Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-02 Historic PACKET HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA September 2, 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 August 5, 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: Update from Parks Department staff in regards to the Butler-Perozzi Fountain. VI. 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; 39 1E 09BC; TAX LOT: 1100 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 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 applicant proposes to ide of the existing two story dwelling. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; 39 1E 09CA; TAX LOT: 9900 VII. NEW ITEMS: Review board schedule. Project assignments for planning actions. CLG study session, September 17, 2015 at 11am. VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Commissioner Skibby will discuss appointing a Commission Liaison to attend City meetings. Downtown Plaza project. IX. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: X. ADJOURNMENT: ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes August 5, 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. Giordano Commission Members Absent: Mr. Shostrom (E) Council Liaison : Carol Voisin Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Mark Schexnayder & Maria Harris; Clerk: ReganTrapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Renwick motioned to approve minutes from July 8, 2015. Mr. Ladygo seconded. Mr. Swink abstained due to absence. No one opposed. PUBLIC FORUM: Michael Donovan, owner of the Camps building, residing at 406 Briscoe Place, Ashland, OR 97520 addressed the commission. He spoke about the letter that he submitted regarding the application by Oregon Shakespeare Festival, for the temporary food cart in the Chautauqua Square Plaza. Mr. Donovan expressed his concern that the City would approve another commercial activity in the gateway plaza to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the downtown center. He urged the Historic Commission to deny the application and remand the issue back for further study. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Ms. Voisin gave the council liaison report. Ms. Voisin reported that the Fire department has had an increased number of emergency calls by EMS. She stated that a conversation was started regarding the possibility of combining with another fire station in the area. Ms. Voisin also noted that the resolution on the Rogue Valley Summit climate change was completed. Ms. Voisin went on to say, that the drought continues and the 86 TID customers that had their water turned off may be able to get their water back on for a month. She pointed out that the reservoir is 96% full and residents are using around 4.5 million gallons of water a day. City council responded to an inquiry from Union Pacific railroad about removing a tank in the railroad district. The proposal states that for 5 weeks, 25 dump trucks per day would use Oak Street to replace contaminated dirt. The City Council wants the Mayor to send a letter to the Department of Environmental Quality stating that they want the contaminated dirt sent by railroad and not by truck. Ms. Voisin directed attention to some changes being made in the Plaza area by the Downtown Beautification Commission. She detailed the changes in her report and did state that the Council could move this decision to the September agenda if the Historic Commission felt it was needed. She recognized that these were part of the original plans that Ms. Kencairn spoke about a few months ago but the plaza plans were excluded from that discussion. Ms. Kencairn stated for the record that she was only directed to present her pieces of the downtown design The Plaza plan was in addition to the plans presented by Ms. Kencairn. After much discussion, the Commission requested that staff write a letter asking the City Council to postpone the decision on the plans for the plaza until the Commission can review it. Ms. Voisin finished her staff report by saying that Verde Village subdivision has had a second reading by the City Council. 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 for PA-2015-01115. Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing to the applicant. Ted Delong general manager of Oregon Shakespeare Festival at 30 S. First Street, had no formal presentation but was happy to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Delong clarified that Oregon Shakespeare festival would be responsible for picking the applicants and they would be looking to pick someone that would not try to compete, but also fit in well with other restaurants in the area. He wanted to clarify that Oregon Shakespeare Festival is not being descriptive as of yet in their decision but would like it to compliment what is already existing in the downtown area. Mr. Delong went on to say that this is bringing positive use to downtown and about bringing life into an empty and unused space. Mr. Delong