HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-08 Historic PACKET
HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
January 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM
I.6:00PM -REGULAR MEETING –CALL TO ORDER:SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community
Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way.
II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Historic Commission regular meeting of November 6, 2019
III.PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for
Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of
individuals wishing to speak.)
IV.COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
Rich Rosenthal
V.DISCUSSION ITEMS:.
Update on draft ordinance amendments on downtown plaza requirements –Brandon Goldman
VI.PLANNING ACTION REVIEW:
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2019-00087
SUBJECT PROPERTY:123 Church Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Judith Barnes/John Green
DESCRIPTION:This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the expansion of a structure that
is non-conforming with regard to side yard setbacks as provided in AMC 18.1.4.030.B.The applicant proposes
an approximate 525 square foot addition to the rear of the house. The existing house sits approximately 33”
from the southern property line where there is a standard of six-feet.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:Single-Family Residential; ZONING:R-1-7.5;ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E08AA; TAX
LOT:3700
VII.NEW ITEMS:
Review board schedule.
Project assignments for planning actions.
thrd
Historic Preservation Week, May 17–232020
VIII.COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
IX.OLD BUSINESS:
X.ADJOURNMENT:
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
November 6,2019
Community Development/Engineering Services Building –51 Winburn Way –Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER:
Skibbycalled the meeting to order at 6:00pmin the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering
Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present:Council Liaison:
SkibbyRich Rosenthal
WhitfordStaff Present:
Von ChamierMaria Harris; Planning Dept.
Hovenkamp
SwinkRegan Trapp; Secretary
Emery
Babin
Commissioners Absent:Shostrom
Giordano
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Hovenkamp motioned to approve minutesfor September 4, 2019.Whitford seconded. Voice vote. ALL AYES.
Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM:
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
Rosenthal gave Council Liaison report. Items discussed were:
The Council approved Staff’s recommendation to move forward with option #4 which will make all
necessary seismic improvements, rebuild the interior of City Hall and to have Staff bring back phase 2
of the design contract. Council also directed Staff to look into what it would be like to do a complete
rebuild of the site as a 2 story level.
,
Ashland Canal decision to be voted on Nov 192019.
Ambulance service contractapproved.
PLANNING ACTION REVIEW:
PLANNING ACTION:PA-A-2019-00080
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 145 North Main Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:BC Partners IV, LLC/Don Comte (Agent:Rogue Planning & Development)
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including
new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a HistoricDistrict for the property
located at 145 North Main Street. Theproperty,located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District
and is designated the “Ashland Tire Shop” building –more recently “Hank’s Foreign Automotive”-a
historic contributing resource within the district. No changes are proposed to the site development,
layout, orientation or use.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family
Residential;ZONING:R-2;ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E09BB;TAX LOT:3503
There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission.
Harris gave the staff report for PA-A-2019-00080.
Harris introduced April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator for the City of Ashland who was observing
the meeting.
Skibby opened the public hearing for PA-A-2019-00080.
Amy Gunter, applicant’s representative,33 N. Central # 213 Medford, OR, addressed the Commission
regarding this project. Ms. Gunter stated that the use will stay automotivewith the materials and colors of the
building not being substantially altered. The siding will be board and batten or T1-11 to mimic what is there
and they will leave most of the trim the same.Ms. Gunter spoke about the garage doors, new window types
and a new storefront style door. She went on to say that the garage doors will be insulated with “non” see-
through materialand described what the building will look like at all elevations. Ms. Gunter mentioned the
building is under “red tag” as the owners were doing work beyond what the scope on the permit listed.She
emphasized that focus will be put on the main structure NOT the addition.
Mark Brouillard, residing at 159 Helman Street, addressed the Commission regarding this project. He
announced that hewas there to support the applicantand thinks it’s a great addition to the community. He
was happy to see that the use is not changing.
Sharon Dean, neighbor residing at 40 Bush Street, asked if the use of the building was changing.
Skibbyclosed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for their comments.
After a lengthy discussion regardingthe architectural elements of the building, the Commissioners pointed
out thata lot of the details have been destroyed during the “work done without permits” process. They felt
strongly about window types, siding, garage door types, colors,and making sure the architectural elements
from old photos(submitted by Emery via email to be put onrecord. See exhibit A) would be carried into
the new design.
