HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-13 Planning PACKET
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 13, 2021
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. March 9, 2021 Regular Meeting.
2. March 23, 2021 Special Meeting
IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00025, Tax Lot #600 on the newly constructed
Independent Way
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00141
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 599 East Main Street
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for Livni Family Trust (Gil
Livni, )
Trustee
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599
East Main Street including converting the former church to use as office/assembly space and
adding a new entry. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit as it
involves the alteration of an existing non-conforming development where no off-street parking is
available, and Street Tree Removal Permits to remove and replace two Callery Pear street trees
(10.2-inch & 12.7-inch DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AC; TAX LOT
#: 7600
VII. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES- Draft
March 9, 2021
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Haywood Norton April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Roger Pearce Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson
Lisa Verner
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Kerr KenCairn recused Paula Hatt
y()y
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar issued the following announcements:
City Councilor Paula Hyatt, current liaison to the Planning Commission, was introduced to the group. Ms. Hyatt
shared that she will be streaming the live meeting videos but will not be attending virtual meetings when quasi-
judicial hearings are scheduled.
The March 23, 2021 Planning Commission meeting will include a presentation of the draft Housing Capacity
Analysis.
The Independence Way planning action for IPCO Development Corporation has requested that the Planning
Commission postpone the adoption of findings. They are exploring possible changes to the building footprints and
may return to the commission with revisions.
Mr. Severson provided a brief update on the LUBA appeal for 1511 Highway 99 North/Kendrick Enterprise.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.February 9, 2021 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Verner m/s to approve the minutes of February 9, 2021. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM – None
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00026
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Mountain Meadows Drive & Skylark Place
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for Hunter & Madeline Hill
(owners, TL #234) Mountain Meadows Owners Association (owners, TL.#88000)
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approvals for a ten lot subdivision under
the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9), and Site Design Review approval
for an eight-unit multi-family senior housing development for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #234)
at the southeast corner of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. The application also
includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow the applicant to provide
curbside sidewalks on their property, adjacent to the right-of-way, and to provide head-in on-
Ashland Planning Commission
March 9, 2021
Page 1 of 7
street parking that is partly within the right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property
along Skylark Place; and a request for Solar Access Exceptions to allow the proposed Units #3
& #7 to shade the south walls of Units #2 & #6 greater than the shadow that would be cast by a
six-foot fence on the property line. (An associated request for a Property Line Adjustment
between the subject property and the Mountain Meadows Parkside Condominiums property
(Tax Lot #88000) on Golden Aspen Place immediately to the south has been approved
ministerially.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Healthcare; ZONING: HC; MAP: 39 1E
04AD; TAX LOT #: 234 and 88000.
Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Verner, and Norton conducted site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and explained the application is for:
Outline and Final Plan approvals for a 10-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options chapter;
Site Design Review of an 8-unit multi-family senior housing development;
An exception to the Street Standards to allow the applicant to provide curbside sidewalks on their property,
adjacent to the right of way, and to provide head-in on-street parking that is partly within the right of way and partly
on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place; and
Solar Access Exceptions to allow proposed units #3 and #7 to shade the south walls of units #2 and #6 greater
than the shadow that would be cast by a 6 ft. fence on the property line.
Mr. Severson reviewed the aerial map of the site and noted the location of the clubhouse and head-in parking occurring on
the site. He also reviewed the 1995 Mountain Meadows Community Master Plan; the proposed site plan for the new units;
the proposed lot configuration; the planting plan; the grading and utility plans; the unit elevations; and the floor plans. Mr.
Severson elaborated on the parking for the area and stated the proposed site has been used for head-in parking due to its
proximity to the clubhouse. He stated Mountain Meadows is a 55+ retirement community and some residents have mobility
challenges and need to drive to the clubhouse. He explained the clubhouse does have parking, but the demand is high and
additional parking is needed. He stated the applicants are requesting an exception to the parking standards to provide head-
in parking to residents that are unable to walk to the clubhouse. Mr. Severson noted this is the final phase in this
development and is the last opportunity for them to provide centralized parking.
Mr. Severson reviewed the solar access exception request and explained due to the grade changes and narrow north-south
lot configurations, it would be difficult to shift the unit footprints to comply with the solar requirements. He noted rooftop solar
access will be maintained for all units.
Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is supportive of approving the application.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Harper questioned the parking layout and stated it seems unusual to have parking that is partially in the right
of way and partially on private property. Mr. Severson stated the Public Works Department has reviewed this request and
did not raise any issues. He added the Mountain Meadows Owners Association would be responsible for maintaining the
parking, sidewalk, and landscaping proposed on their property.
Commissioner Norton noted that Skylark Drive dead-ends and asked if the road would ever be extended. Mr. Severson
stated it is doubtful that it would be extended since it butts ups to the city limits and confirmed that the only traffic on this
section of roadway would be associated with this development.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 9, 2021
Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Harper requested clarification on the street design exception. Mr. Severson stated the applicants are
requesting to not have a standard parkrow and to install head-in parking. Typically, you would have parallel parking in street
bays, or in some cases angled parking. Mr. Molnar noted the street design standards can be found in AMC 18.4.6.040.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Introduced the project team: Madeline Hill, Mountain Hill Estates
Owner; project architect Bruce Richey, Oregon Architecture; project manager Steve Ennis; and civil engineer Mark Dew.
Ms. Gunter provided a presentation and explained Mountain Meadows is a planned senior living community within the city’s
Healthcare Services Overlay. In June 1995, the City Council approved the community plan which provides a variety of uses
and development types, including attached, detached, and multi-unit residential dwellings, mixed use structures, activity
centers, a large community park, and smaller pocket parks all within a senior resident oriented development. She added all
of the units are designed with universal housing standards in mind. Ms. Gunter stated the property is a vacant parcel bound
by Skylark Place and Mountain Meadows Dr. She noted the city limits and Urban Growth Boundary are along the east
property line, there is 7 ft. of elevation change from west to east, and the property has a 12 ft. rise rom the intersection of
Mountain Meadows Dr. along Skylark Place. Ms. Gunter explained the proposal is to develop the approximately .8-acre
parcel with an 8-unit, 10-lot single family residences using the Performance Standards Option. The units would be sold
individually as owner occupied residences and each unit will be a member of the Mountain Meadows Owners Association.
Ms. Gunter commented on the street development pattern and stated this phase of development would be consistent with
the pattern found throughout the Mountain Meadows Community. She explained both Mountain Meadows Dr. and Skylark
Pl. have a 41 ft. right of ways. She stated the proposed improvements would add a landscaped park row, 5 ft. sidewalks,
and a parking bay for the on-street parallel parking spaces along Mountain Meadows. She stated Skylark Pl. is a dedicated
public street that terminates into the adjacent property to the east and serves as the access to the parking garage for the
Golden Aspen condo building. She stated Skylark Pl. is proposed to be improved with 16 head-in parking spaces, including
one ADA space and a 5’6” sidewalk. The only improvements within the public right-of-way would be the landscape islands
and a portion of the head-in parking spaces. She added the street pattern within this community was designed specifically
for mobility challenged individuals, with accessible parking in close proximity to the uses it is intended to serve. Ms. Gunter
stated there are four parallel parking spaces along the Mountain Meadows Dr. frontage, and under the Performance
Standards Subdivision there could be four parallel spaces along the Skylark frontage, however this would not provide what
is needed by the community or provide excess parking for users who live further away from the community buildings and
park areas. Ms. Gunter stated the standards allow for exceptions due to unique and unusual circumstances and believes the
use, coupled with the grading issues of the site, meets the requirements to grant the exception.
Ms. Gunter commented on the solar setbacks and stated the exception requested will impact the passive solar on one
exterior wall of two of the eight residences, however the rooftop solar access will not be affected. She explained the
alternative to requesting the exception would be to step the structures, sidewalks, or steepen driveways and sidewalks to
reduce the height of the structure for solar purposes, but retaining finished grades at no more than 2.5%-3% is critical for
senior housing development and this is a unique component to this development.
Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation and stated the proposal and requested exceptions meet the standards. They
believe the commission can support the exception requests with findings based on the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan and within the purpose and intent of the Site Development Standards.
Bruce Richey/Oregon Architecture/Addressed the commission and stated the design of this lot was impacted by the
existing street elevations as well as the 12 ft. elevation change across the property. He stated getting the drainage to work
property and providing easy access to the units steered how they ended up with this design configuration. He added
providing a design that worked well for senior living was a top criteria.
Madeline Hill/Mountain Hill Estates Owner/Stated they did not want to ask for the exceptions but believes this is the best
thing to do. She added the head-in parking along Skylark is already there and is working well.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 9, 2021
Page 3 of 7
Questions of the Applicant:
Commissioner Thompson asked if the solar exception for Unit 7 would be needed if it were not 2 stories. Mr. Richey
responded that they would still need the exception if it were a single story. Ms. Hill noted the second story serves like an
ARU for adult children who are assisting their aging parents.
Steve Ennis commented that due to adult care givers, there is a tremendous need for additional parking at this development.
He added this lot has been used for nearly 20 years as an unofficial parking lot and there is a strong need for additional
parking in the development.
Public Testimony:
Lee Bowman/Stated the parking demand is high and since this is the final phase in this development, they know what the
demand is, and this is not a hypothetical situation. He stated parallel parking along Skylark Place would make it difficult for
cars to get out of there. He stated right angle parking is strongly preferred by senior drivers and they will not have to go
down to the end of the road and turn around in order to exit the area like they would with parallel spaces.
Richard Kinsinger/Stated he has participated in the task force appointed by the homeowner’s association to work with
Madeline Hill and Steve Ennis on the design. He stated the task force is in full support of what has been presented.
Robert Tower/Stated he has served as president of the Mountain Meadows Owners Association for the last 4 years and the
topic he routinely hears is parking and the lack of parking availability in the evenings, especially when going to the
clubhouse for meals. He stated he wholeheartedly endorses the application as presented.
Chair Norton closed the record and public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision:
Commissioner Harper requested clarification from staff regarding the dead-end street, and stated the standards require a
turnaround at the end. Mr. Severson clarified there is a driveway into the parking structure at the southeast of the site that
functions as a turnaround, however it is a 3-point turn. He added this an existing configuration, so this standard does not
apply to this proposal.
Commissioner Thompson stated she is sympathetic for need for additional parking and this is a very practical thing to be
considering, however she is struggling with the language for the exception which requires demonstrable difficulty.
Commissioner Pearce commented that the difficulty is the use itself, which is unique. He stated they have a lot of caretakers
coming in and out and there is a lot of traffic than an ordinary residential development probably wouldn’t have. Mr. Severson
agreed and stated the difficultly is in meeting the needs of the use, which is unique. Commissioner Pearce noted this is the
final part of their master plan and installing parallel parking along here does not serve the intent of the master plan and the
parking will work better as proposed. He added he is encouraged that the Public Works Dept. is fine with this as well.
Commissioner Harper added the dead-end configuration would make parallel parking more difficult.
Regarding the solar issue, Commissioner Pearce stated he was persuaded by the existing grade argument and noted the
need for the site to be level for wheelchair accessibility. Commissioner Verner stated the homeowners would still be able to
install solar panels on the roofs and they are not obstructed.
Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-T2-2020-00026 with the conditions proposed in the staff report.
In particular, the commission believes the transportation exceptions are warranted because of the proposed use of
the entire facility and the fact that it is on a dead-end street which would make parallel parking very difficult.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for the motion and believes the motion and discussion clarified
the unique components of this application. Voice Vote: Commissioners Pearce, Dawkins, Verner, Thompson, Harper,
and Norton, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 9, 2021
Page 4 of 7
B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00028
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 364 Walker Avenue (Walker Elementary School)
APPLICANT/OWNER: HMK Company for the Ashland School District
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will conduct an initial public hearing to review details of the
proposal and take public comments on a request for Site Design Review approval for a 22,450 square foot,
single-story addition to Walker Elementary School at 364 Walker Avenue. As part of the proposal, the
parking lot and drop-off lane would be relocated and expanded, with access to be taken via Hunter Court
(the driveway serving Hunter Park) and a new courtyard would be created. The application also includes
requests for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the School District’s Master Sign Permit Program
(PA#2012-00899) to allow new signage for Walker Elementary School in conjunction with the proposed
addition, and Tree Removal Permits to remove 20 trees. An existing 9,700 square foot classroom will be
demolished in conjunction with the proposal. No final decision will be made at this initial public hearing;
the item will come back to the Planning Commission for a decision at the April 13, 2021 meeting.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 10; TAX
LOT #: 3600.