added that this application is experimental in nature and Dylan Kistler, of 557 N. Mountain, Ashland addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission about the table space in front of Mix being public or private. The Commission answered that they were public. He then stated that If tables drive the use of the space then they should be removed. In his experience, he has never seen a food truck that has provided tables so why now? Mr. Skibby opened to the Commission for comments and questions. The Commission asked Mr. Delong if the footprint was sized for a food truck. The applicant said a truck was not an appropriate scale for the plaza space. Issues raised by the Commission were color, scale and design of the food cart, feasibility of a food cart in the downtown area and possible review of the Conditional Use Permit after a year. The Commission said that the concept is good to consider but would like clearer parameters on the cart itself and review time after a year. The Commission discussed whether the number of tables and chairs may be excessive. In particular, they discussed that the space is a public plaza and were that pedestrian ingress/egress/flow needs to work as well as having enough room for people patrons to use the public space. Mr. Giordano motioned to continue PA-2015-01115 until a later date, when items such as scale and color of the food cart can be addressed. Ms. Renwick seconded. No one opposed. NEW ITEMS: A. Kistler, Small & White presenting 209 Oak B. Review board schedule C. Project assignments for planning actions Ray Kistler and Leslie Gore of Kistler, Small, and White, 66 Water Street Ashland presented sion. Mr. Kistler and Ms. Gore gave the general site overview of the project. Mr. Kistler shared that The Mickelson-Chapman and the Smith- Elliot houses will be restored to historic integrity. He went on to say that the new brownstones and cottages they will build (in addition to restoring the homes) will look urban in nature. Ms. Gore showed examples of urban neighborhoods in Oregon that would share this feel. Mr. Shostrom submitted his comments in an email due to his absence. Mr. Kistler addressed adding porch width on the brownstones. OLD BUSINESS: A. Mr. Giordano- discussion on who will attend Rotary meeting in September regarding historic preservation. Mr. Giordano stated that he still needs someone to speak at the Rotary meeting in September. Ms. Renwick said she would be happy to speak, but at a later date. Ms. Renwick went on to say that she will speak to Mr. Hilton in regards to this issue. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Staff follow up from July meeting: 1. Butler-Perozzi fountain-Ms. Harris reported that Parks staff will give an update to the commission at the September meeting. 2. 37 N. Main permit status Ms. Harris reported that no permit has been submitted. B. Exterior alteration standards project update and discussion Ms. Harris stated that staff has been working with Matt Davis of the CLG and they have been studying several cities in the area and how they approach submittals in their Historic Districts. Ms Harris went on to say that she would like to take some good and bad examples of work done in the Historic District to the CLG study. Ms. Harris requested that the Commission email her specifically if they can think of any projects that may stand out either good or bad. Ms. Harris stated that she would need the emails by August 14, 2015. Ms. Harris would like the Commission to consider a short study session during the day over lunch, sometime before September 20, 2015. She will put together some dates and get the process started. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Mr. Swink spoke in regards to window replacement at 60 Granite. Review Board Schedule August 6th Terry, Bill, Keith August 13th Terry, Tom, Andrew August 20th Terry, Sam, Dale August 27th Terry, Kerry, Bill rd September 3 Terry, Allison, Andrew th September 10 Terry, Keith, Dale 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 ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Next meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2015, 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm 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 NOTICE OF APPLICATION 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; 39 1E 09BC; TAX LOT: 1100. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 20, 2015 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: August 3, 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 s decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.108.040) 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\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2015_packets\\2015-8-5\\34 S. Pioneer\\Notice of Application.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\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2015_packets\\2015-8-5\\34 S. Pioneer\\Notice of Application.docx !Sfbm!Ftubuf-!Mboe!Vtf!'