Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-07 Historic PACKET HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA October 7, 2015 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 2, 2015 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: Carol Voisin V. OLD BUSINESS: Dan Merrill will speak about the Goldenspike plaque for Railroad Park VI. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01517 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 209 Oak St., 221 Oak St., 225 Oak St. and 11 B St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Spartan Ashland Natalie Real Estate, LLC AGENTS: Kistler, Small & White, Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for the properties at 209 Oak Street, 221 Oak Street, 225 Oak Street and 11 B Street. The proposal includes the renovation of two existing, historic homes; the construction of six townhouses along B Street; and the construction a new, detached residential cottage. Also included are requests for a Variance to allow a 15-foot wide, one-way driveway where a 20-foot driveway width would typically be required; two Conditional Use Permits to allow a 25 percent increase in the Maximum Permitted Floor Area, and to allow a commercial use within an existing, historic residential building; and an Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk along B Street where a planting strip would typically be required between the curb and sidewalk. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39 1E 09BB; TAX LOTS: 15600, 15700, 15900 and 16000 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01695 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 399 Beach Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Chris and Samae Chlebowski DESCRIPTION: The property owners are proposing to construct a new garage to facilitate off-street parking. Due to circumstances on the property, the application requests a Variance from the standard setbacks. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39 1E 09DD; TAX LOTS: 1200. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01769 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 860 C Street OWNER/ APPLICANT: Emily Inget/ Ben Treiger DESCRIPTION: The request is for a Conditional Use Permit for a roof expansion on a non-conforming two story dwelling. The existing dwelling is three feet into the public right-of-way. The proposed development will involve replacing the existing flat roof with a gable roof. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39 1E 09AD; TAX LOTS: 8600. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01846 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Lithia Way OWNER: Randolph Hays LLC APPLICANT: Kistler, Small, White, Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for a minor modification to a previously approved Site Design Review (PA-2014-01226). The proposal is to replace the decorative porcelain tile with a wall mounted, decorative steel element. The steel component is a free form design that will be unique to this location and produced by a local artist. The steel element will be attached to the existing concrete masonry wall and will have a clear finish to prevent the rust from staining surrounding finishes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; 39 1E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 1801. VII. NEW ITEMS: Review board schedule. Project assignments for planning actions. PAC Gateway Island proposal Oak Street railroad crossing sign VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS: CLG study session recap IX. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: X. ADJOURNMENT: ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes September 2, 2015 Community Development/Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way Siskiyou Room REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER 6:02p.m. SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way Historic Commissioners Present: Mr. Skibby, Mr. Swink, Ms. Kencairn, Ms. Renwick, Mr. Whitford, Mr. Emery, Mr. Ladygo, Mr. Shostrom Commission Members Absent: Mr. Giordano (U) Council Liaison : Carol Voisin Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Mark Schexnayder; Clerk: ReganTrapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Whitford motioned to approve minutes with correction from August 5, 2015. Mr. Shostrom seconded. No one opposed. Minutes were approved with correction by Mr. Shostrom for not adding a park row at the curb in PA-2015-01496. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one in the audience wishing to speak. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Ms. Voisin gave the Council Liaison report. OLD BUSINESS Update from Parks Department staff in regards to the Butler-Perozzi Fountain. Michael Black, Parks Director and Bruce Dickens Parks Superintendant with Ashland Parks and Recreation gave a presentation regarding the Butler-Perozzi Fountain to the Historic Commission. Mr. Black and Mr. Dickens gave a short history on the funding process of the Butler-Perozzi Fountain. They are looking at all avenues to save the fountain. They explained that Ashland Parks Foundation did a fundraiser and raised a few thousand dollars towards the project and there are other fundraisers in the works. Mr. Dickens explained that they are questioning if the structure and the stairs need to be fully restored or just repaired. At this time they are unsure. The Commission has requested that if the fountain is ever on the Parks Commission agenda that they be invited to attend. Mr. Dickens agreed. Mr. Skibby read aloud the procedures for public hearings. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01115 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 34 S Pioneer Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Oregon Shakespeare Festival DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a temporary food vendor in the Chautauqua Square plaza. The applicant has yet to decide on a vendor and, therefore, signage and design of the food cart is in the conceptual design stages. The location of the proposed food vendor is in a prominent area of the Oregon Shakespeare Grounds and is in the Downtown Historic District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; MAP: 39 1E 09BC; TAX LOT: 1100 Mr. Schexnayder gave the staff report on PA-2015-01115. Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing to the applicant. An email submitted on August 19, 2015 by Alan Harper requested to supplement their original application materials. Alan Harper, Attorney at Law, representing Oregon Shakespeare Festival, addressed the Commission. He spoke in depth about the list of conditions from the Planning department and defined the position of Oregon Shakespeare Festival in regards to these conditions. Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission. Mr. Shostrom motioned to approve PA-2015-01115 with the draft conditions as written #1 7. Mr. Ladygo seconded. No one opposed. (Draft Conditions for PA-2015-01115) 1. .Ʃźŭ ht or neon colors used extensively to attract attention to the food cart(s) or use are prohibited. Final size, scale, color and materials of cart(s) to be reviewed by the Historic Commission Review Board and approved by the Staff Advisor before commencement of the temporary use. The food cart(s) and other site appurtenances associated with the temporary use (i.e. tables, umbrellas, etc.) should consist of colors that blend into the adjacent surroundings and back drop buildings. 2. A plan establishing a six-foot wide pedestrian path through the plaza from the stairs adjacent to Pioneer St. to the sidewalk on Main St., and a clear path to the front entrances of the Black Swan Theater and Chamber of Commerce shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor before the commencement of the temporary use. The temporary use (e.g., food cart, tables, chairs) shall be located outside of the approved pedestrian path. 3. The seating walls around the existing planters shall be accessible and usable for pedestrians and the food cart tables and chairs shall be located a minimum of three feet from the seating walls. 4. A maximum of 15 square feet of signage will be allowed. Any signage applied to the cart awning/umbrella is limited to five square feet. Any remaining signage can be divided between two facades of the food cart, to be installed flush with the cart body. 5. The food cart is allowed two exempt incidental signs, not to exceed five square feet in combined total. If the temporary use utilizes a portable sign, the area of the portable sign shall be deducted from the five square feet aggregate sign allowed for exempt incidental signs. Furthermore, portable signs must be placed immediately adjacent to the food cart. 6. No signs shall use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects or be internally illuminated. 7. All applicable building and fire codes must be met before food cart can begin operation. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01496 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 South Second Street OWNER/APPLICANT: MPM Investments AGENT: Kistler, Small & White, Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to allow 3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry room, two new second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas for the Winchester Inn located at 35 S. Second St. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six-inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalk along the perimeter of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; 39 1E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 5600-5700 Mr. Schexnayder gave to staff report on PA-2015-01496. Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing to the applicants. Matt Small, with Kistler, Small, White presented to the Commission. Mr. Small stated that the proposal includes a new bar, two second floor offices, a new kitchen, a new laundry room and the remodel of the existing kitchen into the bussing station and storage areas. The additions proposed are a 360 square foot bar on the south side of the existing main building, adjacent to the existing dining area. The new full service kitchen will occupy the first floor of the west side of the main facility. The proposed new square footage of the kitchen is 869 square feet. The existing height and setback of the building is unchanged. The massing of the building will continue to be appropriate to the existing Victorian architecture, and smaller than the other commercial buildings in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission. Ms. Kencairn motioned to approve PA-2015-01496 as submitted. Ms. Renwick seconded. No one opposed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01512 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 198 Hillcrest Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Britt Pearson DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to alter a non-conforming structure. The ide of the existing two story dwelling. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; 39 1E 09CA; TAX LOT: 9900 Mr. Schexnayder gave the staff report on PA-2015-01512 Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing to the applicants. The applicants were not present. Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission. Mr. Shostrom motioned to approve PA-2015-01512 as submitted. Ms. Kencairn seconded. No one opposed. NEW ITEMS: Review board schedule Project assignments for planning actions CLG study session, September 17, 2015 at 11am. Mr. Schexnayder spoke regarding the CLG study session on September 17, 2015. The Commission agreed that it would be a good idea to drive around the Historic District and take pictures of bad examples of exterior work. They discussed and decided that a few Commissioners would each take certain areas of the district and report back to Ms. Trapp with their picture results for the CLG meeting. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business to discuss. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Mr. Skibby addressed the Commission regarding appointing a liaison to attend the City Council meetings. The Commission discussed this and decided that they would not want to appoint a certain person and would like to take it on a case by case basis depending on the need. Downtown Plaza project. Mr. Schexnayder gave a report on the Downtown plaza project. Katherine Thaldon, Landscape Architect, addressed the Commission regarding her ideas for the Downtown Plaza project. Ms. Thaldon stated that she was approached by several members of the City Council to help them in reading the plans for the Downtown Plaza project. She emphasized that the plantings in the Plaza are in good condition except for the bare area behind the information booth. She spoke about fencing options and what would possibly work for the Plaza area. Ms. Thaldon recommended using substantial green plantings instead of a shorter fence. After much discussion, the Commission briefly outlined some recommendations that they would like to send to the City Council regarding the project. The recommendation of the Historic Commission is to use substantial plantings instead of fencing to make the space look less confined. The plantings would be much more cost effective and safer than a fence. The Historic Commission recommends 5 gallon plants, closely spaced together to create a natural foliage barrier. By planting evergreen or big leafy type plants (drought tolerant if possible) it would make the space lush and welcoming. Adding an anchor evergreen plant in each pot for winter interest would be a nice touch. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: There was nothing to discuss. Review Board Schedule th September 17 Terry, Sam, Kerry th September 24 Terry, Allison, Tom October 1st Terry, Andrew, Bill th October 8 Terry, Andrew, Keith Project Assignments for Planning Actions PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom PA-2014-00251 30 S. First St Whitford BD-2013-00813 374 Hargadine Swink PA-2013-01828 310 Oak St. (Thompson) Shostrom PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Renwick PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Kencairn PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery PA-2015-00541 345 Lithia Way Giordano & Renwick PA-2015-00493 37 N. Main Skibby PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Ladygo PA-2015-01163 Kencairn PA-2015-00980 Shostrom PA-2015-00797 266 Third Ladygo PA-2015-01115 34 S. Pioneer Ladygo PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom PA-2015-01512 198 Hillcrest Swink ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Next meeting is scheduled for October 7, 2015, 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:45pm 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 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01517 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 209 Oak St., 221 Oak St., 225 Oak St. and 11 B St. (And shared driveway partially on 237-239 Oak St.) OWNER/APPLICANT: Spartan Ashland Natalie Real Estate, LLC AGENTS: Kistler, Small & White, Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for the properties at 209 Oak Street, 221 Oak Street, 225 Oak Street and 11 B Street. The proposal includes the renovation of two existing, historic homes; the construction of six townhouses along B Street; and the construction a new, detached residential cottage. Also included are requests for a Variance to allow a 15-foot wide, one-way driveway where a 20-foot driveway width would typically be required; two Conditional Use Permits to allow a 25 percent increase in the Maximum Permitted Floor Area, and to allow a commercial use within an existing, historic residential building; an Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk along B Street where a planting strip would typically be required between the curb and the sidewalk; an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow the placement of a new residence on proposed Lot #9 to be placed behind the setback line of adjacent historic buildings; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees which are within the footprints of proposed buildings. (The proposal involves use of the existing driveway which is partially located on the adjacent property to the north at 237-as signed to allow the application to move forward using the shared driveway.