Swink motioned to approvePA-A-2019-00080withrecommendations.Emery seconded. Voice vote.
ALL AYES.Motion passed.
Historic Commission Recommendations:
Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions(AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2)
b. Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can be
documented.
c. Replacement finishes on exterior walls of historic buildings shall match the original finish. Exterior finishes
on new additions to historic buildings shall be compatible with but not replicate, the finish of the historic
building.
The Historic Commission recommends restoration or duplication of the entablature (horizontal
architectural details under the eave line of the roof), including the enclosed soffit, along the entire N. Main
St. façade of the building and along the original office structure (i.e., brick entry feature) on the Bust St.
façade. See Photos 1 and 2.
d. Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except in those
instances where it was used as the original siding.
The Historic Commission recommends smooth 1 x 8 tongue and groove sidingin place of the exiting T-
111 siding on all sides of the building. The gable ends of the building include tongue and groove siding,
which the Commission believes is indicative of the original external building materials. The Commission
recommends stucco as an alternative to tongue and groove siding, which is common exterior building
material for commercial buildings and gas stations in the 1930’s.
g. Replacement widows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions
shallbe compatible in proportion, shape and size, but not replicate original windows in the historic building.
The Historic Commission recommends the windows on the original office structure (i.e., brick entry
feature) are true divided light (i.e., with the glass divided into small panes) on the N. Main St. and Bush
St. facades to match original windows –see Bush St. side of building in Photo 2.
e. Exterior wall colors on new additions shall match those of the historic building.
The applicant’srepresentative indicated the exterior building colors will be similar to the existing exterior
colors including white and gray, along with the brick on the original office structure.
Other:
Please submit architectural drawings as specified in AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d (e.g., section drawings and
drawings of architectural details) with building permit submittals. If possible, the Historic Commission
requests the opportunity for the Historic Review Board to review the architectural drawings prior to
submitting the building permit.
The Historic Commission recommends historically compatible garage doors and requests a sample
profile at the time of the building permit submittals.
NEW ITEMS:
Review board schedule.
Project assignments for planning actions.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Minutesinformation for Commissions-Harris let the Commission know the recordings of all
the advisory commission meetings are posted on the website,for accessibility for the public
and to make it more efficient for staff.
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
Trapp presented the Commission with Baklava that Kaufman made before she left the City.
OLD BUSINESS:
Whitford discussed the project on A Street.
Review Board Schedule
th
Nov 7Terry, Ellen, Keith
th
Nov 14Terry, Beverly, Sam
st
Nov 21Terry, Bill,Dale
th(Weds)
Nov 27Will fill as needed.
th
Dec 5Terry, Keith, Ellen
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA-2017-00235114 Granite/ 9 Nutley –Work has started Shostrom
PA-2017-00200165 Water –Extension to PA submitted ALL
PA-2017-01294128 Central–Work has started Emery & Swink
PA-2017-02351/ 00026549 E. Main –WorkhasstartedSwink & Emery
PA-T1-2018-00033160 Helman –No building permitShostrom
PA-T1-2018-00038111 Bush –No building permitWhitford
PA-T1-2019-00050346 Scenic Drive–Plans in reviewEmery
PA-T1-2019-00052533 Rock–Permit issuedBabin
PA-T2-2019-00009158, 160, 166 and 166 ½ North Laurel StreetShostrom
PA-T1-2019-00064176 HarrisonSwink
PA-T1-2019-0006759 Sixth Street Skibby
PA-T1-2019-00051154 Oak StreetWhitford
PA-A-2019-00080145 N. MainWhitford
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Next meeting is scheduled December 5,2019at6:00pm
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at7:27pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
Photos of 145 N. Main that show the trim details. Presented as part of the record for PA-A-2019-00080.
Memo
DATE:January 8, 2020
TO:HistoricCommission
FROM:Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE:Plaza Space Requirements
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:18.4.2.040 D. 2 Public Spaces
Background
The Planning Commission discussed the existingrequirements for plaza space in the Detail Site
thth
Review (DSR) overlayand downtown C-1-D zone on August 27and December 10, 2019. On
October 15 the Ashland City Council directed staff to further explore the issue of how the
existing plaza space requirements couldpotentially discourage new multi-story development
within the downtown, or have the unintended consequence of altering the continuity of the
historic pattern of development.
