HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-04 Historic PACKET
HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
October 4, 2017 at 6:00 P.M.
I. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community
Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Historic Commission regular meeting of September 6, 2017
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. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW:
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. 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; : 39 1E 04CC;
TAX LOT: 4500.
PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01310
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 981 Siskiyou Blvd.
OWNERS: MH Smith Inc
APPLICANT: MNM Fund LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Tree Removal Permit approval for a three-unit multi-
family residential development for the property located at 981 Siskiyou Blvd. The proposal includes retaining
the existing residence and constructing two units at the rear of the property. The Tree Removal Permit request
is to remove two trees to the west of the existing home including a maple and an ash tree.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2;
: 39 1E 09DA; TAX LOT: 8100.
PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01605
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 147 Van Ness Avenue
OWNERS: Deborah Dryden & Robert Hirschboeck
APPLICANT: Conscious Construction
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for a three-unit multi-family development for the property
located at 147 Van Ness Avenue. The proposal includes the existing residence as one unit, the conversion
of an existing guest cottage as a second unit and the construction of a new third unit with attached single
vehicle garage off of the alley. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-3; : 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT: 2900.
VI. NEW ITEMS:
Review board schedule.
Project assignments for planning actions.
VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
VIII. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
X. ADJOURNMENT:
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
September 6, 2017
Community Development/Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER:
Commission Chair, Shostrom called the meeting to order at 6:03pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community
Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
Skibby Rich Rosenthal
Emery Staff Present:
Leonard Maria Harris; Planning Dept.
Swink Regan Trapp; Secretary
Von Chamier Nathan Emerson; Planning Dept.
Whitford
Shostrom
Giordano
Commissioners Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Leonard motioned to approve minutes from August 2, 2017. Swink seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC FORUM:
Melissa Mitchell-Hooge of the Ashland, Save our Schools and Playground Group and Jim Young of Lithia Arts
Guild addressed the Commission regarding saving Briscoe School. Ms.Mitchell-Hooge submitted an
informational packet to the Commission for their review. (see attached, exhibit A) Ms. Mitchell-Hooge
emphasized, that in order to utilize the building they will need to increase the parking. She went on to say that
this building has lots of historic value and there are many different things this building could be utilized for within
the City. Ms.Mitchell-Hooge commented that Briscoe School is big enough to accommodate City Hall and other
departments under one roof. The Commission was very responsive and supportive of the idea of the City saving
this building.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
Rosenthal gave the Council Liaison report. Items discussed were:
Consent agenda- New PW director, Paula Brown will be taking over for Mike Faught.
Public art was approved for the Theater Corridor Project. Installation will be in the Spring of 2018.
st
Approval of 1 reading of greenhouse gas targets.
Senior Center citizen input in regards to the changes being enforced by Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Shostrom read aloud the procedure for public hearings.
PLANNING ACTION REVIEW:
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 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; : 39 1E 04CC;
TAX LOT: 4500.
Von Chamier stated that her firm has been assigned the project but she will have no issue in making an
unbiased decision. Harris stated that she felt that this would be a conflict of interest and to be on the safer
side, Von Chamier should dismiss herself from this presentation.
Von Chamier recused herself from planning action review for PA-2017-01294.
Harris gave the staff report for PA-2017-01294.
Harris spoke about the letters from the neighbors that were submitted before the meeting and asked the
Commissioners to review them prior to making a decision.
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
Amy Gunter, s representative, Rogue Planning and Development, 1424 S. Ivy St, Medford,
addressed the Commission regarding this project. Ms. Gunter stated that there are no storm drain facilities
in the neighborhood and the on-site retention would most likely be in the parking area. She went on to say
that the alley is required by code to be paved.
Ron Davies, owner of 157, 159, & 171 Helman Street addressed the Commission regarding this project. Mr.
Davies has concerns about the paving of the alley which is required by code. He is concerned about
potential overflow onto his property and wants to know what kind of sidewalk and gutters will be added. Mr.
Davies stressed the importance of keeping the lot coverage normal
Ms. Gunter addressed the Commission regarding Mr. Davies concerns.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments.
Giordano motioned to approve PA-2017-01294 with recommendations. Swink seconded. Voice vote; All
AYES. Motion passed.
Recommendations of Historic Commission for PA-2017-01294:
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 hardy plank.
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.
PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01310
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 981 Siskiyou Blvd.
OWNERS: MH Smith Inc.
APPLICANT: MNM Fund LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tree Removal Permit
approval for a three-unit multi-family residential development for the property located at 981 Siskiyou Blvd.
The proposal includes retaining the existing residence and constructing two units at the rear of the property.
The Conditional Use Permit request is to exceed the maximum permitted floor area for the historic district by
164 square feet. The Tree Removal Permit request is to remove three trees to the west of the existing home
including an Italian cypress, maple and an ash tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial;
ZONING: C-1; : 39 1E 09DA; TAX LOT: 8100.