Chair Norton clarified this is the initial evidentiary hearing and no decision will be made tonight.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Harper, Verner, and Norton conducted site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report. He explained the request is for site design approval for a 22,450
sq.ft. single story addition and demolishing a 9,700 sq.ft. classroom building. As part of the proposal, the existing drop-off
lane at the corner of Walker and Homes, and the parking lot off Homes Ave., are to be relocated and expanded with parent
pick-up and drop-off access taken from Homes Ave. and Hunter Court. Mr. Severson stated the use of Hunter Court is key
issue since this is not a dedicated street and is on Park’s property. The applicants are in discussions with the Parks
Department, but permission to use Hunter Court has not yet been obtained. Mr. Severson stated no decision will be made
on this application until the issues regarding the use of Hunter Court have been resolved.
Mr. Severson reviewed the vicinity map, demolition plan, site plan, tree protection and removal plan, planting plan, and
elevations. He also shared images of Homes Ave. and Hunter Court, and the applicant’s renderings of the proposed
construction.
Mr. Severson noted the packet materials include a memo from the Parks & Recreation Commission which details the issues
surrounding the use of Hunter Court. He stated this application will likely come back to the commission in a different form at
their April meeting once the outstanding issues have been resolved.
Applicant’s Presentation:
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Introduced the project team: Mike Freeman, HMK Company;
Steve Mitzel, Ashland School District; Matthew Guthrie, BBT Architects; and Todd Powell, Powell Engineering Consulting.
Ms. Gunter provided a presentation and explained the proposed changes to Walker Elementary School are in response to
the outlined goals of the 2018 school improvement bond, which include: comprehensive renovations, the replacement of a
classroom wing with new classrooms, climate resiliency, seismic retrofit, improved campus security including a new secure
entrance, and respect for the historic character of the structure. Ms. Gunter stated the proposal is a result of many months of
community collaboration and the proposed design, layout, and construction are consistent with the city’s Climate & Energy
Action Plan.
Ms. Gunter reviewed the site plan and stated the largest improvement proposed is a new 22,450 sq.ft. single-story
classroom building. The new classroom wing will have general classrooms, a sensory classroom, a SPED dedicated
Ashland Planning Commission
March 9, 2021
Page 5 of 7
classroom area, new kindergarten classrooms with kinder-sized restrooms, and general activity spaces for small group
breakout areas. She added an existing 9,700 sq.ft. classroom wing will be demolished as part of this proposal.
Ms. Gunter commented on the removal and reconfiguration of the existing non-conforming parking area and explained the
site plan included in the packet materials proposed to create a new vehicular access and proposed parking area off Hunter
Court. Hunter Court is a private driveway that provides access to Hunter Park and the Daniel Meyer Pool, and the original
proposal was to add a longer parent drop-off lane, on street parking bays, and a right turn lane from Hunter onto Homes.
Following the meeting with the Parks Commission, the site plan has been modified to better address the driveway alignment
issues, provide more tree protection in the parkrow, and address the Parks Commission’s concerns regarding bicycle and
pedestrian circulation. Ms. Gunter stated the modified proposal retains the existing site access from Homes Avenue as the
vehicular access to the Walker Elementary School campus. The two existing driveway approaches on Homes will be
relocated to the east, away from the Walker/Homes intersection, and the driveways will provide access to a 66-vehicle
parking lot. The driveway curb cut on Walker at the intersection will be removed. Ms. Gunter stated the proposal does not
include sidewalks or dedicated bicycle lanes connected to the Ashland Central Bike Path. She commented on the financial
concerns these improvements would cause and stated these improvements are beyond the scope of the project area and
beyond the scope of the citizen approved bond.
Matthew Guthrie/Commented that this is a demolition project and addition that would replace the existing classrooms in the
east wing and relocate programs that are currently being held in the school’s basement to the main floor.
Commissioner Harper questioned how the proposal will impact traffic on the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner
Pearce requested additional information on how access and student pick-ups/drop-offs will work.
Public Input:
Michael Black/Parks & Recreation Director/Thanked the applicants for looking at alternatives and proposing a modified
design to address their concerns but requested clarification if the plan displayed tonight is what is now being considered. Mr.
Black stated most of their issues go away if the school is no longer proposing access from Hunter Court and not using the
storm drain, but stated it is still necessary to look at Hunter Court and how it functions currently. He explained parents often
use Hunter Court to drop off their children and will park on the west side of the street next to the playing fields. He added this
is not a public street but it does function as one. Mr. Black commented on the pedestrian safety issues and stated Hunter
Court should be addressed. He stated sidewalks should go all the way down and there should be a connection to the
bikepath without users having to cross driveways. Mr. Black encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the pedestrian
accessibility and safety issues. He stated there is a lot of pedestrian traffic that is generated by the school and hopes this will
be addressed.
Mike Gardiner, Ashland Parks & Recreation Commissioner/Voiced his concurrence with the issues outlined by Mr.
Black.
Questions of the Applicant:
Commissioner Norton asked the applicant if the plan displayed tonight is the plan they intend to move forward with. Mr.
Gunter stated “yes”. She added access from Homes will be the final plan due to the street improvements that would be
needed if access was taken from Hunter Court. She added because Hunter Court is not a public right of way this would
cause future maintenance issues for the school district.
Commissioner Harper questioned if the Parks Commission would consider limiting vehicular traffic on Hunter Court. Mr.
Black responded that this would negatively impact the city’s Senior Center, which provides programs and services
throughout the day. He stated a better solution would be to improve the cross section of the road to meet the criteria of the
people who use it. He noted the bicycle and pedestrian traffic in area, as well as kids getting in and out of cars to go over to
the school, and stated it makes sense to put a sidewalk along the school’s frontage on the west side of the street.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 9, 2021
Page 6 of 7
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Thompson noted the issues regarding pick-up and drop-off circulation. She stated in the current submission
there is a lane that goes along the side of the parking area, and it is not clear whether this circulation path will be practical.
She added they need a workable circulation pattern that minimizes the use of Hunter Court.
Commissioner Harper agreed and stated he shares the same concerns. He stated he would be interested to hear some
expertise on the pedestrian safety issue of students being dropped off in the parking lot.
Commissioner Pearce commented that the school district had planned to utilize Hunter Court but due to the additional
improvements that would need to be installed they have modified their plan. He stated it is not clear how the circulation,
transportation, and curb cuts will work from the brief conceptual drawing the applicants shared tonight and they need clarify
on how this will work and the utilities as well.
Commissioner Verner requested the applicant’s provide additional details on the proposed signage.
Mr. Molnar commented that this is the first time staff has seen the revised site plan and noted the need to route the proposal
through the other city departments, including the Public Works Department and Fire Department.
Commissioner Norton encouraged the school district to recontact the surrounding neighborhood and inform them of the
changes.
Commissioners Harper/Dawkins m/s to continue this hearing to the April 13, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Ashland Planning Commission
March 9, 2021
Page 7 of 7
OutlineandFinalPlanapprovalsforatenlotsubdivisionunderthePerformance
AMC18.3.9
StandardsOptionsChapter().
SiteDesignReviewapprovalforaneight-unitmulti-familyseniorhousingdevelopment
forthevacanttaxlot#234.
ExceptiontotheStreetStandardstoallowtheapplicanttoprovidecurbsidesidewalkson
theirproperty,adjacenttotheright-of-way,andtoprovidehead-inon-streetparkingthat
ispartlywithintheright-of-wayandpartlyontheadjacentprivatepropertyalong
SkylarkPlace.
SolarAccessExceptionstoallowtheproposedUnits#3and#7toshadethesouthwalls
ofUnits#2and#6greaterthantheshadowthatwouldbecastbyasix-footfenceonthe
propertyline.
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS
FINAL PHASE
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
GRADING PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
OPEN SPACES
STREET STANDARDS
SOLAR SETBACKS
EXISTING GRADE ON S SIDE OF
UNIT 7
CONCLUSION
SITE PLAN
MODIFICATION TO ALIGN DRIVEWAYS
SITE ACCESS ROUTES
HOMES AVENUE DRIVEWAY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROPOSED ADDITION AREA
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
March 23, 2021
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Roger Pearce Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Lynn Thompson
Lisa Verner
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Alan Harper Paula Hyatt
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar issued the following announcements:
The City Council approved moving forward with a zoning evaluation of commercial and employment lands to allow
more housing.
Building permits were pulled recently for the Columbia Care Center project at 1661 Ashland Street.
There were possibly two public hearings scheduled for the commission meeting on April 13, 2021.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
February 23, 2021 Special Meeting.
1.
Commissioner Dawkins/KenCairn m/s to approve the minutes of February 23, 2021. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
- None
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00026, Mountain Meadows Drive & Skylark Place.
Commissioner KenCairn recused herself from the item due to a conflict of interest. She was part of the project team.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Verner declared no ex parte contact on the matter.
Commissioner Verner/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2020-00026.
Commissioner KenCairn abstained
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
due to a conflict of interest.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 23, 2021
Page 1 of 6
VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00025
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot #600 on the newly constructed Independent Way
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services/IPCO Development
Corporation
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing to consider proposed
modifications to a request for Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new
commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed
public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road. Both buildings would be part of
the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex, and would share driveway accesses,
parking areas and landscaped areas. The first building is proposed to be 9,919 square feet and would
be constructed adjacent to Independent Way. The second proposed building would be 17,859 square
feet and would be near the south property line. The application previously included a request for an
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-
foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street. Since the initial public hearing in
February, the Exception request has been removed from the proposal and the Commission will
revisit the application in light of this change. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment;
ZONING: E-
Chair Norton explained why the Commission was reopening the public hearing.
Commissioner Dawkins/KenCairn m/s to reopen the public hearing for PA-T2-2020-00025.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Pearce asked where the process was at in the 120-day period. Senior Planner Derek Severson
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
had received a signed request from the applicant requesting a 60-day extension.
Chair Norton reopened the public hearing for PA-T2-2020-00025. He read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissions Dawkins declared no ex parte contact and no recent site visits. Commissioner Thompson, KenCairn and Verner
had no ex parte contact on the matter. Commissioner Pearce had driven past the site and had no ex parte contact with the
public. He did exchange emails with Mr. Molnar and Chair Norton regarding the procedural issue of reopening a public hearing.
Chair Norton visited the site and exchanged emails with Commissioner Pearce and Mr. Molnar regarding procedures on
reopening the hearing. He also emailed staff his concerns with parking.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached). The applicant had revised their application. They
would retain:
Their request for Site Design Review approval to construct two new commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600
adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road.
o
the south property line.
o
The applicant removed the following from their application:
The application NO LONGER includes a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards
(AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street.
The applicant withdrew the Exception request and proposed the following modifications to their original request:
The depth of Building #6 has been reduced by seven feet, with a commensurate reduction in building floor area of
1,000 square feet.
The requisite ten-foot landscape buffer is now proposed between the building and the street.
Staff supported the changes to the application and recommended approval.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 23, 2021
Page 2 of 6
Questions of Staff
- None
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/
Following the last commission meeting, the building was reduced
in size to accommodate the ten-foot landscape buffer. The proposal addressed parking for the new construction and retained
required parking for associated development owned by the same property owners. It met landscaping and lot coverage
requirements with adequate buffers for the riparian areas.
Questions of the Applicant
- None
Public Testimony
Chair Norton noted written testimony submitted by Craig Anderson.
Ms. Gunter commented the revisions to the application spoke for themselves and the criteria was addressed. There was
nothing to rebut in the letter submitted by Craig Anderson.
Chair Norton closed the public hearing and the record.
Deliberation and Decision
Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-T2-2020-00025 with the conditions noted.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner KenCairn appreciated the applicants making the modifications to the application. Mr. Molnar
addressed the written testimony received from Mr. Anderson. If the Commission approved the application, he wanted to
ensure the findings reflected that the Commission did not find the points made by Mr. Anderson were not relevant because
the reconsideration was not timely at this point. The reconsideration would need to be made seven days after the notice of
decision was mailed. Commissioner Pearce added the decision was not final until the Commission officially passed the
findings and the Chair signed them. In this situation, the Commission had not reached the final decision.