Within the Detail Site Review overlay plazaspaces currently mustbe incorporated into projects
whenbuilding square footage isgreater than 10,000 square feet. This required plaza space is to
be equal to 10% of the building’s total gross floor areaand must incorporate four out of six listed
design elements.This standard applies to large scale commercial developments within specific
areas (Detail Site Review overlay) throughout the City including the downtown.
th
The Planning Commission’s discussion at a study session on December 10, 2019explored how
this “plaza space”standardcould be reconsidered in the City’s Detail Site Reviewoverlayand
discussed specific amendments to consider within the downtownin orderto maintain the historic
pattern ofdevelopment. The Planning Commission expressedthat the downtown has specific
characteristics not present in other commercial areas of the City where the plaza standard
applies. As acommercial area listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with
considerable pedestrian activity due to its concentration of commercial uses, most historic
buildings in the downtown are built up to the sidewalk edge. It was expressed that opportunities
for infill and redevelopment within the context of this historicarea should develop consistent
with theestablished historic pattern of development to protect thecharacter of the area. Further,
a continuous “street-wall” provided by buildings constructed up to their front and side property
lines promotesinteraction between the commercial activity in the buildingsand the people on the
street.Additionally,it was noted by Planning Commissioners that plaza spaces developed within
the downtown area on individual private properties, as part of meeting site design standard
requirements, do not necessarily function to provide the general public with opportunities for
relief and respite from the urban fabric. Public open spaces used to create a prominent civic
Historic Commission 1/08/2020
Plaza Space Code Amendments 1
component within the downtown area are best placed in identified central locations and highly
visible focal pointsand should be open to the public at large.
Consistent with the direction provided by the City Counciland Planning Commission,Staff has
prepared a draft ordinance amendmentfor considerationthat would result in no longer requiring
the plaza space requirement for new buildings,with floor areas of 10,000 or greater,in the
downtown area. Additionally,to clarify that such spaces are on private property, and not
technically “public”,the terminology in the initial draft ordinance language attached to this
memo has been changed to consistently refer to “plaza space”. Although private plaza spaces are
seemingly accessible to members of the public these sites are subject to private landowner
restrictions, which may cause confusion regarding allowable use and access by the general
public.
Downtown Design Standards Boundary and C-1-Zones.
The map below shows both the Downtown Design Standards boundary (bold red line), and the
Commercial Downtown, C-1-D, zone (lots with solid filled pinkcolor). Although most of the C-
1-D zoned lots fall within the Downtown Design Standards overlay boundary five properties are
C-1-D zoned that either bisected,or adjacent to,the boundary line. Additionally, 16 properties on
the north side of Lithia way are within Downtown Design Standards Overlay area but are not in
the C-1-D zone. By including both designations within the area covered by aproposed
amendment to the plaza requirements we can ensure continuityin design elements through
application of the ordinancein the entire downtown area. Specifically, by applying a consistent
design standard on each side of Lithia Way the development of this area can better respect the
traditional rhythmic spacing of historic buildings along E. Main Street.
Existing Downtown Boundary and C-1-D zones
Historic Commission 1/08/2020
Plaza Space Code Amendments 2
The map below identifies currently vacant or partially vacant properties that could potentially
develop or redevelop with buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area (the trigger for
plaza space requirements).Surface level parking lots(both public and private) are also shownas
on-site parking is not required within the C-1 D zone and thus the potential exists for these
properties to be further developed.
Vacant and Potentially re-developable C-1-D and Downtown lots
Existing Standard:Currently, the City’s zoning code requires new buildings of a size of 10,000
square feet or larger to provide 10% the area of the building in outdoor plaza space. For example,
a 10,000 square foot building would be required 1,000 square feet (10%) of plazaspace. A good
example of this standardbeing applied to a recent development is the outdoor space adjacent to
Pony Expressocafé along Lithia Way. This 16,246square foot multi-story building provided
1691 square feet of outdoor plaza space in front of and to the west side of the building. This
seating area is under private ownership and available for use by patrons, employees and to some
degree the general public at the discretion of the property owner. This plaza space standard
applies to the combinedarea of the first, second and third stories of a building, whereas afourth
story’s floor areais currently be excluded from the calculation.The current ordinance has the
following impacts:
Increased opportunities for private outdoor spaces for outdoor cafés, sitting, landscaping,
public art, etc.