!Efwfmpqnfou!Mbx 241!B!Tusffu-!Tvjuf!7G Btimboe-!Ps!:8631 )652*!76:.:512 bmboecibsqfsAhnbjm/dpn Kvmz!24-!3126 PTG!.!Gppe!Dbsu!DVQ!tjho!tuboebset Cjmm!Npmobs Wjb!fnbjm;!npmobscAbtimboe/ps/vt Cjmm- Bgufs!ejtdvttjpot!xjui!PTG-!xf!voefstuboe!boe!bqqsfdjbuf!zpvs!joufsftu!jo! beesfttjoh!uif!bsdijufduvsbm!jnqbdut!uibu!njhiu!cf!dbmmfe!joup!qmbz!voefs!uif!DVQ! tuboebset/!!Xf!ibe!uipvhiu!up!ejtdvtt!tjhobhf!bu!b!mbufs!ebuf!cvu!PTG!bhsfft!uibu! ftubcmjtijoh!tpnf!qbsbnfufst!xjmm!qspwjef!fwfszpof-!jodmvejoh!gvuvsf!wfoepst-!b! dmfbs!spbe!nbq!bt!up!tjhobhf!jo!sfmbujpo!up!uif!gppe!dbsu/ PTG!xjmm!bhsff!uibu!uif!nbufsjbmt!pg!uif!gppe!dbsu!xjmm!cf!tvckfdu!up!dfsubjo! qbsbnfufst-!bt!zpv!nfoujpofe!jo!zpvs!Kvof!3:-!3126!opuf-!#Csjhiu!ps!ofpo!dpmpst!vtfe! fyufotjwfmz!up!buusbdu!buufoujpo!up!uif!cvjmejoh!ps!vtf!bsf!qspijcjufe#/!Tjnjmbsmz-!puifs!nbufsjbmt! uibu!bsf!csjhiu!ps!qspevdf!b!hmbsf-!tvdi!bt!qpmjtife!nfubm-!tipvme!cf!bwpjefe/Ç PTG!qspqptft!tmjhiumz!ejggfsfou!tjhobhf!mjnjubujpot!uibo!zpv!ibe!pvumjofe/!!Xf! cfmjfwf!uif!gpmmpxjoh!jt!jo!lffqjoh!xjui!uif!tvsspvoejoht!boe!mjnjut!uif!jnqbdu-! xijmf!tujmm!cfjoh!jo!mjof!xjui!uif!tjho!dpef!boe!pqqpsuvojujft!pggfsfe!puifs! nfsdibout; Uif!tjhobhf!sfmbufe!up!uif!gppe!dbsu!xjmm!cf!mjnjufe!up!uibu!po!uif!dbsu!boe!bxojoh-! vq!up!26!gffu!trvbsf!gps!upubm!tjhobhf!bsfb/!! Uif!vtf!nbz!ibwf!fyfnqu!jodjefoubm!tjhot!bt!bmmpxfe!cz!Dpef-!jodmvejoh!ÆBÇ! gsbnf!tjhot!ps!qfeftubm!tjhot!bt!bmmpxfe!puifs!cvtjofttft-!up!cf!mpdbufe!jo! dpnqmjbodf!xjui!uif!tjho!dpef/ Op!vncsfmmb!tjhot-!bt!qsfwjpvtmz!ejtdvttfe/ Xf!bsf!pqfo!up!mjnjubujpot!po!nbufsjbmt!boe!dpmpst!boe!xpvme!bqqsfdjbuf!zpvs! joqvu-!tjnjmbs!up!uif!dpnnfout!po!uif!nbufsjbmt!bmmpxbcmf!gps!uif!gppe!dbsu!jutfmg! zpv!pvumjofe/!! Uif!hpbm!jt!up!ibwf!tjhobhf!boe!b!gbdjmjuz!uibu!xpslt!xfmm!xjui!uif!tvsspvoejoh! nfsdibout!gspn!uif!Xbufs!Tusffu!Dbgf!up!uif!Ipnf!Tubuf!CCR!jo!sfhbset!up! nbufsjbmt-!tfbujoh-!bxojoht!boe!ejojoh!pqujpot/ Jg!PTG!gpmmpxt!uif!tuboebset!gps!qmbdfnfou!pg!tjhot!pvumjofe!jo!uif!tjho!dpef!J! cfmjfwf!uibu!uif!tjhobhf-!bt!mjnjufe!bcpwf-!xjmm!opu!dsfbuf!uif!jnqbdut!uibu!xpvme!cf! hspvoet!gps!b!efojbm!pg!uif!DVQ!bqqmjdbujpo/ Mfu!nf!lopx!jg!zpv!xpvme!mjlf!up!nffu!up!gvsuifs!ejtdvtt/!!J!uijol!uijt!jt!b!hppe! jefb!up!ifbe!pgg!boz!cbe!qsftvnqujpot!ps!gfbst/!!J!uijol!ju!jt!usvf!npsf!jo!mboe!vtf! uibo!nptu!uijoht!.!uibu!jg!zpv!ep!opu!ftubcmjti!uif!gbdut!gspn!uif!tubsu-!qfpqmfÉt!gfbst! pg!uif!xpstu!dbo!sfbmmz!ebnbhf!uif!qspdftt/ Cftu!sfhbset- Bmbo!Ibsqfs The applicant, OSF, has requested that this e-mail supplement their original application materials. August 19, 2015 RE: PA-2015-01115 / Request for a CUP to operate a temporary food vendor location at 34 S Pioneer St. Dear Mr. Heck, Please let this letter supplement the Applicant's materials in this matter. This correspondence is to address comments and questions raised at the recent Historic Commission consideration of this application and comments from the email from Mark Schexnader of August 10, 2015. The Applicant is striving to revitalize this portion of its leased property to create a fun, well maintained, inviting place for Ashland residents and visitors to gather and use the services of a food vendor during the OSF season. As the Downtown Plan of July 19, 1988 states on page 36 in regard to this area, "The public space in front of the Black Swan Theatre and the Chamber of Commerce building is so poorly designed that it is rarely used. ... The space has little of interest to draw people although located on an excellent corner where pedestrian traffic from the Oregon Shakespeare Festival intersects East Main Street's heavily trafficked sidewalks." It is high time to try something that will provide energy and focus to this area. Ashland's development code for Large Scale buildings specifically contemplates the creating of space open to the public and the creation of pedestrian amenities such as "outdoor seating or food vendors". Although not applicable to this application, the principle of creating vibrant open commercial space using these enumerated tools seems logical to pursue here. The foot print of the proposed use is as shown in the materials, 8' x 14'. This includes not only the actual food cart (likely to be approximately 8'-10' long and 3' wide) but the working space for employees behind it and to the side of it (between the existing planter and the proposed cart). The Applicant has also proposed a shade cover for this area that will be between 9' - 12'. The final materials and colors for the awning / cover have not been chosen thinking that, like many businesses, the selected vendor may want some say in this decision. The Applicant has no objections to following the same guidelines for awnings and signage as every other business along Main Street. The Applicant does believe that addressing the materials is positive and constructive to addressing the criteria. Identifying or limiting certain materials that could create negative impacts will be helpful in addressing certain approval standards. Therefore, the Applicant has