Chair Norton would not support the motion. He did not have the evidence needed to decide on the three required findings.
Commissioner Norton voiced his discomfort
He read from the minutes from the Commission meeting February 23, 2021,
with the parking layout between the two lots, even if it were done with easements, and requested this element be
. He further expressed his
discomfort regarding the shared parking and thought it could only be addressed with easements. The staff report and modified
proposal from the applicant did not address parking concerns. Commissioner Pearce explained the applicant had satisfied
parking on the site. He a He thought it could be done
with a recorded covenant and did not think the Commission could require a permanent easement. Commissioner Thompson
explained they would have to retain the eight parking spaces because they were needed. Mr. Severson confirmed that and
showed a slide from the meeting on February 23, 2021 (see attached) that detailed the parking for the adjacent site.
Commissioner Pearce suggested a condition that if the eight parking spaces required for the property next door were never
used or might go away, the property owner must notify the City. Commissioner Pearce and Thompson provided examples
where notifying the City would be required.
Commissioner Pearce motioned to amend the motion and add a condition that if the parking spaces were not used,
the owner was required to notify the City.
Commissioner Thompson and Dawkins accepted the amendment.
DISCUSSION:
Chair Norton would have been more comfortable had there been on-street parking. Commissioner Pearce
Roll
explained Seattle allowed parking covenants that involved an easement and the owner notifying the City of changes.
Call Vote on the Amended Motion: Commissioner Verner, Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, and KenCairn, YES; Chair
Norton, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 23, 2021
Page 3 of 6
Roll Call Vote on the Main Motion as Amended: Commissioner Thompson, Pearce, Verner, KenCairn, and Dawkins,
YES; Chair Norton, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
B. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00025, Tax Lot #600 on Independent Way.
The Commission decided to move the item to the meeting on April 13, 2021.
VII. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. Presentation and review of the draft Housing Capacity Analysis including Buildable Lands Inventory,
Housing Forecasts, and Housing Strategies as presented by EcoNorthwest
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided background on the Housing Capacity Analysis and introduced Beth Goodman
from ECONorthwest. Ms. Goodman provided a presentation (see attached):
Agenda
Project Schedule
Residential Land Needs Analysis Results
Land Sufficiency Results 2021-2041 (Scenario 2)
Mr. Goldman responded to a question about housing capacity in the Normal Neighborhood. It was listed in the presentation
because Normal Neighborhood was a specific comprehensive plan designation. It was in several sub zones that when
annexed into the city, would come in as suburban residential, multi-family residential and low-density residential. For the
housing capacity analysis, they did not take into consideration the 10 acres of R-2 zoned land and left them in the Normal
Neighborhood. Alternately, there was not R-3 zoning in the Normal Neighborhood. Density was 13.5 units per acre, not 20
units per acre.
The Railroad property was zoned E-1 in the Building Lands Inventory (BLI). It was included in commercial and employment
in terms of capacity. Even though a commercial area in the E-1 Zone could accommodate 15 residential units per acre, the
BLI deflated residential units to only 50% of commercial lands that could have housing. Ms. Goodman added the city had
only a 15-dwelling surplus in high density residential. There were 49 acres of surplus in the Croman Mill Site and 389
dwelling units of surplus in commercial and employment areas.
Actions
Components of this Project
Factors that Influence Housing Development
Housing Market Dynamics
Strategic Priorities
Next Steps
Factors that Influence Housing Development
Housing Market Dynamics Affordability M
Strategic Priorities
ECONorthwest Memorandum Summary of Options
Ms. Goodman reviewed the strategic priorities and actions with the Commission.
Strategy 1: Ensure an adequate supply of land is available and serviced.
1.4 Evaluate decreasing multi-family parking requirements.
Chair Norton commented on adequate parking spaces for units with more than three bedrooms. It was explained that
parking requirements were decreased for multi-family during the Transit Triangle modeling. Both the Commission and the
City Council approved reducing parking to one space for units less than 800 sq. ft. It increased the number of units and
added to affordable units as well. Higher levels of parking made housing less affordable for multi-family. The Commission
Ashland Planning Commission
March 23, 2021
Page 4 of 6
could add a caveat in areas where this may be appropriate and where there is transit service. It could become easier if
transit service increased in the future.
Commissioner Thompson inquired whether the action list adequately addressed rezoning commercial zones for a higher
residential component rather than residential in commercial. Ms. Goodman explained there was not a strategy for that at
this time, but the Commission could discuss adding it.
Currently, there was no development occurring in the Transit Triangle. Commissioner Pearce commented it would take
time. Staff suggested increasing incentives.
Commissioner Thompson noted the emphasis on developing smaller units and how people wanting second homes might
hinder the intended outcome. Ms. Goodman responded that could occur. However, allowing smaller units may free up
existing family housing. The City did not have a barrier to building single family homes but did for smaller units.
oning code to disallow single-family detached housing in the High-
Density Residential Plan Designation (R-3 zone).
Commissioner Verner thought this was an action they could do right away. Mr. Goldman explained there was a requirement
in multi-family zones that had to be built out 80% base density for the zone, but it did not distinguish type. Historic District
neighborhoods had single family lots in multi-family zones.
1.2Evaluate increasing allowed height in the R-2 and R-3 multi-family residential zones, outside of
designated historic districts.
Chair Norton supported increasing building height and thought selectively allowed height increases would work better than a
blanket increase. Ms. Goodman clarified the increase would be going from two story buildings to three stories. She agreed
on removing the half story requirement. This action item was the minimum for increasing building height.
2.1 Broaden the definition of dwelling unit to include other types of units such as shared housing and co-
housing, single-room occupancies, and other dwelling units.
action item could extend to co-housing of 5-6 non-related adults living together or repurposing cargo containers as housing.
2.2 Evaluate opportunities incentivize smaller units through amendments to allowable densities.
Ms. Goodman explained tiny houses could be used to house the homeless. However, in other places, there was a market
for tiny homes that were being sold for $250,000. Mr. Goldman added through current development code, units less than
500 sq. ft. were considered .5 of a unit for calculating density in the Transit Triangle. It was a way to incentivize smaller
units. Chair Norton commented that while units decreased in size, automobiles did not. Cottage housing had parking issues.
Ms. Goodman clarified tiny homes in Ashland was not something they were suggesting at this time.
Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for development affordable to all income levels
3.5 Evaluate whether the City or other public agencies have vacant or re-developable publicly owned
property could be used for development of affordable housing
Commissioner Verner suggested an inventory of public owned property to evaluate those properties for development. The
property could be gifted or given for free. Ms. Goodman responded that was the intention of the action and what the
housing production strategy would grow into.
outside of the City limits) as part of a land banking strategy
Ashland Planning Commission
March 23, 2021
Page 5 of 6
Commissioner Verner asked who would purchase the land. Ms. Goodman responded it could be the City or a land bank. It
was unclear who would purchase that land at this time. The City could purchase the land, aggregate then sell it at cost for
affordable housing.
Strategy 4: Identify funding sources to support development of infrastructure and housing affordability programs
4.1 Evaluate establishing a Construction Excise Tax.
Commissioner Pearce voiced concerned about imposing a construction tax. New construction in Ashland was very
expensive. Ms. Goodman clarified the City would not need to have a CET that was a full percentage of the permit price. It
could be a fraction of the percentage. It could also be that a CET was not appropriate for Ashland. She thought it was worth
evaluating. There were very few sources for funding affordable housing. CET was one way that allowed flexibility.
4.3 Coordinate Capital Improvements Program and Transportation System Plan infrastructure investments.
Commissioner Verner supported this action.
4.2 Evaluate using Urban Renewal to support development of infrastructure necessary to support housing
development.
The Commission discussed urban renewal and the Railroad property. Adding an action for redevelopment of the Railroad
property was suggested.
Strategy 5: Align housing planning with the Climate and Energy Action Plan
5.1 Evaluate opportunities to decrease dependence on automotive transportation in areas planned for
housing.
Commissioner Dawkins suggested tying this action to the Railroad property. Commissioner Pearce agreed. Ms. Goodman
would add an action about re-developing the Railroad property under Strategy 1 or 2. She went on to ask the Commission if
anything was missing from the Strategies and actions.
Commissioner Thompson thought there was a need to create more incentives for families to live in Ashland. Ms. Goodman
did not think the City was looking at developing larger, more expensive units. However, it could be they were lacking a tie to
multi-bedroom, multi-family units or market rate multi-family units. The City could look at tax abatements. The Commission
could decide to add an action on evaluating property tax abatements for different purposes. It would apply to rental
property. Mr. Goldman added that one of the issues over the last decade was the increasing difficulty for families with
children who made a median income to purchase median priced homes on the market. There were non-profits that
specifically targeted housing for families with children. Ms. Goodman suggested land trust models for affordable housing.
The Commission discussed using smaller lots and possibly regulating zones by bulk instead of density. Mr. Goldman
explained they allowed performance standards subdivisions that created smaller lots.
Chair Norton asked about looking at additional areas in Ashland for development. Mr. Goldman explained that development
of areas for further consideration would require extensive due diligence to determine where development was appropriate.
How much additional capacity was needed would also have to be taken into consideration.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
March 23, 2021
Page 6 of 6
Btimboe!Ipvtjoh!Dbqbdjuz!Bobmztjt
Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo
Nbsdi!34-!3132
2
Bhfoeb
Welcome
Review Residential Land Needs Analysis Results
Discuss Actions to Address Strategic Issues
Next Steps
3
Qspkfdu!Tdifevmf
We are
here.
4
Sftjefoujbm!Mboe!Offet!
Bobmztjt!Sftvmut
Mboe!Tvggjdjfodz!Sftvmut!3132.3152!)Tdfobsjp!3*
Ashland has enough land to accommodate growth (858 dwelling units)
between 2021-2041.
However, some development in Ashland’s Suburban Residential, Normal
Neighborhood, and Multifamily Residential Plan Designations will need
to be accommodated in the city’s urbanizing area.
* Plan Designation Notes:
•Low Density Residentialincludes SFRR, Low Density, Single family residential, and North Mountain.
•Commercial & Employmentincludes Commercial, Employment, Downtown, Health Care, and Southern Oregon University.
•Woodlandexcluded.
6
Bdujpot!up!Beesftt!Btimboet!
Tusbufhjd!Qsjpsjujft
Components of this Project
Housing Capacity Analysis
Housing Strategy
Technical report about:
Housing policies and actions to address
needs identified in the HCA:
Buildable lands inventory
Housing market
Land availability
Demographic and socioeconomic
Types of housing needed
characteristics of residents
Housing affordability
Housing affordability
Infrastructure needs
Forecast of new housing
Funding
Land sufficiency
Housing Production Strategy
Changes to Zoning Code
Revised Comprehensive Plan
Updated information (HCA)
Updated policies (Housing Strategy)
Housing Policies and Programs
Housing policies not addressed through
Comprehensive Plan updates
Gbdupst!uibu!Jogmvfodf!Ipvtjoh!Efwfmpqnfou
Policy & Implementation—including zoning, density,
and design requirements–must allow developer to
There must be
build a profitable project.
sufficient demand
(rents, sales
Public Policy
prices) to support
Ashland can directly
a profitable
influence public policy,
project
land, and
infrastructure.
Market
Development
Land
Ashland may have
Feasibility
Can Occur
limited influence on
market feasibility.
Developer must
control the site with
reasonable
Capital
acquisition costs
Developer must be able to access
resources for investment (e.g.,
equity investment, bank loans)
Ipvtjoh!Nbslfu!Ezobnjdt
Affordability
Median Family Income
Housing Stock Affordable
New
to High-Income
140%+
Market
Households
Supply
120%
Housing Stock Affordable
100%
to Moderate-Income
80%
Households
New
60%
Subsidized
Housing Stock Affordable
Supply
to Low-Income Households
Tusbufhjd!Qsjpsjujft
1.Ensure an adequate supply of land is available and
serviced.
2.Provide opportunities for housing development to
meet the City’s identified housing needs.