Historic Commission 1/08/2020
Plaza Space Code Amendments 3
May function to break the continuity of the historic built environment of shared wall
commercial buildings built to the sidewalk edge, with plaza spaces located in front of or
to the side of new developments.
Reduces total gross floor area that can be developed due to the percentage of lot area that
must be reserved as plaza space.
Reducesavailable ground floor commercial space.
Potentially creates a disincentive formulti-story construction due to increasing
percentage of lot area on the ground floor to be dedicated as plaza space.
Potential construction cost increases in order to cantilever upper stories over a designated
plaza space.
Potentialreduction of upper story floor area due to incorporating a horizontal offset to
accommodate the plaza space.
Challenges re-development through added design constraints.
Proposed amendment.The proposed code amendment would remove the plaza space
requirement in the downtown area, but it would still apply in other commercially zoned area
outside the downtown (A Street, Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, North Main Street and
sections of Hersey Street).Within the downtown area,no longer requiring private plaza spaces
with individual large scale developments could have the following effects:
Private open-spaces will only be provided voluntarilyby developers seeking to include
outdoor commercial plaza spaces (e.g. outdoor restaurant seating).
Maintenance of the character and historic pattern of development along East and North
Main Street where buildings are built to the sidewalk and to the lot lines on either side.
Floor area reductions attributable to required plaza space for multi-story developments
are eliminated, thus increases potential gross floor area on new or redeveloped buildings.
Reduces potential constraints to redevelopment and multi-story development.
Potential increase in the visual mass of buildings as a result ofthe elimination of ground
level offsets in the building façade formerly designed and intendedto accommodate plaza
spaces.
Staff has received somegeneral questions fromthe public as to whether the proposed changes to
the plaza space requirement would allow for taller buildingsin the downtown, increase the
maximum size of buildings allowed, impactthe central Plaza, or newly require buildings to be
built up to the sidewalk’s edge. The following bullet points address these concerns:
The proposed amendment does notchange height limits in the downtown area. Those
height limits will stay as is, which are: 40-feet maximum height limit; 55-feet maximum
height limit when approved through a conditional use permit procedure.
The proposed amendment does notchange the maximum building size within the C-1
and C-1-D zones which is45,000sq.ft.
Public open spaces suchas the central Plaza, the open spacein front of the Black Swan
Theatre,Calle Guanajuato, the public pedestrian corridor adjacent to the McGee-
Historic Commission 1/08/2020
Plaza Space Code Amendments 4
FortmillerBuilding (142 East Main Street)extendingfrom East Main Street to the Public
Parking Structure, would be unaffected by the proposed amendment.Other public rights-
of-way or parks properties within the downtown would also be unaffected by the
proposed amendment.
The existing downtowndesign standards (18.4.2.060C.2)currently require that buildings
shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line, although ground level
entries should be recessed from the public right-of-way and have detailing and materials
that create a sense of entry. These design standards would be unchanged by the proposed
changes regardingplaza space within the downtown area. Figure 18.4.060.C.2 in the
Ashland Municipal Code illustrates these requirements:
Next Steps
The Historic Commission’s recommendations regarding the attached draft ordinance will be
th
provided to the Planning Commission and to City Council at public hearings on February 11
th
and March 17, 2020 respectively.
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance amending Plaza Space Standards
Planning Commission Draft Minutes 12/10/2019
Letters:
o Thaldenletterdated March 12, 2019
o Falkensteinletterdated October 13, 2019
o Fields letterdated December 6, 2020
Historic Commission 1/08/2020
Plaza Space Code Amendments 5
ORDINANCE NO. \[2020-xxxx\]
AN ORDINANCEAMENDING THE SITE DESIGN AND
USE STANDARDSFOR LARGE SCALE PROJECTS TO ADDRESS
PLAZA SPACE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE C-1-DZONE AND
DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS OVERLAY.