There was no ex-parte contact or conflict of interest indicated by the Commission.
Harris gave the staff report for PA-2017-01310.
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
Melanie Smith, applicant of MNM Fund and General Contractor, Ashland, addressed the Commission
regarding this project.
Dominic Smith, neighbor residing at 965 Siskiyou Blvd, Ashland, addressed the Commission regarding the
project. Mr. Smith stated that his property line is 2 feet into the property at 981 Siskiyou and halfway into the
tree that is slated for removal. He wants to know if anyone had done any measuring on the lot in order to start
this project. Mr. Smith does not want the tree removed as it would have him looking right through the windows
of the property being built and is looking into paying a surveyor to see where the property lines actually lie.
Ms. Smith stated
that her measurements are based on fence lines and where the neighboring property lines lie.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments.
Shostrom motioned to deny PA-2017-01310. Leonard seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion passed.
Recommendations of Historic Commission for PA-2017-01310:
The Historic Commission determined the proposal does not meet the Historic District Design standards
and therefore does not meet the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the allowed
maximum permitted floor area (MPFA). The Commission does not recommend approving the
application.
Height, Scale, Massing, Form (AMC 18.4.2.050.B 2, 3, 4, 9)
buildings in the vicinity. Specifically, the proposed design is box-like and has very little
architectural detail such as variations in massing. Additional items that were identified by the
commission follow.
The front entrances should be well-defined and would typically have a landscape buffer
between the entrance and driveway (Entrances AMC 18.4.2.050.B.10).
The slider windows are not historically compatible (AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.g).
Needs historically compatible architecturally details such as water table, belly band and
double hung windows.
Square footage used in MPFA calculations is inconsistent with unit sizes outlined in
application and may not be accurate.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01417
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 228 B St
OWNER: Hani Hajje
APPLICANT: Kerry KenCairn
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Tree Removal
Permit for the property located at 228 B Street. The proposal involves the development of a two-story, 1008-
square foot detached addition to accommodate two additional Traveler Accommodation units. A Tree
ee. The requested approval would allow operation of a seven unit traveler
accommodation including six guest units and one owners unit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Multifamily Residential; ZONING: R2; 39 1E 16AD; TAX LOT #:6200
Von Chamier recused herself since she works with Kerry KenCairn who is the applicant on this project. Emery
stated he has worked with the applicant on several instances but will not affect his decision on this project.
Harris gave the staff report for PA-2017-01417.
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
Kerry Kencairn, applicant, 147 Central Ave, Ashland, OR, addressed the Commission regarding this project.
Ms. Kencairn gave the background on the project and stated that they have tried their best to bring it into
compliance with the Historic District Design Standards. Ms. Kencairn expressed that the Historic Commission
review board did not like the original placement of the stairs so the applicant moved them to accommodate
bike parking and the water heater.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments.
Shostrom motioned to approve PA-2017-01417 with recommendations. Swink seconded. Voice vote; All
AYES. Motion passed.
Recommendations of Historic Commission for PA-2017-01417:
Porch on south elevation add beam across the top and wrap post or use 6 x 6 posts.
Add belly band at second level to match carriage house.
Add water table band or skirt at bottom.
Match balustrades and hand rails of main house for staircase.
Consider tucking stairs tight to building or covering.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01649
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 84 Dewey St
APPLICANT: Taylored Elements Construction
OWNER: Kathy Hill
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the conversion and addition to an
existing guest house to be a 263 sq.ft. accessory resident unit (ARU) on the subject property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2;
MAP: 39 1E 09AC; TAX LOT: 11300.
There was no ex-parte contact or conflict of interest indicated by the Commission.
Harris gave the staff report for PA-2017-01649.
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
Kathy Hill, 84 Dewey Street, Ashland, addressed the Commission regarding this project and expressed that
she would be happy to answer any questions they had.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments.
Whitford motioned to approve PA-2017-01649 with recommendations. Leonard seconded. Voice vote; All
AYES. Motion passed.
Recommendations of Historic Commission for PA-2017-01649:
Match corner boards and frieze boards on front (street) elevation of house.
Match siding on house.
Consider steeper roof pitch on new structure.
NEW ITEMS:
Review board schedule.
Project assignments for planning actions
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Harris conveyed that onland when Commissioners
are doing their site visits they need to be sure to stay in the public right of way.
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
There were no items to discuss.
OLD BUSINESS:
There were no items to discuss.