3.Provide opportunities for development of housing
affordable to all income levels.
4.Identify funding sources to support development of
infrastructure and housing affordability programs.
5.Align housing planning with the Climate and Energy
Action Plan.
11
Ofyu!Tufqt
Refine Ashland’s Housing Capacity Analysis
Report and Housing Strategy
FINDINGS
_________________________________
PA-T2-2020-00025
Tax Lot #600 on the newly constructed
Independent Way
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 13, 2021
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00025, A REQUEST FOR )
SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW COMMERCIAL/ )
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON THE VACANT TAX LOT #600 ON INDEPENDENT )
WAY, THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PUBLIC STREET BETWEEN WASHINGTON )
STREET AND TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. BOTH BUILDINGS WOULD BE PART OF )
FINDINGS,
THE IPCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SERVICE BUILDING COMPLEX AND )
) CONCLUSIONS,
WOULD SHARE DRIVEWAY ACCESSES, PARKING AREAS AND LANDSCAPING.
& ORDERS
THE FIRST BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE 9,919 SQUARE FEET AND WOULD )
BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO INDEPENDENT WAY. THE SECOND WOULD )
BE 17,858½ SQUARE FEET AND WOULD BE NEAR THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. )
)
APPLICANT/OWNERS:
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC/ )
IPCO Development Corporation )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1)Tax lot #600 of Map 39 1E 14BA is a vacant 2.07 acre parcel and is zoned Employment (E-1).
2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new
commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed
public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road. Both buildings would be part of the
IPCO Development Corporation service building complex, and would share driveway accesses, parking
areas and landscaped areas. The Building 6is proposed to be 9,919 square feet and would
be constructed adjacent to Independent Way. The approposed Building 5would be 17,858½
square feet and would be Building 6near the south property line. The application
initially included a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC
18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street,
but this component of the request was withdrawn through the hearing process. The proposal is outlined
in plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
AMC 18.5.2.050
3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows:
Underlying Zone:
A. 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.
Overlay Zones:
B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
Site Development and Design Standards:
C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 1
City Facilities:
D. 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.
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.
E. 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.
4) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16
Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by
Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-
public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual
means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen
to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not
have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that
oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a
means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can
consider in a timely manner. The subsequently-adopted House Bill #4212 further authorized governing
bodies in Oregon to conduct all public meetings using telephone or video conferencing technology or
through other electronic or virtual means.
8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on
February 9, 2020. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16 and subsequent House Bill #4212, this meeting
was broadcast live on local television channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181,
and was live-streamed over the internet on RVTV Prime at http://www.rvtv.sou.edu. A copy of the
application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and
a copy of the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the hearing. Those wishing to
provide written testimony were able to submit it via e-mail in advance of the hearing, as detailed in the
mailed and posted notices, and all written testimony received by the deadlines was made available for
Commissioners to review before the hearing and was included in the meeting minutes. In addition,
those wishing to participate during the hearing could arrange to provide oral testimony by arranging to
do so in advance of the meeting.
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 2
Prior to the closing of the public hearing on February 9, 2021 the applicant requested that the record be
left open for seven days pursuant to ORS 197.763. Because the applicant was the only participant in
the hearing, the Planning Commission left the record open for seven days, until the end of business on
February 16, 2021 and continued the meeting to a date and time certain at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 23, 2021. The Planning Commission reconvened for deliberations on February 23, 2021 and
after considering the materials received - including written submittals from the applicant while the
record was open - and the testimony presented, the Planning Commission denied the application, noting
that the Exception requested was not merited and that the Commission could not redesign the project to
comply with standards through the imposition of conditions.
Subsequent to this decision, but before the written findings formalizing the denial were adopted, the
applicant submitted a revised proposal modifying their application by removing the request for an
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards and asking that the Planning Commission reopen
the public hearing to review the application as modified.
The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, reopened the electronic public hearing on March
23, 2021 at which time written testimony submitted in advance of the hearing was considered and new oral
testimony was presented. Following the closing of the public hearing and the record, the Planning
Commission considered the materials received and testimony presented and approved the project, subject
to a number of conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the application materials, staff report, public testimony and exhibits received.
The Planning Commission further finds that the applicant submitted a revised proposal during the public
hearing process which modified their application by removing the request for an Exception to the Site
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 3
Development and Design Standards and asked that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing to
review the application as modifiedubsequent to the
but before the written findings formalizing that
denial were adopted, and proper public notice was provided that the hearing was to be re-opened. The
Planning Commission finds that this was not a reconsideration as described in AMC 18.5.1.060.H, which
only occurs following the adoption of findings formalizing a decision and the subsequent mailing of a
-opening the hearing to consider additional
modifications offered by the applicant prior to adopting a final decision was in response to new evidence
in the form of a modified request provided during the land use hearing process.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval as revised during
the hearing process meets the applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050.
2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site
Design Review approval.
The first approval criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses the requirements of the
underlying zone, requiring that, 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
The application materials explain that the subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned E-1
(Employment). There are no minimum setbacks within the E-1 zone, and the application explains that
the proposed setbacks are the minimum necessary. Along the newly constructed street Independent
Way, is proposed to have a ten-foot setback from the public street to provide
the requisite landscape buffer, and has been designed to comply with Solar Access Standard B, which
allows the structure to cast the same shadow that would be cast by a 16-foot tall fence constructed on
the north property line. Within the E-1 zoning district, 40 feet is the maximum building height; here,
Building 6 is proposed at just over 20 feet in height, while Building 5 is proposed to be 22 feet tall.
The application materials further explain that the proposed lot coverage is less than the allowed 85
percent in the zone, as the 2.07-acre parcel is proposed to have total lot coverage of approximately
69,493 square feet, or 77.08 percent. 28,775 square feet of this coverage is building footprints, while
approximately 40,718 square feet is paved. There will be approximately 4,952 square feet of new
landscaped areas within the parking areas proposed.
The property is not located within a Residential-overlay, and as such no residences are proposed and
residential density is not considered. Similarly, Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are not considered outside of
the Detail Site Review zone. Building 6 occupies the majority of the property frontage, placing the
wider side of the building to the street, and is accessed directly from the sidewalk via a centralized
stairway that extends from the sidewalk to the raised walkway . The building
has architectural details common to metal buildings in the Employment zoning district. The application
materials further note that to allow for potential intensification of uses, at the front of the building an
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 4
entry/exit door is framed but not installed to preserve the future possibility of creating an additional
tenant space, and on the south side of Building 6, area for future windows has been accommodated in
the design.
Building 5 is substantially more than 20-feet from the public street, and as such is not required to be
oriented to Independent Way. Building 5 incorporates additional areas for openings for roll-up doors
and pedestrian entrances on both its front façade (north side) and east side.
The Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have
been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of
the underlying E-1 zoning will be satisfied.
The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies with
The Planning Commission finds that the property
contains a reach of Hamilton Creek near the east property line, and as such is subject to both the Physical
& Environmental Constraints Overlay (AMC 18.3.10.080) for flood plain corridor lands and to the
Water Resources Protection Zones Overlay (AMC 18.3.11)
and as such is subject to the standards in AMC 18.3.10.100.
The application materials explain that the property contains a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ)
and a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area floodplain for Hamilton Creek, and further notes that Hamilton
Creek exits from a 60-inch culvert along the east property line. The proposed development, excepting
very small areas of the driving and parking area, is setback more than 30-feet from the mapped centerline
of Hamilton Creek. The application further notes that the 2015 Site Review application (PA #2015-
00422) which approved the installation of Independent Way included a Limited Activities and Uses
permit for the bridge crossing and also permitted a small area of encroachment into the WRPZ to
accommodate an area of the drive aisle curbing and a bio-swale/detention area. The Planning
Commission finds that the proposal complies with the 2015 approval, and that there are no additional
impacts to the WRPZ or floodplain with the development proposed.
The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is also subject to the Physical & Environmental
Constraints Overlay standards for wildfire lands, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan
addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 will need to be
provided for the review of the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property,
and any new landscaping proposed will need to comply with these standards and shall not include plants
listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant Listper Resolution #2018-028. A condition has been
included below to require a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan and plant list be provided for the
review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a building permit or to bringing any
combustibles onto the site.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion dealing with overlay zone
requirements is satisfied with the proposal.
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 5
The proposal
complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided
In this instance, the subject property is outside of the Detail Site Review and
Historic District overlay zones, and as such the applicable standards arBuilding Placement,
Orientation and Design Standards-
Residential Development in AMC 18.4.2.040; the Parking, Access & Circulation standards in Chapter
18.4.3; the Landscaping, Lighting and Screening standards in Chapter 18.4.4; and the Tree Preservation
and Protection standards in Chapter 18.4.5.
Basic Site Review Standards for Non-Residential Development (AMC 18.4.2.040)
In addressing these standards, the application materials note that proposed Building 6 is oriented towards
Independent Way which is newly constructed with sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street
trees in place. The proposed design provides for direct pedestrian access from the public street to the
entrances of the building. The pedestrian entrances are accessed via a raised walkway served by a wide,
central stair that leads directly from the public sidewalk to the walkway and entrances. Each pedestrian
entrance is clearly visible from the street with commercial entry doors, sidelight windows, awnings to
provide pedestrian coverage from sun and rain, and lighting that all enhance the sense of entry to the
tenant spaces. There is no automobile circulation or off-street parking between the building and the
street. Parking areas are proposed to be placed to the side and rear of the street-fronting building.
The the proposed Building 6, and the driveways
are to the sides of the building allowing positioning of the wider side of the building to the street with
no gaps in the frontage. Driveway aprons, vehicle aisles and parking areas are to the sides and rear of
the building.
The Planning Commission finds that as modified during the hearing process, the proposed site plan
includes the required ten-foot landscape buffer adjacent to the street, and further finds that a size-,
species- and planting-specific landscape and irrigation plan will be provided for the review and approval
of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittal.
Refuse and recycle containers are to be located within the buildings and placed outside for pick-up on
garbage day each week. The application explains that this is how the majority of the tenants of the
property operate, that the arrangement is formalized in the lease agreements, and that this has worked
well for the both the property owner and for Recology.
The application materials point out that proposed exterior lights are dusk to dawnlights
recessed under the awnings and downward directed to avoid directly illuminating adjacent properties.
Noises generated by the site are anticipated to be consistent with what can be expected in an Employment
zone where permitted uses include production, manufacturing, and repair.
Parking, Access & Circulation (AMC 18.4.3)
The parking ratio industrial, manufacturing, production, warehousing, and freight uses is the lesser of
one parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or one space for every two employees, plus
one space for a company vehicle. Based on the 27,778 square feet of new building area proposed, a
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 6
total of 28 parking spaces are required (27,778/1,000 = 27.778). The application materials note that 31
off-street parking spaces are proposed to address the parking demand here, along with an additional
materials note that the minimum required back-up area of 22-feet is available for each parking space,
and that the parking area will be developed to address requirements for landscaping, shade trees, micro-
climatic impacts and storm water quality management further explaining that the parking lot has been
designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts through the use of a bio-swale filtration as
provided in the Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual. While the application materials indicate that
the design minimizes the micro-climatic and environmental impacts of the parking area, the Commission
finds that it is unclear which of the strategies in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5.a is proposed, and a condition has
accordingly been added to require that the building permit submittal clearly address which of these
standards (i.e. light-colored or porous paving, additional shade through structures or extra trees) is to be
relied upon in the final design.
All of the IPCO Development Corporation Service Building sites are interconnected and accommodate
semi-truck and other vehicular traffic through the properties. The new parking area is proposed to be
accessed from the driveways that extend from Independent Way. With the new development, pedestrian
access is extended from Independent Way along both sides of the proposed Service Building #6 and
extends to the entrances of Service Building #5. The sidewalks are raised when crossing drive aisles as
required by code. The parking areas provide for adequate back-up and turn around area is provided for
on the site plans.
The application materials further note that the area along the curb adjacent to the Hamilton Creek
corridor are intended to provide for semi-truck staging on-site, but have the potential to be restriped for
parking if the use of the property were to intensify. Bicycle parking is proposed to be located within the
buildings.