previously agreed that no bright or neon colors are to be used and that the cart shall not have reflective surfaces. The cart materials are anticipated to be primarily wood, matte-finish metals, glass and fabric. Certain working surfaces will need to be other materials to meet health code but the primary elements will be natural materials - see attached examples that illustrate the Applicant's project. While the Applicant believes that these guidelines would in themselves adequately address the CUP standards, they are open to further discussions as the materials may directly impact or be addressed by an approval standard. This will not be a food truck. It is proposed to be a mobile cart which is non-motorized and Applicant has no objection to such a condition being imposed on an approval. The application states that the plaza with this use could accommodate up to 28 seats around small bistro style tables while maintaining pedestrian flow, as currently shown. The point of this use is to create a vibrant open commercial space drawing and serving pedestrian traffic. Provided that the seating meets health and safety codes allowing necessary access through the site, the number of seats will be driven by the use of the space by patrons. The Applicant included in its application the potential maximum number of seats that could be made available but does not see that number as an impact that must be mitigated under the CUP standards. The application for the temporary use, to track with the OSF season, will be revocable and subject to all the oversight and compliance requirements of every CUP permitted by the City. Should the Applicant fail to follow the permitted use or conditions of approval the normal course of ADC 18.1.6.060 will certainly be followed by the City through the normal enforcement process. As with any applicant seeking a use approval or CUP, the Applicant will be making an investment of time and money in bringing this proposed use into operation, if approved. An annual review of this approval is overly burdensome and not strictly following the guidelines for a Condition of Approval as set forth in ADC 18.1.6.050. We look forward to a discussion with the Historic Commission in September in regard to the approval standards. Please feel free to contact me with any further concerns we can address before that meeting or anything else you feel we could prepare to address so that this time is as productive as possible. Please confirm when and where that appearance is scheduled. Please also consider this letter a request by the Applicant to continue the application for the amount of time specific from the initial Historic Commission meeting held to this next regularly scheduled meeting in September. Best regards, Alan Harper Attorney at Law 541-659-9401 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: 2015-01496 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 South Second Street OWNER: MPM Investments APPLICANT: 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 sidewalks along the perimeter of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1--5700. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, September 2, 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, September 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: September 8, 2015 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-2015-01496.docx 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. 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:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01496.docx 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. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE UNIFIED LAND USE ORDINANCE 18.5.7.040.B Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit 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. 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. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2015\\PA-2015-01496.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: 2015-01512 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 198 Hillcrest OWNER/APPLICANT: Britt Pearson DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to alter a non-conforming structure. The applicant proposes to add COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; 39 1E 09CA; TAX LOT: 9900 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 26, 2015 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: September 11, 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 Division Staffision. (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-2015-01512.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-2015-01512.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 September 2015 Ashland Historic Review Board Schedule Meet at 3:00pm, Lithia Room* September 17th September 24th October 1st October 8th *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 8/26/2015 dev \\comm- G: 20442233 -- WorkPhone552552 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