Annotated to show deletionsand additionsto the code sections being modified. Deletions are
boldlined through and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the CityThe City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specificallyenumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS,the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative
powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v.
International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop20 Or. App. 293; 531 P2d 730,
734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes policy I-7which states that,“The
City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as
for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that
are historically significant.”
WHEREAS,the downtown area is a historically significant commercial area with considerable
pedestrian activity due to its concentration of commercial uses. Most existinghistoricbuildings
have frontage directly at the sidewalk edge. Opportunities for infill and redevelopment within
this area should develop consistent with this established historic pattern to protect the historic
character of the areaand promote interaction between the activity in the building and the people
on the street.
WHEREAS,requirements for commercial plaza space, as part of the design standardsfor new
large scale development and alterations to existing large scale buildingswithin the downtown,
can have the effect of disrupting the historic pattern of development and breaking the continuity
of buildings having their front façades built to the sidewalk’s edgeand to the side lot lines.
WHEREAS,public plaza spaces used to create a prominent civic component within the
downtown area are best placed in identified central locations and highly visible focal points, to
provide opportunities for relief and respite from the urban fabric.
Page 1of 5
WHEREAS,commercial plaza spaces developed within the downtown area on individual
private properties, as part of meeting site design standard requirements, do not function to
provide the general public with opportunities for relief and respite from the urban fabric.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered appropriate amendments to
the Ashland Municipal Code,Land Use Ordinancesand Site Design and Use Standards at a duly
advertised public hearing onFebruary 11, 2020, and following deliberations recommended
approval of the amendments;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing
on the above-referenced amendments onMarch 17,2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to
amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate
factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive
plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2.The Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects within the Site Design and Use
Standards \[Building Placement, Orientation, and Design\]section of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance ishereby amended asfollows:
D.Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects.In the Detail Site Review overlay,
developments that are greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area or contain
more than 100 feet of building frontage shall, in addition to complying with the
standards for Basic (18.4.2.040.B) and Detail (18.4.2.040.C) Site Review, above,
conform to the following standards. See conceptual elevation of large scale
development in Figure18.4.2.040.D.1and conceptual site plan of large scale
development in Figure18.4.2.040.D.2.
1.Orientation and Scale.
a.Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes
that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or
direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows,
trees, and small scale lighting.
Page 2of 5
b.Outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review overlay shall
conform to the following standards.
i.Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above
grade shall be considered as one building.
ii.Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square
feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior
courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyardmeans a
space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof.
iii.Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet,
including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and
storage areas, with the following exception.
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the
basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the
purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first
story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in
the building code.
iv.Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of
300 feet.
c.Inside the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of
45,000 square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof
top parking, with the following exception.
Automobile parking areas locate within the building footprint and in the
basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of
this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building.
First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code.
2.Public Detail Site ReviewPlaza SpacesStandards.
a.One square foot of plaza or publicspace shall be required for every ten
square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth gross floor area.
b. Within the, C-1-D zone or DowntownDesign Standards Overlay, no plaza space
shall be required.
b.c.A plaza or public spacesshall incorporate at least four of the following
elements.
i.Sitting Space–at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall
be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in
height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum
depth of 30 inches.
ii.A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade.
iii.Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
iv.Trees–provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree
per 500 square feet, at least two inches in diameter at breast height.
v.Water features or public art.
vi.Outdoor eating areas or food vendors.
Page 3of 5
d. Exception to Plaza Space Standards.An exception to theplaza space
standards may be granted pursuant to 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site
Development and Design Standards.
3.Transit Amenities.Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike
lanes shall be required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and
guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District.
SECTION 3 The Definitions Chapter of Ashland Land Use Ordinance ishereby amended as
follows:
Definitions
18.6.1.P
Plaza.An open public space.
Detail Site ReviewPlaza Space: An open area under private ownership
intended to meet the requirements of Large Scale Project standards within
the Detail Site Review Overlay.