Tree Preservation & Protection (AMC 18.4.5)
The application explains that in addition to the newly-planted street trees, there are parking lot shade
trees along the west property line that will be protected from construction impacts. There are also
existing trees in the riparian drainage area on the east side of the driveway and parking area. A tree
protection fencing plan has been provided to address the three trees in the parking area. The application
details the placement of requisite tree protection fencing in the form of six-foot tall, chain link fencing
at the driplines of the trees identified on the provided tree inventory, and further notes that silt fencing
will be provided to prevent erosion into the Water Resource Protection Zone before site disturbance.
The application recognizes that fencing will need to be installed flush with grade and inspected by the
Staff Advisor prior to any site work, and further indicates that no construction activity or excavation
will occur within the identified tree protection zones and that no building supplies, soil, equipment,
vehicle parking or waste, including chemically injurious materials or liquids, construction debris, run-
off, or excess concrete excess, will be allowed in the tree protection zones.
The Commission finds that the newly-planted street trees in the park row planting strip on Independent
Way will also need protection during site development, and a condition has been required to require a
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 7
revised tree protection plan which also addresses the street trees shall be provided for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4.
The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, 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
The application indicates that public infrastructure was extended with the construction of Independent
Way to serve the subject property, noting that required improvements for a neighborhood commercial
collector street including pavement, curb, gutter, a six-foot sidewalk, a seven-foot-wide landscape park
row with street trees, and streetlights were installed and utilities were extended. The application
materials further detail that utilities in place include an eight-inch water main, an eight-inch sanitary
sewer main and a 12-inch storm sewer main within the Independent Way right-of-way. In addition, the
application indicates that large electric transformers were installed with previous site work as well as
the street installation, providing sufficient electric service capacity to support underground electric
service to serve development of the property, and that associated private utility easements were extended
through the property with these installations. The application concludes by noting that the installation
of adequate utilities to serve the property was contemplated with the development of Independent Way,
and the civil engineer who designed the street extension is also the engineer of record for the current
application. Public Works and Engineering staff have confirmed that adequate capacity of utilities to
enable the envisioned development of the site was planned and installed with the Independent Way
project.
property from public utility easements and street right-of-way adjacent to the site, and that based on the
findings and conceptual plans provided, adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent
rights-of-way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions
have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the
review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments in conjunction with the building permit
submittals, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to
final project approval.
The Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout
the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. The
Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied.
The application originally included a request for a single Exception to the Site
Development and Design Standard in AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a which Landscape areas at
least ten feet in width shall buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the buffer is not required in the
Detail Site Review, Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays. This Exception request was
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 8
withdrawn by the applicant during the hearing process, and as such the application includes no
Exceptions.
The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the
proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Site Design Review approval to construct two new industrial buildings along the newly-
constructed Independent Way is supported by evidence contained in the whole record. The Commission
finds that the proposed Building #6 sits above the sidewalk and will positively contribute to the
pedestrian streetscape
enhance the pedestrian experience. Both new buildings provide needed new employment space within
With that, the Commission concludes that the development merits approval with the conditions detailed
below. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the
following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2021-00025. Further, if any one or more of the
conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2021-00025 is
denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein, including but not limited to providing the full ten-foot width landscape buffer between
the building and the sidewalk required in the Site Development and Design Standards.
2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department.
4.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in
the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for new driveway approaches or any
necessary encroachments.
5.That the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from into the
interior of the building.
6.That the front entrances adjacent to Independent Way shall remain functional and open to the
public during all business hours.
7.That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. Signage shall meet
the requirements of Chapter 18.4.7.
8.That should the eight parking spaces on the subject property which serve the building on the
contiguous property currently
Tolman Creek Road) ever become unavailable for that building, the applicant shall provide
notice to the Planning Department.
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 9
9.That the building permit submittal shall include:
a.Identification of all easements, including public and private utility easements, public
pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
b.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar
Setback Standard B in the formula \[(Height 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar
Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow
producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
c.Final lot coverage calculations including all building footprints; driveways, parking, and
circulation areas; and any other areas other than natural landscaping. Lot coverage shall
be limited to no more than 85 percent as required in AMC 18.2.6.030.
d.Final electric service, utility and civil engineering plans including grading, erosion
control and drainage. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants,
inspected and approved prior to final inspection/occupancy approval.
e.The final utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities
including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer mains
and services, manholes and clean-outs, and storm drainage pipes and catch basins, along
with any backflow prevention measures required by the Water Department. Any required
private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans.
f.The final electric design and distribution plan shall include load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all
other necessary equipment with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed
and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat.
Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside
of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
g.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak
rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system
(i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an
approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029.
On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. The storm
drainage plan shall detail the location and final engineering for all storm drainage
improvements associated with the project, and shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm
drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal
to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality
mitigation has been addressed through the final design.
h.Final site lighting details.
i.A final size- and species-specific landscaping plan including irrigation details satisfying
the Water Conserving Landscaping Guideline in AMC 18.4.4.030.I. New landscaping
shall comply with the General Fuel Modification Area requirements and shall not include
plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List adopted by Resolution #2018-028.
All landscaping shall be installed according to the approved plan, and tied into the
existing irrigation system, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 10
j.That a revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in 18.4.5 be
submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines
of trees identified for preservation and shall include the newly planted street trees in the
parkrow planting strip in front of the proposed Building 6 along Independent Way. The
amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip
line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept
to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root.
k.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing;
fire apparatus access and turn-around; a firefighter access pathway; fire flow; hydrant
installation, spacing and clearance; work area; applicable fire sprinkler requirements; fire
department connection; key box; extinguishers; limitations on obstructions to fire access;
and wildfire hazard area and vegetation requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed in
the permit submittals.
l.A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area
requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 shall be provided prior to bringing combustible
materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these
adopted with Resolution #2018-028.
m.The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking, spacing and coverage
requirements are met in accordance with 18.4.3.070.I. Inverted U-racks shall be used for
the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design
and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I and J, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. If bicycle parking is to be provided
within the proposed buildings, final interior dimensions of the dedicated bicycle parking
areas shall be detailed on the building permit plans to insure adequate space has been
provided. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building shall be a minimum of six
feet long by three feet wide by four feet high, shall be accessible without moving another
bicycle, and shall be clearly marked as reserved for bicycle parking only.
n.The building permit submittals shall clearly identify which of the strategies in AMC
18.4.3.080.B.5.a is being utilized to minimize the environmental and micro-climatic
impacts of the paved areas (i.e. light colored paving, porous paving, or additional shade
through added tree canopy or structures).
10.That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a.That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to permit issuance, tree removal, or any site work including demolition, staging,
storage of materials, or excavation. The Tree Verification Permit is to inspect the
identification of the tree to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for
the trees to be protected on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link
fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC 18.4.5.030.
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 11
b.Silt fencing or other approved means of stream corridor protection and erosion shall be
installed on-site, inspected in conjunction with the Tree Verification Permit, and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to permit issuance or any site work.
11.That prior to the final inspection approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a.That all landscaping in the new landscaped areas, and the irrigation system, shall be
installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
b.Any modifications to the driveway curb-cuts/approaches shall be installed under permit
from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan, inspected
and approved prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for signature. The driveway
curb cut, apron and entry area shall be sized to standard turn-around dimensions as
illustrated in AMC 18.4.6.040.G.5.
c.Civil improvements including but not limited to utility installations shall be completed
according to approved plans, inspected and approved
d.That all exterior lighting shall be selected, placed and down-directed/shrouded so as not
directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Compliance shall be site-verified by the Staff
Advisory prior to final inspection approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
e.That the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the approved plan,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
April 13, 2021
Haywood Norton, Chair Date
Planning Commission Approval
PA-T2-2020-00025
April 13, 2021
Page 12
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-T1-2010-00141
599 East Main
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 PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00141
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 599 East Main Street
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, Trustee)
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599 East Main Street
including converting the former church to use as office/assembly space and adding a new entry. The application also includes
requests for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves the alteration of an existing non-conforming development where no off-
street parking is available, and Street Tree Removal Permits to remove and replace two Callery Pear street trees (10.2-inch
& 12.7-inch DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AC; TAX LOT #: 7600
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 6:00
PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing.
ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday April 13, 2021 at 7:00 PM
Historic Commission Meeting
Historic Commission
Notice is hereby given that the will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning
Historic Commission
action on the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. If you would like to watch and listen to the meeting
virtually, but not participate in any discussion, you can use the Zoom link posted on the City of Ashland calendar website
https://www.ashland.or.us/calendar.asp .
Anyone wishing to submit written comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with
10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 5, 2021
OVER
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\E\\East Main\\EMain_599\\EMain_599_PA-T1-2021-00141\\Noticing Folder\\EMain_599_PA-T1-2021-00141_NOC_Re-Notice_revised 4.5.21.docx
If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-
April
testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject line
6, 2021.
Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Historic and Tree Commissioners to review before the
hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes.
Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic
PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 5, 2021.
meeting, send an email to In order to provide
testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email
Commission Testimony
, 2) include your name, 3) specify the date and commission meeting you wish to testify at, 4)
specify the agenda item you wish to speak to, 5) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 6) the name you
will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
-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).
Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described
planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter
Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and
RVTV Prime.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers 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.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by
email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541)
488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy
of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of
application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application
materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us.
Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the
April 13 PC Hearing Testimony
a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject
April 13 PC Hearing TestimonyApril 13, 2021.
Written testimony received by these
deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting
minutes.
Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic
April 13, 2021
meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, . In order to
provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email
April 13 Speaker Request
2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you
will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone
number you will use if participating by telephone.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
-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 Derek
Severson at 541-488-5305 or Derek.severson@ashland.or.us
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS (AMC 18.5.2.050)
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\E\\East Main\\EMain_599\\EMain_599_PA-T1-2021-00141\\Noticing Folder\\EMain_599_PA-T1-2021-00141_NOC_Re-Notice_revised 4.5.21.docx
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 (AMC 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
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.
PERMISSION TO PLANT OR REMOVE STREET TREES (AMC 13.16.030)
The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City
until a permit has been issued by the City Administrator or a duly authorized representative. Applicants for a removal permit may be required to replace the
tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value.
If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s)
shall be of a size specified in the permit and no smaller than eight feet in height or one inch in caliper 12 inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate
species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\E\\East Main\\EMain_599\\EMain_599_PA-T1-2021-00141\\Noticing Folder\\EMain_599_PA-T1-2021-00141_NOC_Re-Notice_revised 4.5.21.docx
DRAFT - BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
May 11, 2021
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T1-2021-00141, A REQUEST FOR )
SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE EXISTING BUILDING AT )
599 EAST MAIN STREET INCLUDING CONVERTING THE FORMER CHURCH TO )
USE AS OFFICE/ASSEMBLY SPACE AND ADDING A NEW ENTRY. THE APPLI- )
CATION ALSO INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS IT )
INVOLVES THE ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING DEVELOP-)
MENT WHERE NO OFF-STREET PARKING IS AVAILABLE, AND STREET TREE )
) DRAFT
REMOVAL PERMITS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE TWO CALLERY PEAR STREET
FINDINGS,
TREES (10.2-INCH AND 12.7-INCH DIAMETER AT BREAT HEIGHT) IN THE PARK )
CONCLUSIONS,
ROW PLANTING STRIP ALONG EAST MAIN STREET. )
& ORDERS
)
APPLICANT/OWNERS:
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC/ )
Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, trustee) )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #7600 of Map 39 1E 09AC is located at 599 East Main Street and is zoned Commercial (C-
1). The property is also within the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, Detail Site Review and
Wildfire Lands overlay zones.
¤
2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval to modify the xisting building
ΔΘΘ%- ¨
at ast Street including converting the former church to use as office/assembly space and
¤
adding a new ntry. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves
¤
the alteration of an xisting non-conforming development where no off-street parking is available, and
Street Tree Removal Permits to remove and replace two Callery Pear street trees (10.2-inch & 12.7-inch
%- ¨
DBH) in the park row planting strip along ast Street. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at
the Department of Community Development.
AMC 18.5.2.050
3) The approval criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as
follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying
zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,
density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 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
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 1
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.
4) The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are detailed in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows:
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.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 2
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.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 3
h.CM-C1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter18.3.2Croman
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.