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-39 1E 09BB; TAX LOTS: 15600, 15700, 15900 and 16000. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, October 7, 2015 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 8, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, October 13 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if y at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01517.docx OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. FINAL PLAN APPROVAL AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 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 PERMIT 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. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01517.docx 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 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. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. e purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.B B. Tree Removal Permit. 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01517.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-2015-01695 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 399 Beach Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Chris and Samae Chlebowski DESCRIPTION: The property owners are proposing to construct a new garage to facilitate off-street parking. Due to circumstances on the property, the application requests a Variance from the standard setbacks. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39 1E 09DD; TAX LOTS: 1200. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 24, 2015 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 8, 2015 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 e mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) 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\\2015\\PA-2015-01695.docx VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 Approval Criteria 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01695.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: 2015-01769 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 860 C Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Emily Inget/Ben Treiger DESCRIPTION: The request is for a Conditional Use Permit for a roof expansion on a non-conforming two story dwelling. The existing dwelling is three feet into the public right-of-way. The proposed development will involve replacing the existing flat roof with a gable roof. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-family Residential; ZONING: R- 39 1E 09AD; TAX LOTS: 8600. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 28, 2015 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 12, 2015 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 g of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) 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\\2015\\PA-2015-01769.docx CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.5.4.050.A. Approval Criteria 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 with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01769.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: 2015-01846 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Lithia Way OWNER/APPLICANT: Hays Oil/Kistler, Small, White, Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for a minor modification to a previously approved Site Design Review (PA-2014- 01226). The proposal is to replace the decorative porcelain tile with a wall mounted, decorative steel element. The steel component is a free form design that will be unique to this location and produced by a local artist. The steel element will be attached to the existing concrete masonry wall and will have a clear finish to prevent the rust from staining surrounding finishes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; 39 1E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 1801. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 30, 2015 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 14, 2015 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 ing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) 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. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01846.docx If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305. MINOR MODIFICATIONS APPROVAL CRITERIA 18.5.6.040 C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01846.docx PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PLANNING ACTIONS PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom PA-2014-00251 30 S. First St Whitford BD-2013-00813 374 Hargadine Swink PA-2013-01828 310 Oak St. (Thompson) Shostrom PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Renwick PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Kencairn PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery PA-2015-00541 345 Lithia Way Giordano & Renwick PA-2015-00493 37 N. Main Skibby PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Ladygo PA-2015-01163 Kencairn PA-2015-00980 Shostrom PA-2015-00797 266 Third Ladygo PA-2015-01115 34 S. Pioneer Ladygo PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom PA-2015-01512 198 Hillcrest Swink Budget ,000.,000.,000. $ 5,000$ 60$ 5$ 7$ 13,000.$ 10,000.