SECTION 4.Severability.The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION6.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City
Comprehensive Plan and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”,
or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided
however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6)need not be
codified.In preparing this ordinance for publication and distribution, the City Recorder shall not
alter the sense, meaning, effect, or substance of the ordinance, but within
:
such limitations, may
(a) Renumber sections and parts of sections of the ordinance;
(b)Rearrange sections;
(c) Change reference numbers to agree with renumbered chapters, sections or other parts;
(d)Delete references to repealed sections;
(e) Substitute the proper subsection, section, or chapter numbers;
(f) Change capitalization and spelling for the purpose ofuniformity;
(g) Add headings for purposes of grouping like sections together for ease of reference; and
(h)Correct manifest clerical, grammatical, or typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title onlyin accordance with AshlandMunicipal Code
§2.04.090on the _____ day of ________________, 2020,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2020.
_______________________________
Page 4of 5
Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2020.
____________________________________
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
_________________________
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 5of 5
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES-Draft
December 10, 2019
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Roger Pearcecalled the meeting to order at7:00p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present:Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr.Bill Molnar, Director
Michael DawkinsBrandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Alan HarperDerek Severson, Senior Planner
Haywood NortonDana Smith, Executive Assistant
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Melanie MindlinStefani Seffinger, absent
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnarannounced the Commission’s annual report to the City Council was
rescheduledto December 17, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.
III.AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES-None
IV.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.November 12, 2019 Regular Meeting
CommissionerThompson/Dawkinsm/s to approve the minutesofNovember 12,2019.Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
V.PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke on electric vehicles and solar panels.
VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00015
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 459 Russell Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC/Laz Ayala
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 13,816 square foot, two-
story mixed-use building on the propertylocated at 459 Russell Street (Lot 2 of the Falcon Heights
subdivision). The proposed building will include a 4,837 square feet of ground floor commercial
space, and a total of 13 residential studio units (497 s.f.) on the ground and second floors. The
application includes a Property Line Adjustment between Lots 1 and 2, and an Exception to the Site
Development and Design Standards in order to utilize existing parking installed with the subdivision
which does not comply with more recent parking lot treatment standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5. \[The
current application would supersede the previously approved PA-T2-2018-00001 which granted
approval to consolidate Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision to develop a single 22,469 square foot building.
The current proposal also illustrates conceptual development of Lot 1 with floor plans, elevations and
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2019
Page 1of 3
landscape details, but these are conceptual and not being reviewed or approved here.\]
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1, Detail Site Review Overlay;
ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 391E 09AA; TAX LOT: 2800 & 2801.
Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing.
Ex Parte Contact
Commission Harper and Chair Pearce declared no ex parte. Commissioner Norton, Brown and Thompson
had no ex parte and one site visit. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte but had run past the site.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached):
Proposal.Proposed Landscape Plan.
Vicinity Map.Elevation Drawings.
Falcon Heights Subdivision.Proposed Floor Plans.
2006 Aerial photo.Standard A Solar Shadow Study.
Lot illustrations and photos.Parking Calculation.
Elevation Drawings.Key Points for Staff.
Site Plan.Clear Creek Drive plaza space
illustration.
Proposed Utility & Drainage Plan.
Staff recommended approved with the Conditions in the draft findings.
Questions of Staff-None
Applicant’s Presentation
Mark Knox/Ashland/Spoke to the proposaland provided background on why they went back to their original plan of
phased building. They had no issues with the Conditions. The proposal would build thirteen units under 500 square
feet (sq. ft.).
Laz Ayala/Ashland/Spoke tohousing trends getting smaller. The proposal would build housing the city lacked.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Knox confirmed there were two separate lots with most of the density on one. They would have a deed
restriction specifying densityas well as commercialand plaza space.Commissioner Harpersuggested
making the condition forthe deed restriction clear. Mr. Ayala clarified the intent was having two one-story
buildings. The second building would have 30% residential and 70% commercial on the ground level. Building
would occur in phases.
Public Testimony-None
Rebuttal by Applicant-None
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Harper/Norton m/s to approve PA-T2-2019-00015, as presented by staff with the
Conditions.Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Norton, Brown, Dawkins, Harper and Thompson,
YES. Motion passed.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2019
Page 2of 3
VII.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Requirements for plaza space in the Downtown Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay and C-1-D
zone
Senior Planner Brandon Goldmanprovided a presentation (see attached):
Detail Site Review Overlay –Plaza Space Requirements Downtown.
Existing Plaza Space Standards.
Detail Site Review Overlay Applicability.
Downtown Applicability.