5) The permission to plant or remove street trees within public right-of-way is considered a
ministerial action, and is discussed in AMC 13.06.030 as follows:
The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or
removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit
has been issued by the City Administrator or a duly authorized representative.
Applicants for a removal permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being
removed with a tree or trees of comparable value.
If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger
than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size
specified in the permit and no smaller than eight feet in height or one inch in caliper 12
inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted
according to the Recommended Street Tree List.
6) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16 Keep Government
Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by
Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak.
public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual
means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen
to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not
have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that
oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a
means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can
consider in a timely manner. The subsequently adopted House Bill #4212 further authorized governing
bodies in Oregon to conduct all public meetings using telephone or video conferencing technology or
through other electronic or virtual means.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 4
7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on
April 13, 2021. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16 and subsequent House Bill #4212, this meeting
was broadcast live on local television channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181,
and was live-streamed over the internet on RVTV Prime at http://www.rvtv.sou.edu. A copy of the
application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and
a copy of the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the hearing. Those wishing to
provide written testimony were able to submit it via e-mail in advance of the hearing, as detailed the
mailed and posted notices, and all written testimony received by the established deadlines was made
available for Commissioners to review before the hearing and was included in the meeting minutes. In
addition, those wishing to participate during the hearing could arrange to provide oral testimony by
making arrangements to do so in advance of the meeting.
Following the closing of the public hearing and the record, the Planning Commission considered the
materials received and testimony presented and denied the application, noting that they did not believe the
application materials included sufficient information and analysis to adequately demonstrate that the
proposal would 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 commercial retail use of the C-1 zone.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used:
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the application materials, staff report, public testimony and exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit approvals fails to meet all applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050
and for a Conditional Use Permit described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 5
Staff Discussion: Procedural Matters
120-Day Deadline:
The application was submitted on January 21, 2021 and deemed complete on
February 20, 2021. After attending the Historic Commission meeting to discuss the proposal in
March, the applicant granted a 30-day extension to allow for the submittal of additional materials for
review at the April 7, 2021 Historic Commission meeting. With that extension, the 120-day timeline
ends on July 20, 2021.
Site Design Review:
The application involves a new addition in the C-1 zone, and as such requires
Site Design Review approval as required in AMC 18.5.2.020.A.1. The building and site
improvements are existing, and as such the requested Site Design Review is limited to consideration
of the proposed changes as they relate to the applicable criteria and standards.
Non-Conforming Development/Conditional Use Permit:
The existing development of the
property is considered a non-conforming development as detailed in AMC 18.1.4.010.C. The existing
buildings on the subject Tax Lot #7600 (and the adjacent Tax Lot #7500, which is not part of the
current request) has previously been used as a church (The Christian Life Fellowship Foursquare
Church) which the application materials note as having weekly services with seating for up to 244
churchgoers. The required off-street parking ratio for a religious institution is one off-street parking
space per four seats, and as such 244 seats would require 61 off-street parking spaces. There are no
off-street parking spaces available on the subject Tax Lot #7600. AMC 18.1.4.040.A provides that
repair and maintenance of non-conforming developments where the development is not altered in a
way that brings the development less into conformity with standards is exempt from land use review,
but that the enlargement or alteration of a non-conforming development is subject to Conditional Use
Permit approval. Here the non-conforming development is being altered both by the change of use
from a church to proposed office and assembly use, and by separating the two contiguous tax lots
which together have made up the church campus since 1993 and instead considering the future use of
each tax lot separately.
Street Tree Removal Permits:
The application proposes to remove and replace two Callery Pear
(Pyrus calleryana) street trees in the park row planting strip along East Main Street. Street Tree
Removal Permits are a ministerial action as they are not considered to require the exercise of
substantial discretion, are regulated through AMC Section 13.06, and are approved by the Staff
The Street Tree
Consolidated Review Procedures
allows the applicant to apply for all permits for a project proposal at one time. In reviewing the
request, Tree Commissioners noted that while the tree removals were not requested based on the trees
being hazardous, dead or in immediate danger of collapse, the trees here have been in place for more
than 30 years and have not shown substantial growth. In addition, Callery Pears are described by the
applicant as a poor landscape choice, particularly in a valley that has a commercial pear-growing
industry where poorly maintained trees could become a vector for pests or disease. Tree
Commissioners supported the request for removal provided that the removals were mitigated within
12 months with two-inch caliper specimens that would achieve a large stature at maturity, and that
irrigation be provided. Tree Commissioners specifically recommended (Acer x
freemanii vars) (Acer rubrum maples as suitable mitigation species.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 6
2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal fails to satisfy all applicable criteria for
Site Design Review approval.
The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a new addition in the C-1 zone, and as
such requires Site Design Review approval as required in AMC 18.5.2.020.A.1. The Planning
Commission further finds that because the building and site improvements are already in place, the
requested Site Design Review is limited to consideration of the proposed changes as they relate to the
applicable criteria and standards. The changes proposed include the addition of a new entry at the corner,
changes to the exterior treatment of the existing building, and the removal and replacement of the rear
stairs and creation of a new rear entry and courtyard space, as well as a proposed interior remodel and
change of use.
The first approval criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses the requirements of the
underlying zone, requiring that, 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 The Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks, lot
area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage and building height are existing conditions
which are not changing with the current proposal. The Planning Commission further finds that the
, as the new corner addition with
an atrium and storefront entry creates a stronger orientation the corner as sought in the Building
Placement, Orientation and Design Standards as further detailed in the discussion of part 18.4 below.
The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies with
The Planning Commission finds that the property
is located within the Detail Site Review, Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, and Wildfire
Lands overlay zones.
The Detail Site Review overlay requires that the application address the Detail Site Review Standards
in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. Buildings are required to have a minimum floor area ratio of at least 0.50. In
this instance, the subject property is 3,484 square feet in area and a floor area of at least 1,742 square
feet is required
represents a floor area ratio of approximately 1.32, more than satisfies the minimum floor area ratio
requirement. The Commission further finds that more than 20 percent of the wall area facing the street
is provided in windows and doorways, that there are no blank walls, and that there are substantial
changes in relief on the surface of the existing building. The proposal here improves relief and
fenestration, and adds a new roof extension to provide pedestrian coverage from the rain and sun at the
entry.
Where proposed buildings are greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area or contain more than
100 feet of building frontage, the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects in AMC 18.4.2.040.D
must also be addressed. The Planning Commission finds that in this instance, the existing building is
less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area and does not have frontages of more than 100 feet, and
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 7
as such is not subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects.
The Historic District Development Standards and Historic Commission review are discussed under part
18.4 below.
The Planning Commission further finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands
overlay zone, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification
Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 must be provided for the review of the Fire Marshal prior
to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed will need to
comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List
per Resolution #2018-028.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this first criterion is satisfied.
The proposal
complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided
Staff Discussion: Part 18.4
Historic District Development (AMC 18.4.2.050)
As this is being written, the Historic Commission has not reviewed the most recent submittal materials
for compliance with the Historic District Development Standards. After reviewing the initial
submittal materials in March, Historic Commissioners were generally positive about the building
design as illustrated in the color architectural renderings. However, Commissioners were unable to
determine whether the proposal was consistent with the applicable design standards because the
building details were not sufficiently clear in the elevation drawings provided and there were
inconsistencies between the elevations and floor plans provided and the color architectural renderings.
In particular, the Historic Commission noted that:
The initial site plan and elevations were not readable with all drawings combined on one
page (i.e., site plan, elevations, floor plans) and were not drawn to scale as required by
AMC 18.5.2.040. Applicants were asked to submit plans and elevations that were scaled
for printing on 11-inch x 17-inch paper, and to provide cross-sections as required in AMC
18.5.2.040.B.4.d.
The initial floor plan shows a door facing East Main Street while the architectural
renderings do not. Commissioners asked for clarification of the location of the main
building entrance and that proposed entrance(s) be shown on the elevations and floor plans.
Commissioners expressed concern about the use of brick for the base of building and
questioned how brick would align with existing window and door openings.
Commissioners requested details on window and door types and sizes, siding and trim
types and sizes, and other specifics about the proposed exterior building materials.
Commissioners noted that the east elevation would also be visible from East Main Street,
and commented that it was difficult to see in the drawings where windows were located on
the east elevation.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 8
Commissioners
relation to the east elevation, with some suggesting that the tower feature needed to be
differentiated on the east elevation, rather than using different building materials on the
north (stucco) and east (horizontal siding) elevations. One suggestion discussed was
wrapping the stucco that is use
west elevation.
meeting on
th
April 7, and their written recommendations will be provided to the Planning Commission prior to
th
the April 13 hearing. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the request, Planning staff
would recommend that the Historic Commission
of approval.
Parking, Access & Circulation (18.4.3)
As proposed, the applicant seeks approval to allow the approximately 4,630 square foot building to
be used as office space and that 1,900 square feet of that space also have the ability to be used as an
assembly use to accommodate conferences, trade shows and meetings.
Parking ratios for office use are generally straightforward, with one off-street parking space required
for each 500 square feet of office space. A 4,630 square foot building requires ten off-street parking
spaces (4,630 sq. ft./1 off-street space per 500 sq. ft. = 9.26 off-street spaces required).
The assembly space is less clear. While there is no specific parking ratio listed for a trade show or
conference center venue and there is no allowance for a conference center/trade show venue as a
permitted use in the C--street
parking space per four seats. The application materials describe the assembly use as accessory
component of the office use, but also indicate that, The property owner and the potential tenant are
not intending for a concert venue to replace the previous church functions but wants to assure the
building is able to retain uses allowed as permitted uses in the C-1 zone. These include the permitted
historical evidence of on-site parking. Anticipated assembly events would be for the tenants of the
office space. One of the companies courted for tenancy has business conference events and business
supporting events. The company is a technology-based industry and envisions the space being used
to help promote their and similar businesses to boost the economy and technology advancement for
Ashland business sector. The subject property is part of a non-conforming development with no off-
street parking available, and the separation of the two component tax lots and change of use triggers
a Conditional Use Permit analysis of the impacts in comparison to the target retail use of the property,
as detailed in the Conditional Use Permit discussion below. Without details of the number and
frequency of assembly events or the number of potential attendees, or a clearer indication of the
parameters of the assembly use in terms of being intended as accessory to the office use but also
seeking to reserve the option for all potential uses permitted in the C-1 zone including an
s parking
discussion to clearly determine the potential parking impacts of the proposal and as such, it is not
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 9
possible to make a clear finding that the application satisfies the parking-related criteria for Site
Design Review or a Conditional Use Permit.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal fails to comply with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards for part 18.4.
The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, 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
Water, sanitary
sewer and stormwater are in place from the Fifth Street right-of-way, and both East Main Street and
Fifth Streets are public streets which are improved with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain, and
park row planting strips in place and that street trees are to be removed and new trees planted. The
Planning Commission finds that there are public facilities in place to serve the existing building, and
that no changes to the property are proposed which would further impact public facilities. The
Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied.
The final criterion foException to the Site Development and
Design StandardsThe application has requested no exceptions, and as such this criterion does not
apply.
As detailed above, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal fails to satisfactorily address
the requirements for Site Design Review approval and specifically part 18.4.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal fails to satisfy all of the applicable standards
specific to a Conditional Use Permit.
The first criterion for 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
The second criteriThat adequate capacity of City facilities
for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development,
The third approval criterion is, 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
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 10
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; and g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of
The fourth approval criterion is that,
The final criterion notes that, ional use permit applications for
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
Staff Discussion: Conditional Use Permit and
Impact Area When Compared to the Development of the Subject Lot with the Target Use of the
As detailed above, the existing development of the property is considered a non-conforming
development as detailed in AMC 18.1.4.010.C. The previous church use, which the application
indicates had seating for as many as 244 churchgoers requiring 61 off-street parking spaces, had no
off-street parking available on the subject Tax Lot #7600. AMC 18.1.4.040.A provides that repair
and maintenance of non-conforming developments where the development is not altered in a way that
brings the development less into conformity with standards is exempt from land use review, but that
beyond that the enlargement or alteration of a non-conforming development is subject to Conditional
Use Permit approval. Here the non-conforming development is being altered both by the change of
use from a church to a combined office and assembly use, and by separating the two contiguous tax
lots which together have made up the church campus since 1993 and instead seeking to consider the
future use of each tax lot individually.