$100,000. concrete pad, excavation, crane etc. ring & Consultants FABRICATION: Ashland, Gateway Sculpture PRELIMINARY BUDGET PROJECT EXPENSES TOTAL BUDGET Susan ZoccolaArtist ProposalCity ofSeptember 2015 Suggested Lighting Option Susan Zoccola Artist Proposal City of Ashland, Gateway Sculpture September 2015 1300 Industrial Road, Unit #19 San Carlos, CA 94070 Tel: 1-(650)-595-LUMA(5862) Fax: 1-(650)-595-5820 Email: info@lumascape.com FREE CALL 1-866-695-LUMA(5862) US & Canada LS853LEDIngrade IP68IK10 The LS853LED is a full featured, shallow depth ingrade luminaire featuring lumen output and efficacy exceeding metal halide. This luminaire also features a universal input driver (120-277 V), and measures only 7.1 inches (180 mm) deep (in direct burial format). The ability to aim the luminaire ensures the most efficient light delivery can be set according to the site conditions. Specifications Lamp source 16 W or 20 W LED White (4 300 K typical) Warm white (2 900 K typical) Blue (470 nm) Other colors by request RGB (consult factory for full details) LS853LED Round Flush Cover UL classification Suitable for wet locations Lumen Maintenance 85,000 hrs @ 25 °C (20 W only) (L70) o 360 Control Protocol 0-10 V (optional, consult factory) RGB via DMX 20°20° IP rating IP68 Construction 316 marine grade stainless steel Installation typesPre-Installation Blockout Concrete pour, drive-over etc. Direct Burial Landscapes, planters etc. Drive-over With OptiClear© lens and pre-installation blockout (LS6052-K or LS6052-K-SP) Static load rating 9 260 lb (4 200 kg) with OptiClear© lens and pre- installation blockout (LS6052-K or LS6052-K-SP) Impact rating IK10 with OptiClear© lens Standard inclusions Teflon coated cover screws MicroAntiLeach© wire entry Thermal cutout Ambient operating 20 W -22 °F to 122 °F (-30 °C to +50 °C) temperature 16 W -22 °F to 104 °F (-30 °C to +40 °C) Surface temperature 113 °F (45 °C) Photometrics www.lumascape.com Any luminaire can become hot - take care with appropriate use and placement www.lumascape.comC1883US Mar 13 - 2012 LS853LED Pre-Installation BlockoutIngrade B Why Use LS6052-K Pre-Installation Blockout?Why Use LS6052-K-SP Pre-Installation Blockout? The LS6052-K pre-installation kit (order separately) is a key aspect The LS6052-K-SP pre-installation kit (order separately) is ideal for use of Lumascape's approach to engineering high performance ingrade in applications where maximum flexibility for the type and location of product. The LS6052-K acts as a blockout, and is intended for branch circuit connections are required or where exact site conditions installation before the luminaire however it has other special functions. may be unknown. The LS6052-K-SP is also for use with all applications To simplify the installation, every LS6052-K is supplied complete with requiring a color changing or dimmable lighting scheme. For use with a 4-way, PVC junction box, inside which the installer can make all the LS6052-K-SP, Lumascape provides the LS853LED complete with necessary connections, and allows the completion of all wiring even 6.5' of factory-installed hookup wire and a ĒÒ NPT adapter (complete before the luminaire arrives on site. This method also ensures the with a Microantileach seal). This provides the installer with greater luminaire itself is not damaged during concreting or other site works. flexibility to determine the type and location of the branch circuit Note: The junction box remains serviceable after installation. To connection. This option is also 100% hard-wired, and does not feature complete the installation, Lumascape provides an IP68 connector, the IP68 detachable couplings for off-site maintenance. All aspects of enabling a tool-free final connection from the luminiare to the branch the luminiare itself are still field serviceable. circuit. In addition, this connector is readily detachable, allowing for off-site maintenance. Connection Type '85' for LS6052-K Pre-Installation Blockout Connection Type '82' for LS6052-K-SP Pre-Installation Blockout IP68 Connector & Junction BoxSingle Conduit Entry 0.5 inch NPT The luminaire is fitted with an IP68 connector, which attaches For 0.5 inch conduit installation with MicroAntiLeach© directly to the cable supplied with LS6052-K, without the use of wire entry. any tools. The cable is 1.8 ft (0.56 m) in length, and is factory c/w 6.5 ft (2.0 m) hook-up wire. assembled with a 4 way junction box which remains field serviceable after installation. Not suitable for color changing or dimmable applications. Lens OptionsCover Options for Pre-Installation Blockout Flush covers for pre-installation use special OptiClear© Glass seals and support bushes to ensure static loads Glass of very high up to 9 260 lb (4 200 kg) are properly supported. n i ) 0 . m optical purity and load 7 m Ø In order to achieve this drive-over rating, 8 7 1 ( strength. Suitable for OptiClear© or GripGlass© must be used. drive-over applications. Ø 10.3 in (262 mm) GripGlass© OptiClear© glass with slip reduction glazing m 0 8 process. Suitable for 2 ( n i drive-over applications. 0 . 