINE: SCN,40PVC (1'A"( ~ r Av LATERAI. LINES SHALL BE SCHEME 40 PVC, (1") y~_ ° / LATERAL LINES $HALL BE SCHEOULE 40 PVC, (1l") P0.C. ( r g~ SLEEVES. SCH, 4% MIN. SIZE SHALL BE 2x IDIA, OF PASSING PWE, M1~9 , ~eA I EX ER OR WALL MOUNT 3 15,0 bd ISOLATION GATE VALVE - LINESIZE Cp'arROLLEk 15" Shrubs z N QUICKUOUPLINGVALVE:HUNTER44RC (/4 15.0 I P'i r- " 0 CONTROLLER: HUNTER IC-M SERIES WITH SOLAR-SYNC: V1 5Shrubs V ZONE I.D. 5 15.0 ate, Trees (y 1 1 154 _ G:P.A9 ' LL' J u Shrubs APPLICATION VALVE SIZE aa~ P.C.C. co U) POINT C7P'C(7NNECTfON»SELDETAILDvLX Ir~ FLUSH VALVE LOP IRRIGATION: HUNTERPLR•04.14 REV( C' J DATE IRRKIA ION Hf-W) I.EGE:PJD ':r Bul (V'(~ lr'II rr01)r111; ) :il V'TIt1D, l ~A7E ~GPMj n„1+ i41?F l Hurl frW :'r~)0 0 a 51,0.44 TREE Ir,<~ f)-.. 1 1 DUI Fba:'n s i+n10._.I!7r, PROTECTION 4 II )I 1' - ~1 1 i t. : lU. Hurl: I " ~ ~ .I=>r t u 14" 01A 0 98 0,T5 PLAN . N 14 I, L I Inl I r. :a ~u ~10' 0 40 0 741 47 ISSUE DATE; P4 it 1 PUI Hunlerl-< ,p 7 115 071 151 230,364 JUNE 26,2011 ~ aar ,u,.'.'.>r 50017 30" O,SS, i.02, 2.75, 3.65 1/4,1) E, li'!, FULL Hwtlerl'RS40 L_ ENO CENTER Hunter PRS40 1 HunleeRZWSd&25-CV 025 .0 i Job Address: 128 CENTRAL AVE Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A. Owner's Name: ROBERT BALDWIN 0 Phone: P Customer 07744 N ` State Lic No: P ROBERT BALDWIN T City Lic No: L Applicant: 5243 PIONEER RD R I Address: MEDFORD OR 97501 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 613-7625 T Address: N Applied: 07/07/2017 0 T; Issued: Expires: 01103/2018 R Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Site design review for multi family dev, CUP to exceed MPFA, tree removal 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 Conditional Use Permit Type 1 1,046.00 Residential Site Review 1,598.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF ASHLAND I I. i I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that i have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 (180 days). 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 2,644.00 $ 2,644.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the Sub-Total: $ 2,$44,00 applicant. Fees Paid: $ 2,644.00 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 w+ nnv.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF ASHLAND