Review Board Schedule
th
September 7 Terry, Keith, Piper
th
September 14 Terry, Tom, Bill
st
September 21 Terry, Bill, Piper
th
September 28 Terry, Bill, Dale
th
October 5 Terry, Keith, Sam
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA-2014-00710 143 Nutley Swink & Whitford
PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Whitford
PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Leonard
PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby
PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford
PA-2016-01027 276 B Street Shostrom & Leonard
PA-2016-02103 133 Alida Swink
PA-2016-02095 563 Rock St. Whitford
PA-2016-02114 556 B Von Chamier
PA-2017-00013 15, 35, 44 & 51 S. Pioneer Street ALL
PA-2017-00235 114 Granite Leonard
PA-2017-00325 746 C Street Von Chamier
PA-2017-00200 165 Water ALL
PA-2017-00707 550 E. Main Skibby
PA-2017-00838 250 Alta Ave Emery
PA- 2017-01054 220 Hargadine Shostrom & Whitford
PA-2017-00969 244 Hargadine Shostrom & Whitford
PA-2017-01279 692 B Street Leonard
PA-2017-01294 128 Central Emery & Swink
PA-2017-01417 228 B Street Whitford
PA-2017-01310 981 Siskiyou Blvd Shostrom
PA-2017-01649 84 Dewey Street Von Chamier
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Next meeting is scheduled October 4, 2017 at 6:00 pm
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:28pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION
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; 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 5, 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
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
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 the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2017 Packets\\10-4-2017\\Central_128\\PA-2017-01294_Revised.docx
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as
provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the
subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual
aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is
the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better
achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
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 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 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.
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 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
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2017 Packets\\10-4-2017\\Central_128\\PA-2017-01294_Revised.docx
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.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.B
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or
property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2017 Packets\\10-4-2017\\Central_128\\PA-2017-01294_Revised.docx
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 July 19,
2017. The application was deemed complete on August 29, 2017.
The developmentpreviously 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 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 request isstill 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 accessedvia 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 / relocation of the electric metersat 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 patternin 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
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 is 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 porch that faces east, into the courtyard area.
Across the courtyard area, a tri-plex consisting of three units is proposed along the east property line.
Units C and D face the internal courtyard. The end unit, 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: 4,605.12 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 "F": 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
existinggarage. The garage, as a separate structure was excluded from the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area (MPFA) calculations.With the revised layout 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 betweenthe triplex unitsand 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 butare 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 arborist, 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 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
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 line
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 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 provided within walking distance of the
neighborhood. According to Walkscore, the property is Very Walkable and has a score of 87.
https://www.walkscore.com/score/128-central-ave-ashland-or-97520
There are six, small, new energy efficient unitsproposed 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, andother applicable standards.
The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multiple Family Residential. The parcel is 16,400 square
feet (.376ac) 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, 1 1/2 - inches façade
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-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);
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 a fully improved Neighborhood Street with curb, gutter sidewalkand park row. The property is
not a corner lot. Lastly, the property is more than 200-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 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 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.
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
porch 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 allow
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 triplexis 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
façade 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 triplexunitsfrom 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 I-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 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
front porch wraps around the front of theresidence. 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
triplexunits 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 sideof
the structure in the garageand atthe rearof 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 alleyand 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, hardi-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 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 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 ofgreater 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
B. Parking Area Design. Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
followingstandards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4.3.080.B. Seealso, accessible parking
space requirements in section 18.4.3.050and parking lot and screening standards in subsection
18.4.4.030.F.
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 be8 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.
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. 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
anddriveway 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,
shallapply 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 onfile
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-aroundsshall have provisions made for
the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flowof 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 allspaces 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 fourinches 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 theright-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
ofAshland. 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 allnon-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-
Page 15 of 22
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.
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
Tree #5, an excellent
with the tree protection plan that’s has been provided with the application.
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 for 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 same 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, 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 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 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 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 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of
the permit.
Due to the nature of the development, high-density multi-family, no conifer trees are proposed.
Seven deciduous trees are proposed in the landscaping. The treesshall 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
¾ 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.
Sanitary Sewer: 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 uphillfrom 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 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 installedas 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 thatequally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site
Development and Design Standards.
An exception to the existing 9-foot, 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 tri-plex 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 a fullwidth, two vehicle garage that has two, single vehicle
garage doors. Two doors is more historically compatible than a single, 16-foot 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
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
Existing Residence:2,054 SF
RebuiltGarageUnderUnit "F":576 SF
Proposed New Units: 2,960 SF
Total Proposed MPFA: 5,590 SF OR 21% OVER
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.
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. 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 square footagewill 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 façade of the
garage is behind the roofline of the porch 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 façade of
the upper story behind the façade 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 developmentof 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 notpermitted pursuant
to this ordinance.
The conditional use to increase the MPFA square feet is an allowable use in the zone.