11m) Pre-Installation Blockout Round Flush Cover Borosilicate Glass Ø 7.5 in (191 mm) SS316: Polished Brass: Polished Ideal for general use SS316: Brushed Brass: Brushed areas. Not suitable for drive-over application. www.lumascape.comC1883US Mar 13 - 2012 LS853LED Pre-Installation BlockoutIngradeIngrade C Control Gear CableOpticalBody& WireSupply ProductLamp LensCoverEntrySystemDepthEntryVoltage CodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCode LS853LED29Q LAMP OPTICAL SYSTEM DescriptionWattageColorCode DescriptionBeamCode (1) LED16 WWhite AdjustableNarrow 14 ú N 16W4 (4 300 K typ.) AdjustableNarrow Medium 25 ú NM Warm white 16H6 AdjustableMedium 30 ú M (2 900 K typ.) AdjustableLinear Horizontal 40 ú x 20 ú LH Blue 16B4 (470 nm) AdjustableLinear Vertical 20 ú x 40 ú LV (1) Not available for RGB. LED20 WWhite 20W4 (4 300 K typ.) NOTE: See beam orientation diagram. Warm white 20H6 (2 900 K typ.) BODY DEPTH Blue 20B4 DescriptionDepthCode (470 nm) RGB 20M4 Suits pre-install kit11.0 inches 29 (280 mm) NOTE: For other body depths consult factory. LENS DescriptionCode WIRE ENTRY LOCATION LocationCode OptiClear©Very high optical purity (1) A and load strength Bottom Q GripGlass©OptiClear© with (1) slip reduction glazing G process SUPPLY VOLTAGE VoltageCode Borosilicate Ideal for general use (2) X Glassareas (1) 120V 60 Hz 4 (1) Suitable for drive-over. (1) 277V 60 Hz 9 (2) Not suitable for drive-over. (2) 12 V 60 Hz or 12-24 V DC 13 (1) Not available for RGB. (2) For appropriate transformer sizing refer to page 54 - 55 COVER of the Lumascape LED catalog. DescriptionMaterialFinishCode Round Flush Stainless Polished M Coversteel Brushed N LS853LED Accessories BrassPolished L Stacking and order of accessories Brushed K OROR CONNECTION TYPE DescriptionCode LS6013LS688LS6012 Slatted louverWall wash lensCross hatch louver (1) IP68 Connector & Junction Box 85 (2) Single Conduit Entry 0.5 inch NPT 82 (1) Not suitable for color changing or dimmable applications. LS6052-K required - order separately. (2) OR LS6052-K-SP required - order separately. LS685LS691 Linear spreader lensPrismatic lens LED Other accessory stacking options may be available - consult factory www.lumascape.comC1883US Mar 13 - 2012 D LS853LED Direct BurialIngrade Why Use Direct Burial Direct burial installation is ideal for landscaping areas or in locations where the depth is restricted. This type of installation also allows for maximum heat dissipation. The stainless steel construction of the luminaire performs flawlessly in alkaline and acidic soil types, as well as chemically fertilized landscapes. Cable Entry Options for Direct BurialLens Options OptiClear© Glass Glass of very high optical purity and load strength. GripGlass© OptiClear© glass with slip reduction glazing process. Armored Cable MC & Splice BoxSingle Conduit Entry 0.5 inch NPT Borosilicate Glass Armored cable 2 ft (0.6 m) provides protection For 0.5 inch conduit installation against damage to cable between luminaire and with MicroAntiLeach© wire entry. Ideal for general 4 way splice box (included). Allows for loop use areas and areas c/w 6.5 ft (2.0 m) hook-up wire. in / loop out and flexibility of luminaire placement. without pedestrian Not suitable for color changing or dimmable applications. traffic. Side located entry only. Cover Options for Direct Burial Use recessed cover for installation in soil, Use flush covers for installation in fine finished surfaces such as granite and grass, pavers and other uneven surfaces marble. They can also be used in some suspended applications. The flush cover where no cover overhang is desired.will conceal gaps between the luminaire and the surrounding surface. Recessed CoverRound Flush CoverSquare Flush Cover SS316: Polished SS316: Polished SS316: Polished SS316: Brushed SS316: Brushed SS316: Brushed Brass: Polished Brass: Polished Brass: Polished n n n i i i ))) 0 00 . .. m m m 7 77 m mm Ø Ø Ø 8 8 8 7 7 7 1 (1 1 ( ( 10.1 in (256 mm) Ø 10.1 in (256 mm) Ø 9.5 in (240 mm) Ø 9.5 in (240 mm) Ø 9.5 in (240 mm) 0.1 in (3 mm) 0.1 in (3 mm) 7.1 in (180 mm) 0.5 in (14 mm) 7.1 in (180 mm) 0.5 in (14 mm) Ø 7.0 in (178 mm) 7.0 in (178 mm) Ø Ø 7.0 in (178 mm) www.lumascape.comC1883US Mar 13 - 2012 LS853LED Direct BurialIngrade E Control Gear CableOptical Body& WireSupply ProductLamp LensCoverEntrySystemDepthEntryVoltage CodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCodeCode LS853LED28 LAMP OPTICAL SYSTEM DescriptionWattageColorCode DescriptionBeamCode (1) LED16 WWhite AdjustableNarrow 14 ú N 16W4 (4 300 K typ.) AdjustableNarrow Medium 25 ú NM Warm white 16H6 AdjustableMedium 30 ú M (2 900 K typ.) AdjustableLinear Horizontal 40 ú x 20 ú LH Blue 16B4 (470 nm) AdjustableLinear Vertical 20 ú x 40 ú LV (1) Not available for RGB. LED20 WWhite 20W4 (4 300 K typ.) NOTE: See beam orientation diagram. Warm white 20H6 (2 900 K typ.) BODY DEPTH Blue 20B4DescriptionDepthCode (470 nm) Direct burial7.1 inches (180mm) 28 RGB 20M4 NOTE: For other body depths consult factory. LENS WIRE ENTRY LOCATION DescriptionCode LocationCode OptiClear©Very high optical purity Side N A and load strength Bottom Q GripGlass©OptiClear© with slip reduction glazing G SUPPLY VOLTAGE process VoltageCode Borosilicate Ideal for general use X (1) 120 V 60 Hz 4 Glassareas (1) 277 V 60 Hz 9 (2) 12 V 60 Hz or 12-24 V DC 13 COVER (1) Not available for RGB. DescriptionMaterialFinishCode (2) For appropriate transformer sizing refer to page 54 - 55 of the Lumascape LED catalog. RecessedStainless Polished B Coversteel Brushed H BrassPolished E LS853LED Accessories Round FlushStainless Polished D Coversteel Brushed I Stacking and order of accessories BrassPolished G External accessory Square Flush Stainless Polished U Use with recessed covers only Coversteel LS636 