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 oEvaluation of the effects of
the proposed use on the impact area is directed in the criteria to consider factors of livability in relation
to the target use of the zone including: a) similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) generation of
traffic and effects on surrounding streets; 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; and g) other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed
use. The target use for C-1 property is noted as general retail commercial use of the subject property
developed to a 0.50 floor area ratio, which would equate to 1,742 square feet of retail space for the
subject property. Conditional Use Permits are also specifically noted as not allowing a use that is
specifically prohibited, or one that is not permitted, in the zone.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 11
The Site
The subject property is 3,484 square feet in area and is located at the northeast corner of East Main
and Fifth Streets, within the C-
Historic District, Detail Site Review and Wildfire Lands overlay zones. The existing 4,630 square
foot building previously contained the sanctuary and church offices for the Christian Life Fellowship
Foursquare Church. No off-street parking is available of the subject property. (The adjacent property
to the rear of the sanctuary is located at 48 Fifth Street contains an approximately 1,200 square foot
building which was added to the church campus as a fellowship hall in 1994. The application
materials provided include a copy of the decision for PA #93-123 which noted in part that because
the fellowship hall did not increase the seating capacity of the church sanctuary at the time, it was not
seen as an intensification of the church use and as such the city could not require the improvement of
parking spaces. With the fellowship hall construction, three gravel spaces were shown to be installed
off of the alley and a condition was included to require that at least one space be accessible and include
signage and an accessible route. The current site plan illustrates four spaces in place off of the alley.
These are surfaced in gravel and are not marked or otherwise signed as accessible. 48 Fifth Street is
not part of the current application.)
The Building
The building is described as having an approximately 1,900 square foot church sanctuary of the
ground floor which accommodated up to 244 churchgoers. The upper floor consists of approximately
750 square feet of office space, with an additional 1,980 square feet of office space in a daylight
basement.
Target Use
As noted above, the target use of the property is general retail commercial use. Because the property
is located within the Detail Site Review overlay zone, the target use is retail built to a Floor Area
Ratio of 0.50 which equates to 1,742 square feet of retail space for the 3,484 square foot lot. 1,742
square feet of retail would require five off-street parking spaces (1,742 sq. ft./1 parking space per 350
sq. ft. = 4.977 parking spaces).
Church Use
The previous church use is described as including church services for 100-244 churchgoers and
church-related events such as weddings and funerals on Fridays, Saturdays and Sunday. In addition,
on weekdays, church offices were open with a staff of three to five, and a pre-school served
approximately 30 students with three teachers. The space is also noted as having being used for
community events as well as art and music classes throughout the week, as could reasonably be
expected to occur with church use.
Proposed Office & Assembly/Conference/Trade Show/Meeting Use
The initially-submitted narrative materials explain that the proposal is to convert the church building
into a modern office building which includes an approximately 1,900 square foot assembly or group
space that is part of the office uses. Existing church and multi-purpose
room to be used as professional office space able to accommodate trade events, conferences and
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 12
meeting space. In no event will occupant load exceed that already allowed for the church function
(i.e. one per 15 square feet if seated, or one per seven square feet if standing). Subsequent narrative
proposal seeks to allow for uses that have been historically allowed
(offices and a 1,900 square foot gathering space). This proposal seeks to allow for use of the building
as an office tenancy and allows for the tenants to utilize the space to host business associated
more limited than a busy
Saturday/Sunday event space, 56 weeks a year at a thriving religious institution that included offices,
pre-school and community space. The existing use of the property requires 61 parking spaces, and
none are provided on-site. The proposed use of the site as assembly and general office space will not
increase parking demand beyond the current required number of parking spaces and is considered a
decrease in occupancy.
In considering the proposal, staff note that the previous use was not as offices and a 1,900 square foot
which is a Conditional Use
Permit in the C-he
component uses operating as reasonably expected accessory uses to a religious institution were not
separately established as stand-alone uses but components of the church use. Some, such as a pre-
school or event space would not be permitted in their own right in the C-1 zone if not under the
umbrella of a church. While the applicant asserts that the proposed use should be allowed as long as
will not increase parking demand beyond the current required number of parking spaces,
entirely changing the use of an existing non-conforming development and
removing one of the two properties of the existing church campus which contains the only associated
off-street parking requires review in terms of the Conditional Use Permit criteria and must consider
the proposal in light of the adverse materials impacts on the livability of the target area when compared
to the target retail use of the property rather than in comparison to the parking demand of the previous
non-conforming development of the property.
Given that the proposal is for adaptive re-use of an existing site and building with an existing non-
conformity in that only three off-street parking spaces are available on the church campus, and the lot
containing those spaces is not part of this adaptive reuse proposal, staff believes that the key
generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets noted in AMC
18.5.4.050.A.3.b. and requires comparison of the combined impacts in terms of parking and trip
generation for the proposed 4,630 square foot office building where 1,900 square feet would also
accommodate assembly use with the parking and trip generation for a 1,742 square foot retail building.
While the application describes the proposed assembly use as associated with the office use with a
total occupancy that will not exceed that of the previous church, it notes the possibility of the assembly
use to include events, conferences and meeting with no clear detail of how frequent
these events would be, what their duration would be, how many attendees they might accommodate,
or how in combination with the proposed office use they would compare to the target retail use of the
property. The application further notesThe property owner and the potential tenant are not
intending for a concert venue to replace the previous church functions but wants to assure the building
is able to retain uses allowed as permitted uses in the C-1 zone. These include the permitted use a
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 13
historical evidence of on-site parking. Anticipated assembly events would be for the tenants of the
office space. One of the companies courted for tenancy has business conference events and business
supporting events. The company is a technology-based industry and envisions the space being used
to help promote their and similar businesses to boost the economy and technology advancement for
Staff recognize that the allowances for modification of non-conforming developments are vitally
important in maintaining viable options for the adaptive re-use of properties that developed prior to
current standards such as the subject property here. Staff believe that the exterior modifications
proposed represent a substantial improvement to the site, and we are strongly supportive of finding
an option for re-use of the property that is beneficial to the applicant, the surrounding historic district
and the broader community. However, in final assessment, the proposal lacks the necessary
evaluation and analysis of the impacts of the proposed changes to the existing non-conforming
development with regard to parking and trip generation to support a finding that there will be no
greater adverse material impact to the surrounding neighborhood than would result from the target
retail use of the property, and on that basis, staff recommend that the application be denied.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to modify the existing non-
conforming development at 599 East Main Street, where no off-street parking is available, by
converting the former church sanctuary building to a modern office building with assembly space to
accommodate conference, trade shows and meetings is not supported by evidence contained within the
whole record.
While the Commission recognizes the importance of the allowances for modification of non-conforming
developments to enable adaptive reuse of properties which were originally developed prior to current
standards, here the application lacks sufficient information and analysis of the impacts of the proposed
changes to the existing non-conforming development with regard to parking and trip generation for the
assembly use to support a finding that there will be no greater adverse material impact to the surrounding
neighborhood than would result from the target retail use of the property. The application proceeds on
an assumption that any use permitted within the C-1 zone is allowable as long as the required parking
does not exceed the parking required for the previous non-conforming church development, while the
non-conforming development section in AMC 18.1.4.040.B is clear that the alteration of a non-
conforming development is subject to Conditional Use Permit approval, which requires consideration
of the adverse material effects of the proposal on the livability of the impact area in comparison with
the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone rather than with the previous non-
conforming development.
On that basis, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal does not merit approval. Therefore,
based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00141.
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 14
May 11, 2021
Haywood Norton, Chair Date
Planning Commission Approval
PA-T1-2021-00141
May 11, 2021
Page 15
T
S
N
LV
E Friday 8AM Parking Occupancy Rates
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
E Friday 10AM Parking Occupancy Rates
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
E Friday 12PM Parking Occupancy Rates
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
E Friday 2PM Parking Occupancy Rates
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
Friday 4PM Parking Occupancy Rates
E
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
Saturday 8AM Parking Occupancy Rates
E
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
Saturday 10AM Parking Occupancy Rates
E
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
E Saturday 12PM Parking Occupancy Rates
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
E Saturday 2PM Parking Occupancy Rates
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
T
S
N
LV
E Saturday 4PM Parking Occupancy Rates
A
RM
U
N
T
A
A
S
LN
S
I
E
R
N
S
L
S
E
0 - 49%
P
S
A
T
Ashland Buildings
T
V
A
W
E
U
T
S
G
Ashland UGB
H
50 - 84%
S
U
O
R
B
C
LE
A
R
CR
E
E
K
D
R
85 - 100%
T
S
K
T
A
S
H
O
L
L
I
I
G
H
B
H
O
N
S
T
T
T
S
S
H
H
C
D
R
T
U
N
4
H
P
C
2
L
N
A
Z
AW
I
L
L
L
P
B
B
D
S
A
T
U
O
M
D
T
S
T
G
T
S
E
S
W
H
D
Y
T
R
5
3
T
S
CH
S
T
T
7
Y
W
E
K
I
P
S
T
N
S
E
D
D
N
L
T2
S
Y
E
LO
T
U
NS
G
V
I
S
T
A
E
S
M
A
TI
N
S
T
R
A
B
E
A
CH
V
A
V
E
N
W
T
OS
I
OS
S
GLE
NVIEW DR
K
N
D
I
Y
O
P
L
O
U
B
T
R
L
O
W ST
ONTVIE
M
T
M
S
S
I
S
N
K
T
I
Y
O
S
O
I
U
A
N
ST
R
AW
BE
R
RT
Y
LN
L
B
U
L
S
L
I
S
E
O
R
N
T
CS
PEA
RL
ST
S
T
L
E
B
L
A
LIN
E
S
T
D
I
H
A
E
M
Miles
00.10.20.30.40.50.05
Downtown Ashland Parking Occupancy Rates
October 2013
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Planning Application Review
March 3, 2021
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T1-2021-00141
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
599 E. Main St.
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Rogue Planning and Development Services, LLC for Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, Trustee)
DESCRIPTION:
A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599 East Main Street
including converting the former church to use as office/assembly space and adding a new entry. The application also
includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves the alteration of an existing non-conforming development
where no off-street parking is available, and Street Tree Removal Permits to remove and replace two Callery Pear street
trees (10.2-inch & 12.7-inch DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING:
Commercial; C-1; 39 1E
TAX LOT:
09AC; 7600
Recommendation:
The Historic Commission recommends continuing the application to allow the following items to be
addressed.
The Historic Commission was generally positive about the building design as shown in the color
architectural renderings. However, the Commission was unable to determine whether the proposal is
consistent with the applicable design standards because the building details are not clear in the
elevations or there is an inconsistency between the floor plans and architectural renderings (i.e., color
drawings of building).
The site plan and elevations are not readable with all drawings combined on one page (i.e.,
site plan, elevations, floor plans) and are not to scale as required by 18.5.2.040. Please submit
plans and elevations Also see cross section
requirements in 18.5.2.040.B.4.d.
The floor plan shows a door facing E. Main St. but the architectural renderings do not. Please
clarify the location of the main building entrance and show the proposed entrance(s) on the
elevations and floor plans.
Concerned about use of brick for the base of building and how the brick will align with existing
window and door openings.
Include details on window and door type and size, siding and trim type and size, and other
specifics about other exterior building materials.
The east elevation is also visible from E. Main St. The Commission commented that it was
difficult to see where the windows are located on the east elevation.
of the front entry feature in relation
to the east elevation. Some members suggested that the tower feature needs to be
differentiated on the east elevation, rather than using different building materials on the north
1
(stucco) and east (horizontal siding) elevations. One suggestion that was discussed is
wrapping the stucco that is used on the on the east
elevation
west elevation.