Page 22 of 22
!652.599.21:7!¦!:8631!Psfhpo-!Btimboe!¦!Tusffu!Nbjo!Opsui428
1368:!ophfsP!/eobmitB!¦!fwB!mbsuofD!932
ojxembC!usfcpS
!EftjhoCvjmejoh
;SPGUOFNQPMFWFEUJOV.JUMVNXFO
UZQ
22(.1#9(.1#:(.1#:(.1#
25(.1#
7(.1#
23(.1#23(.1#
25(.:#
23(.6#
33(.1#
7(.1#
25(.:#
7(.1#
35(.1#:(.7#
45
7(.1#33(.1#
!652.599.21:7!¦!:8631!Psfhpo-!Btimboe!¦!Tusffu!Nbjo!Opsui428
1368:!ophfsP!/eobmitB!¦!fwB!mbsuofD!932
ojxembC!usfcpS
!EftjhoCvjmejoh
;SPGUOFNQPMFWFEUJOV.JUMVNXFO
28(.3#
26(.22#
2:(.4#
!TTC!GPS!QPJOU/!QSPE!TIBEPXIJHIFTU
26(.8#
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01310
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 981 Siskiyou Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT: MH Smith Inc./MNM Fund LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Tree Removal Permit approval for a three-unit multi-family
residential development for the property located at 981 Siskiyou Blvd. The proposal includes retaining the existing
residence and constructing two units at the rear of the property. The Tree Removal Permit request is to remove two
trees to the west of the existing home including a maple and an ash tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 391E 09DA; TAX
LOT: 8100
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 5, 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
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 propertie
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 the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2017 Packets\\10-4-2017\\Siskiyou_981\\PA-2017-01310_Revised.docx
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as
provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the
subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual
aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is
the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better
achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.B
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or
property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2017 Packets\\10-4-2017\\Siskiyou_981\\PA-2017-01310_Revised.docx
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01605
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 147 Van Ness Avenue
OWNERS: Deborah Dryden & Robert Hirschboeck
APPLICANT: Conscious Construction
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for a three-unit multi-family development for the property located
at 147 Van Ness Avenue. The proposal includes the existing residence as one unit, the conversion of an existing
guest cottage as a second unit and the construction of a new third unit with attached single vehicle garage off of the
alley. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3;
39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT: 2900.
NOTE: 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.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, October 5, 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 21, 2017
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 5, 2017
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 tion 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 the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2017\\PA-2017-01605.docx
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as
provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the
subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual
aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is
the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better
achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2017\\PA-2017-01605.docx
PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PLANNING ACTIONS
September 2017
PA-2014-00710 143 Nutley Swink & Whitford
PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Whitford
PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Leonard
PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby
PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford
PA-2016-01027 276 B Street Shostrom & Leonard
PA-2016-02103 133 Alida Swink
PA-2016-02095 563 Rock St. Whitford
PA-2016-02114 556 B Von Chamier
PA-2017-00013 15, 35, 44 & 51 S. Pioneer Street ALL
PA-2017-00235 114 Granite Leonard
PA-2017-00325 746 C Street Von Chamier
PA-2017-00200 165 Water ALL
PA-2017-00707 550 E. Main Skibby
PA-2017-00838 250 Alta Ave Emery
PA- 2017-01054 220 Hargadine Shostrom & Whitford
PA-2017-00969 244 Hargadine Shostrom & Whitford
PA-2017-01279 692 B Street Leonard
PA-2017-01294 128 Central Emery & Swink
PA-2017-01417 228 B Street Whitford
PA-2017-01310 981 Siskiyou Blvd Shostrom
PA-2017-01649 84 Dewey Street Von Chamier
October 2017
Ashland Historic Review Board Schedule
Meet at 3:00pm, Lithia Room*
October 5th Terry, Keith, Sam
Terry
October 12th
October 19th
Terry
October 26th
Terry
November 2nd Terry
*Call 541-488-5305 to verify there are items on the agenda to review
8/29/2017
Historic Commission Membership_Web.doc
\\
Packets
\\
@ashland.or.us
Historic Commission
\\
Mail
-
EAddress shobro@jeffnet.org kswink@mind.net skwhippet@mind.net terryskibby321@msn.com tomgiordanoarch@gmail.com bill@ashlandhome.nettttaylord1@yahoo.compiper@kencairnlandscape.comrich@council.ashland
.or.usmaria.harris@ashland.or.usregan.trapp
Commissions & Committees
\\
dev
-
233
comm
\\
20452
G:
--
WorkPhone 552552
HomePhone
Membership List
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Mailing Address City of AshlandPlanning Dept.City of AshlandPlanning Dept.
88887
201201201201201201720192019
--------
3030303030303030
--------
TermExpiration44444444
hitford
mier
NameDale ShostromChairmanKeith SwinkSam WTerry SkibbyTom GiordanoBill EmeryTaylor LeonardPiper Von ChaRich RosenthalCouncil LiaisonMaria HarrisRegan TrappAdmin. Staff