Brushed V Not suitable for use in traffic areas Brass grill BrassPolished T CONNECTION TYPE DescriptionCode OROR (1) Armored Cable MC & Splice Box 81 LS6013LS688LS6012 Single Conduit Entry 0.5 inch NPT 82 Slatted louverWall wash lensCross hatch louver (1) Not suitable for color changing or dimmable applications. Side located wire entry only. OR LS685LS691 Linear spreader lensPrismatic lens LED Other accessory stacking options may be available - consult factory www.lumascape.comC1883US Mar 13 - 2012 F LS853LED PhotometricsIngrade Photometrics Photometric data is based on test results from an independent NIST traceable testing lab. IES data is available at www.lumascape.com. Note: No depreciation factor is applied to the data shown. Polar Candela DistributionIlluminance at a Distance LS853LED C 0°C 15°C 30°C 45°C 60°C 75°C 90° 170º ftCenter Beam fcBeam Ø (1) 5682 160º 4300 K 90°0000000 150º 5 227.32 ft 100°0000000 25° Beam Angle 140º 4262 10 56.84 ft 110°0000000 130º Power Input21 W 120°0000000 15 25.37 ft Lumens1265 130°7554467 120º 2841 25 9.111 ft 140°23252625232122 60 lm/W Efficacy 110º 150°155148146144145145162 30 6.313 ft (1) To approximate warm white 1421 160°1001987961953961964956 data, multiply by 0.84. Refer 100º 40 3.618 ft web site for IES files for all 170°3573354335183498347534753493 color temperatures. 90º 50 2.322 ft 180°5682568256825682568256825682 C-0º Polar Candela DistributionIlluminance at a Distance LS853LED C 0°C 15°C 30°C 45°C 60°C 75°C 90° 170º ftCenter Beam fcBeam Ø (1) 3832 160º 4300 K 90°0000000 150º 5 153.33 ft 100°0000000 30° Beam Angle 140º 2874 10 38.35 ft 110°0000000 130º Power Input 21 W 120°0000000 15 178 ft 130°1211978911 Lumens1137 120º 1916 25 6.113 ft 140°43465052524843 54 lm/W Efficacy 110º 150°206204204209210209219 30 4.316 ft (1) To approximate warm white 958 160°881874853849865897923 data, multiply by 0.84. Refer 100º 40 2.421 ft web site for IES files for all 170°2495246324392435245224892554 color temperatures. 90º 50 1.527 ft 180°3832383238323832383238323832 C-0º Polar Candela DistributionIlluminance at a Distance LS853LED Center C 0°C 15°C 30°C 45°C 60°C 75°C 90° ftBeam WBeam L (1)170º Beam fc 3510 160º 4300 K 90°0000000 150º 5 140.42 ft4 ft 100°0000000 20° x 40° Beam 140º 2633 10 35.14 ft7 ft 110°0000000 Angle 130º 120°0000000 15 15.65 ft11 ft 130°10988132128 120º Power Input21 W 1755 25 5.69 ft18 ft 140°2021264482132138 Lumens1126 110º 150°89101130199325479541 30 3.911 ft22 ft 878 54 lm/W Efficacy 160°565593697888114914771582 100º 40 2.214 ft29 ft (1) To approximate warm white 170°2073211822522460271428622905 data, multiply by 0.84. Refer 50 1.418 ft36 ft 90º 180°3510351035103510351035103510 web site for IES files for all C-0ºC-90º color temperatures. Beam Orientations Beam Orientation Beam Orientation for the "LV" optical for the "LH" optical systemsystem www.lumascape.comC1883US Mar 13 - 2012 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes September 17, 2015 STUDY SESSION MEETING - CALL TO ORDER 11:00 AM SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Bill Emery Maria Harris, Planning Manager Andrew Ladygo April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Allison Renwick Dale Shostrom Terry Skibby Keith Swink Samuel Whitford Absent Members: Council Liaison: Tom Giordano Carol Voisin, absent Kerry KenCairn DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONER PHOTO SURVEYS: Siskiyou/Hargadine Historic District (Stostrom/Emery) Commissioner Shostrom stated they looked at approximately 60 properties in this historic district and estimated 1% of the historic contributing properties have been altered. He stated they observed siding issues, lots of window replacements, and a few roof and porch issues. Overall siding and windows were the key issues. Shostrom voiced his concerns with Hardie plank siding and stated it homogenizes historic homes and makes it hard to tell if they are old or new. Skidmore Academy Historic District (Whitford/Swink) Commissioner Whitford commented that vinyl siding is also an issue and stated selecting poor paint colors or using T-111 vertical siding can also create issues. He stated the installation of vinyl siding may require the removal of historic details and while it can be an inexpensive option for people, it should be discouraged. Commissioner Swink commented that owners of historic homes should understand the financial responsibility that comes with maintaining a historic home. Swink commented that asbestos siding and lead paint are other common issues in historic homes. Downtown Historic District (Skibby) Commissioner Skibby commented on a commercial building downtown where the character was changed through the use of decorative panels and paint. Planning Manager Maria Harris clarified that painting a commercial building does not require a permit, and noted the proposed ordinance will only address residential properties. Skibby requested a discussion on exterior commercial alterations at a later date. Railroad Historic District (Renwick) Commissioner Renwick agreed that vinyl windows and Hardie plank siding are problems, but stated the majority of recent alterations have been positive. She stated the biggest issues she observed were Ashland Historic Commission September 17, 2015 Page 1 of 3 changes to historic homes that were made 20 or more years ago. She recommended contractors take a stronger role in communicating historic compatible options to