Downtown Applicability C-1-D Zone.
Discussion Items;Public-Private Use, Ground Floor Area, Historic Development Pattern, Multi Story
Development, Design Implications.
Option 1:18.4.2.040.D.b wouldeliminate the requirement for any private plaza space in the downtown area
for new or redeveloped buildings.
Option 2: 18.4.2.040.D.b would require one square foot of plaza space in the downtown area to apply to the
area of the ground floor only, for a building 10,000 square feet or greater.
Timeline for Public Hearings (2020).
Mr. Molnar provided legislative history on the large-scale development standards. Commissioner Thompsonvoiced
concern it would increase density and parking challenges.She suggested having a downtown parking analysis done
or establishing an LID to resolve potential parking issues. Staff would includethe suggestionin the recommendation
toCity Council. Parking was not required on thenorth side of Lithia Way. On the south side of Lithia Way in the C-1-
D zoneit was not requiredunless it was traveler’s accommodations.
Commissioner Brown explained why Option 1 was more viable. Current plaza areas in the downtown were under used
or over used depending on the time of the day or year.He supported havingthebuilding facades flush with the street.
Overhangs would change the vertical sense of the city.
Public Testimony
Barry Thalden/Ashland/Submitted a document into the record (see attached). He explained why he supported
eliminating the plaza space requirement.
Mark Knox/Ashland/Agreed with Mr. Thalden’s testimony and spoke in support of Option 1.
Laz Ayala/Ashland/Supported changing the plaza requirements. He addressed parking concerns. Transportation
needs would rely more on shared transportation in the futureeliminating the need for more parking.
The Commission discussed their support of Option 1.
Commissioner Harper/Brown m/s to recommend to City Council Option 1 as outlined by staff including
Commission comments. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.
Commissioner Norton suggested a future study sessionthat would look at improvements to existing parking,then
addressfuture parking needs.
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at8:09p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2019
Page 3of 3
John Fields Plaza Space Requirements Letter 12/06/2019
From: John Fields <goldenfields22@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 10:02 AM
To: Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>
Subject: Re: Ashland Planning Commission meeting - private plaza spaces topic
Hi Brandon
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Plaza space is either beneficial to the
developer’s intended use or the city should figure out how create public space.
The Mahar building, First place, is a good example of a fenced in private plaza that serves no positive
purpose. If it’s public it can serve the general population and really get some use. As private space it is
only useable for the one building. I never see it being used. If there is no a dining area or open invitation
to enjoy the plaza area it’s gratuitous. I don’t find all the security railing and no trespassing signs around
this private space as a Positive contribution to the streetscape or beneficial to the building or
downtown.
That area probably cost $100,000 in the lost street frontage and improvements. The patrons prefer
sitting on the sidewalk.
I think public mini park/plaza space is great within dense, urban core but mandating design standards
takes a lot of freedom away from the designers that could actually make the intended design better.
Buildings “learn” over time. They will either be modified to better accommodate real needs or if so
poorly designed they will be redeveloped. That’s how cities grow and great cities are created. It’s a
layered cake. I find our mandatory standards are filled with unintended consequences.
Guidelines and education are quite beneficial. Social engineering is a a mixed bag and has a very high
governmental cost.
Even with all our over-site, bad buildings happen. How much worse would they be if we had fewer
specific requirements. I guess that’s the risk.
I see a major obstacles in how our downtown and city can thrive. Ashland’s marginal and seasonal
economy cannot support the quality of buildings required by the growing building code demands, and
planning standards.
I think plazas need to be public or a space that the building developer sees as intrinsic to the value of
their design. Otherwise we are just encouraging superfluous amenities that just drive up cost.
I had foot surgery Wednesday and will be out of commission for the next six weeks so I won’t be
available to come to the PC study session. My opinion is that we should encourage great building
designs and look for opportunities for public space but back off of the mandatory requirements for
private space. Our downtown is small enough that we should identify where we want it and look for
opportunities for public space and work towards acquiring it.
Thanks,
John Fields
Golden-Fields Construction and Design Ltd.