their clients. Review and Discussion of Positive and Negative Effects Memo Matt Davis with Architectural Resources group provided an overview of the memo included in the packet materials. Positive impacts of the draft ordinance were identified as historic character; higher property values; opportunities for a streamlined review process; and an opportunity to connect homeowners to resources. Mr. Davis noted the State Historic Preservation Office maintains a directory of contractors, but cautioned the city against recommending specific businesses or individuals. Regarding the review process, he stated the city may get some push back at the beginning, but noted the proposed streamlined process would rely on Planning staff review where possible and would keep review times and application fees to a minimum. Mr. Davis also noted the possibility to offer micro- grants to assist homeowners with historic compatible improvements. Review and Discussion of Draft Historic Exterior Alteration Standards Ordinance Mr. Davis explained the draft ordinance limits its purview to what is visible from the public right of way and clarified this would include alleys. He added the exemptions listed on page 2 of the ordinance could be removed if they start to become a problem. General support was voiced for keeping porch modifications on the list of actions subject to staff review. Comment was made regarding a specific house in the Railroad District where the improvements greatly changed the character of the original structure. Ms. Harris clarified that under this ordinance, those changes would have to be reviewed and approved by the City. Ms. Harris explained if the commission moves forward with this ordinance they will be involved in the pre- application conferences for actions subject to Type I Review, and they will need to be more formal about their recommendations. The commission discussed the importance of public outreach and education. Commissioner Whitford supplying the informational brochures the city has created. He suggested perhaps they would have better outreach by asking escrow agents to provide this instead. The commission discussed whether to include the Demonstrated Hardship/Preferred Approach clause. Ms. Harris stated the commission could choose to not allow any exceptions, but Mr. Davis stressed that this may be needed in order to get the ordinance approved. Ms. Harris noted no other city has taken this approach and explained the more absolute the standard, the more work it creates for staff. Commissioner Shostrom commented on creating a list of recommended alternatives if the homeowner chooses to not do an in-kind replacement. Mr. Davis stated the approving body would likely still want to see an escape clause, and noted a set list of approved materials included in the ordinance may create issues since new materials are continuing to become available. He added, however, that if the commission decides to take this approach they could reference the list in the ordinance and maintain it at staff level. Comment was made that is it not just the materials, but making sure they are installed correctly is equally important. Commissioner Renwick commented on the benefits of having conversations with homeowners early on in the process before they invest too much money. The commission questioned if it is possible to require a meeting with homeowners before they apply for a permit. Ms. Harris reminded the group that the Historic Commission is an advisory body and cautioned them against bringing forward an ordinance that greatly expanded their purview. Ashland Historic Commission September 17, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Review and Discuss Case Studies Postponed due to limited time. The commission voiced support for continuing this discussion to another meeting. Ms. Harris noted the commission will be responsible for presenting the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council, and encouraged them to start thinking about the types of outreach they will perform before this package moves forward. She explained the Planning Commission and City Council are going to want to know how these changes have been communicated with those who will be impacted. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Historic Commission September 17, 2015 Page 3 of 3 October 2015 Ashland Historic Review Board Schedule Meet at 3:00pm, Lithia Room* October 15th Terry October 22nd Terry October 29th Terry November 5th Terry *Call 541-488-5305 to verify there are items on the agenda to review @ashland.or.us 9761) - 621 Mail - EAddressallison@mind.netshobro@jeffnet.org(Cell kswink@mind.netkerry@kencairnlandscape.comskwhippet@mind.netterryskibby321@msn.comtomarch@charter.netbill@ashlandhome.netallad@ashlandhome.netcarol@cou ncil.ashland.or.usmark.schexnayder@ashland.or.usregan.trapp \\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\Historic Commission Membership.doc 9/23/2015 dev \\comm- G: -2233 WorkPhone 552 HomePhone Membership List ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION nning Dept. Mailing AddressCity of AshlandPlaCity of AshlandPlanning Dept. 8887 20120120162016201201620120172017 --------- 303030303030303030 --------- TermExpiration444444444 arol Voisin NameAllison RenwickDale ShostromKeith SwinkKerry KencairnSam WhitfordTerry SkibbyChairmanTom GiordanoBill EmeryAndrew LadygoCCouncil LiaisonMark SchexnayderRegan TrappAdmin. Staff