541-944-2262
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
TTY: 1-800-735-2900
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2019-00087
SUBJECT PROPERTY:123 Church Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Judith Barnes/John Green
DESCRIPTION:This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the expansion of a structure that
is non-conforming with regard to side yard setbacks as provided in AMC 18.1.4.030.B. The applicant proposes an
approximate 525 square foot addition to the rear of the house. The existing house sits approximately 33” from the
southern property line where there is a standard of six-feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single-Family Residential;ZONING:R-1-7.5;
ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E08AA;TAX LOT:3700
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:December 27, 2019
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:January 10, 2020
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland,
Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to
surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than
45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same
properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff’s decision must 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 (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure
of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the
issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2019\\PA-T1-2019-00087.docx
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.5.4.050.A
A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through
the imposition of conditions.
1.That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with
relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughoutthe 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 effectof the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone.
a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of
capacity of facilities.
c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
e.Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance.
5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone
are as follows.
a.WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential
Zones.
b.R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
c.R-2 and R-3.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential
Zones.
d.C-1.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements; and within theDetailed 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 arearatio, complying
with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements.
g.M-1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements.
h.CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area,
complying with all ordinance requirements.
k.CM-NC.The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying
with all ordinance requirements.
l.HC, NM, and SOU.The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern
Oregon University District, respectively,complying with all ordinance requirements.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2019\\PA-T1-2019-00087.docx
PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PLANNING ACTIONS
Nov-Dec2019
PA-2017-00235114 Granite/ 9 Nutley –Work has started Shostrom
PA-2017-00200165 Water –Extension to PA submitted ALL
PA-2017-01294128 Central–Work has started Emery & Swink
PA-2017-02351/ 00026549 E. Main –WorkhasstartedSwink & Emery
PA-T1-2018-00033160 Helman –No building permitShostrom
PA-T1-2018-00038111 Bush –No building permitWhitford
PA-T1-2019-00050346 Scenic Drive–Plans in reviewEmery
PA-T1-2019-00052533 Rock–Permit issuedBabin
PA-T2-2019-00009158, 160, 166 and 166 ½ North Laurel StreetShostrom
PA-T1-2019-00064176 HarrisonSwink
PA-T1-2019-0006759 Sixth Street Skibby
PA-T1-2019-00051154 Oak StreetWhitford
PA-A-2019-00080145 N. MainWhitford
January 2020
Ashland Historic Review Board Schedule
Meet at 3:00pm, Lithia Room*
January 9thTerry, Ellen, Tom
January 16thTerry
January 23rdTerry
January 30thTerry
February 6thTerry
*Call 541-488-5305 to verify there are items on the agenda to review
2018
/
30
/
4
doc
.
b
e
hip_W
s
ber
m
e
M
n
o
i
s
is
mm
Co
d.or.us
c
i
n
or
t
His
\\
s
t
e
k
c
a
ashla
P
\\
.
n
io
s
cil
is
n
mm
o
C
oric
harris@ashland.or.us
t
His
\\
ail
s
ee
dress
t
t
h@cou
i
M
aria.
-d
c
mm
omgiordanoarch@gmail.com
piper@terrainarch.comrevbev549@gmail.comcm_ellen@yahoo.com
EAshobro@jeffnet.orgkswink@mind.netskwhippet@mind.netterryskibby@gmail.com tbill@ashlandhome.netriMregan.trapp@ashland.or.us
Co
&
N
ions
s
s
i
O
I
mm
Co
\\
S
v
de
-
mm
o
233 c
\\
:
20452 G
--
t
ork
s
WPhone 552552
OMMIS
Li
C
hip
RIC
s
O
T
me
o
HPhone
HIS
Member
D
N
A
L
H
shlandshland
AA
S
A
ofof
dress
nning Dept.nning Dept.
yy
ailing
d
tt
aa
MA
CiPlCiPl
21222122202022
tion
0000000
a
222222220212021
---------
303030303030303030
---------
TermExpir444444444
r
hal
son
yt
i
n
ord
b
f
e
ink
r
on
w
hit
e
SV
Skib
W
y
r
mmissioneairmanamiuncil Lia
min. Staff
ohho
d
Maria Harris
CNameDale ShostromCKeithSamTerTom GiordanoBill EmeryPiper CBeverly HovenkampEllen BabinRich RosCPlanning StaffRegan TrappA