2
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
March 4, 2021
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2021-00141
SUBJECT PROPERTY:599 East Main Street
APPLICANT/OWNER:Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, )
Trustee
DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599
East Main Street including converting the former church to use as office space with occasional assembly
uses (convention, trade show, etc.) and adding a new entry. The application also includes requests for a
Conditional Use Permit as it involves the expansion of an existing non-conforming development where no
off-street parking is available, and Street Tree Removal Permits to remove two Callery Pear street trees
(10.2-inch DBH& 12.7-inch DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AC;
TAX LOT #: 7600
The tree commission notes that while they are approving the removal of the two street trees this
application does not meet any of the three approval criteria for street removal (hazard,
emergency, dead)
Cates/GouldM/S to approve the application with the recommendation that the mitigation tree be
large stature at maturity and acaliper at least two inches. (suggested species include Autumn
BlazeorRedFlameMaple)along with appropriate irrigation, 4-0
The Tree Commission recommends approvingthe application subject to the following:
1.That within one year of removal at one mitigation tree which shall be a large stature at maturity
and at least two caliper inches be planted.
2.Appropriateirrigation to serve the tree is required.
Department of Community DevelopmentTel: 541-488-5350
51 Winburn WayFax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Planning Division
Commercial Site Review
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-5305
Valuation Estimate
599 E Main Street
Street Address:__________________________________________________________________________________
Renovation of existing church structure, removal of a portion of the structure
Description of Project: ____________________________________________________________________________
addition of new public entry from East Main and 5th.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gil Livni
Applicant: _______________________________________________________________________________________
Livni Family Trust - Gil Livni Trustee
Property Owner: __________________________________________________________________________________
Gil Livni
Valuation Estimate Prepared by: ____________________________________________________________________
510-913-5110magnoliafinehomes@gmail.com
Estimator Phone: _________________________ Estimator Email: ____________________________________
DESCRIPTION: VALUATION:
Excavation & Earthwork $
5000
Landscaping $
3000
Parking Area(s) & Driveways $
0
Sidewalks/Patios/Walkways $
12000
New Construction – Materials & Labor Total* $
57000
TOTAL PROJECT VALUATION:
$
77000
*Building permit valuations shall be based upon the Uniform Fee methodologies as established by OAR 918-050-0100.
Received 1.21.2021
Magnolia Fine Homes
599 EAST MAIN STREET
Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for the non-conforming site
Received 1.21.2021
January19, 2021
Site Design Review andConditional Use Permit Review
For Exterior Modifications to a
Non-Contributing Historic Structure
Property Owner: Livni Family Trust
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Applicant:Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Amy Gunter
1314-B Center Dr., PMB 457
Medford, OR 97501
Architect: Ron Grimes Architecture
14 N Central Ave. Suite 106
Medford, OR 97501
Subject Property
Property Address: 599 East Main Street
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09AC; Tax lot 7600
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: Commercial
Zoning: C-1
Adjacent Zones: C-1, R-2
Railroad Historic District
Request:
Request for Site Design Review to modify the exterior of the historic, non-contributing structure at the
northeast corner ofEastMain Street andFifth Street. A new entry addition to the East Main and Fifth
Street façade of the structure is proposed. This new entry is to provide a common atrium-like entry area
for the modernized former church structure.
The proposal is to convert the space into a modern office building that includes an approximately 1,900
square foot assembly or group space that is part of the office uses within the structure. The purpose is
to not intensify the recognized use of the sanctuary portion of the structure as assembly/group
occupancy with office portions that operated during ‘typical’office hours during the week and held larger
‘events’ every Sunday and often Friday and Saturday (weddings, funerals, community events, etc.) with
Page 1 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
weekly community meeting times and larger group events throughout the calendar year. Based on the
photographic evidence provided by the previous occupants, there were between 224-244 seats in the
sanctuary area. There is approximatly 750 square feet of office on the second floor and approximately
1,980 square feet of office space in the daylight basement.
The primary focus of the proposal the substantial alterations the exterior of the structure to remove an
unsightly and poorly constructed addition and materials, with the addition of a pedestrian oriented entry
area. Additionally, there are substantial interior changes and structural modifications to the building are
necessary and allow for the use of the assembly occupancy space as a lower intensity office space that
may have assembly type events on occasion. The proposed interior improvements to fire, life, and safety
with the installation of a fire suppression system, improvements to the restrooms to provide accessibility
and function, and through the installation of energy efficiency upgrades to the HVAC and electrical
systems, the higher intensity occupancy of the assembly rating should be allowed to remain.
The existing site development site does not currently comply with several applicable site development
standards including parking requirements. The addition of the pedestrian-oriented entry area is
considered an expansion of a site that does not comply with the standards; thus, the construction also
necessitates a Conditional Use Permit. The use of the site as general office and assembly is the same
intensity or less occupancy than the church's occupancy rating thus not triggering a variance to parking
as none exists and the proposal does not alter this.
Property Description:
The subject property is to the northeast of the East Main and
Fifth Street intersections. The property isthe southern portion
of Lots 8 and 9, Block R, of the Railroad Addition Subdivision,
recorded in February 1884. According to the deed, in 1952, the
property was divided in 1952. The existing property is
approximately 50-feet by 74-feet, 3,484 square feet in area
(.08 AC).
The property is occupied by an approximately 4,628square
foot church sanctuary building that was constructed in the
early 1900s. The building appears on the Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps between the 1907 and 1911 mapping period.
According to the City of Ashland Historic Resources Inventory, the structure is considered historic due to
its age, but non-conforming due to its condition.
The structure has an approximately 1,892 square foot main floor chapel area, a 1,980 square foot
daylight basement area that has pre-school and Sunday schoolclassrooms and office spaces. The second
floor consists of 756 square feet of offices and storage areas.
Page 2 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
The building has solid, double entry doors that are up a series of steps from the East Main and Fifth
Street frontages. The stairs lead to a dark, un-welcoming entry area.
Based on the information available, the structure was resided and
“modernized” in the 1980s.
The property is zoned Commercial (C-1). The adjacent properties to
the north, east, and west that abuts East Main Street are also zoned
C-1. The properties furthernorth across the public alley, and
diagonally across Fifth Street are zoned Low-Density Residential (R-2).
The subject property and the adjacent properties are also within the
Railroad Historic District. According to the historic resources
inventory, the structure is historic due to its age, but in its present
state is considered non-conforming.
East Main Street isconsidered an Avenue on theCity ofAshlandTransportation System Analysis. There
are bike lanes present on East Main Street. There are a five-foot landscape park row and a five-foot-
wide concrete sidewalk. There are two Callery Pears in the park row.
Fifth Street abuts the west property line. Fifth Street has a 70-foot-wide right-of-way. Fifth Street is
improved with a five-foot sidewalk, landscape Park Row, curb, gutter, and wide vehicle travel lanes.
There are two royal red maple street trees in the landscape park row.
Proposal:
The request is for SiteDesign Review to allow for the renovation of the former church sanctuary building
to rehabilitate the structure and to modify the building into a commercialbusiness office suite structure.
A major front façade renovation that retains similar mass, scale, and architectural lines but modernizes
and improves the orientation of the existing structure is proposed.
The proposed modifications to the structure seek to make dramatic improvements to the function of the
structurethoughlayoutchanges,installationofcodestandardstairwaysandADAupgrades,energy
efficiency improvements, the addition of fire sprinkler system, removal of a dilapidated portionofthe
structure at the rear (north side) and drastic modifications to the façade that improve the orientation of
the structure to the street, and compliance with the historic district design standards to allow the
adaptive reuse of the commercial property. As noted above, it’s important to the prospective tenant
that the property retain its existing assembly occupancy rating.
The existing site development does not provide vehicle parking, bicycle parking, pedestrian orientation
to the public street, nor a screened refuse area. The proposed site improvements of the non-conforming
site bring it closer to conformance through the exterior improvements, installation of bicycle parking
and a screened trash/recycle refuse area, but does not alter the lack of on-site vehicle parking. There is
Page 3 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
nolocation or access tomodify thisnon-conformity and a Conditional UsePermit is requested to retain
the non-conforming parking condition.
The existing structure exterior consists of a press-board material, lap sidingwith8" exposure.The
building has a barrel roof that is behind the parapet of the façade. Theinterior of the sanctuary building
includes exposed bowstring trusses. On the existing other façade treatments include 1” X 8” corner
boards. The window trim includes a 1” X 4” side and bottom trim and 1” X 6” top trim. On the main floor,
large windows with sandwich divided lights are present. The daylight basement windows are side by side
sliding windows. The exposed wall of the daylight basement and entry stair is smooth finished cement
or stucco.
The proposal includes extending the entryway toward the corner of Fifth and East Main Streetby
installing a commercial storefront entry area that is atrium like.Theproposed atrium entrythat encloses
the front stair area with a brick base and large glass windows. New, aluminum frame, commercial entry
doors oriented towards the Fifth and East Main Street intersection are proposed. There is a covered
entry area marquee awning proposed that provides a covered entry area.
A red brick base with a water table is proposed to replace the smooth cement skim/stuccofinish that
existsaroundthebaseofthestructure.Horizontallapsidingisproposedonthestructurewith a smooth
stuccotypefinishonthefront‘tower’feature.Theexistingstairwelltothesecondstoryisaccessedfrom
the single door that faces Fifth Street, the "tower" element will have windows added and a newstairway
leadingup the second-floor offices. New windows will feature divided lights tomatchthe existing
window pattern found on the ground floor. There are smaller, double-hung windows on the secondfloor
that are visible to East Main Street, this shape, style, and pattern will be maintained.
The existing use of 599 E Main Street as a churchsanctuary,including administrative offices, a pre-school,
communitymeetingspace,event space, and community gathering space,in the main sanctuary building
requiredmorethan 60 parking spaces. This number of parkingspaceswas determined basedonphotos
of the interior of the space, and the uses of the space according to the previous owners.
The sanctuary space photos provided by the church show 224 - 244 seats. There were 16 rows of 7 chairs
and an additional circle of 20-chairs. A space with 224 seats would require at least 56 parking spaces.
The office space in the basement and the second floor would have required an additionalfiveparking
spaces.Duetothesheer numberof spaces required with these two uses, the additional parking spaces
generated with the use of the pre-school area as a pre-K/daycare during the week were not added. The
existing use of the property requires 61 parking spaces, and none are provided on-site. The proposed
use of the site as assembly and general office space will not increase parking demand beyond the current
required number of parking spaces and is considered a decrease in occupancy.
Two treeswill be removed. One is a six-inchDBH One is a cedar tree that is on the east side of the
structure and growing immediately adjacenttothe building on the subject property and is immediately
adjacent to the structure to the east. The tree has no room for future growth and is on the prohibited
plant list. The othertreeproposed for removal is a street tree removal request to remove a Callery Pear
Page 4 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
tree from the park row on the East Main Street frontage.This tree has poor canopy growth and is in a
generally poor condition when considering it is nearly 30 years old but has not grown vigorously.
Findings of fact addressing the criteria fromthe AshlandMunicipalCode is found on thefollowingpages.
Page 5 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
CriteriafromtheAshlandLandUseOrdinance
Nonconforming Uses and Developments
18.1.4.020
The subject property at 599 E Main Street is noted as a church since at least the 1911 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Map publication (see attachments). The 4,628 square foot, two-story with daylight basement.
The structure has been in the same location and generally the same shape, orientation, scale, and massing
since the earliest photos from the 1970s. There is limited information in the public record of what the
church exterior looked like before the 1970s. The existing site development occurred before the creation
of the land use ordinance.
The non-conforming development is not increasing with the proposal, site development standards such as
orientation and bicycle parking will be provided thus increasing conformity. On-site parking has never
been provided in conjunction with the development of the site and the proposed use of the structure as an
office suite with assembly space will not provide parking. This is not an increase in the non-conforming
situation of the site.
The proposal is not to alter or eliminate the recognized assembly occupancy but to retain it which allows
for by the tenants.
he proposal seeks to make substantial exterior modifications to improve the form and function of the
T
structure, but not to reduce the occupancy. The proposal seeks to allow for the development of modernized
office space in conjunction with the existing occupancy, but not to reduce the occupancy of the structure.
The structure is considered a historic, non-contributing structure according to the Historic Resources
Assessment of the Railroad Historic District. Exterior modifications to Historic Contributing Structures
require Site Design Review. No expansions, enlargements, or changes of use are proposed with the
application.
The proposal seekstorehabilitate the structure and to modify the front façade by installing a new
commercialstorestyle entry with double front doors at the grade of the public sidewalk.New horizontal,
lap siding, and new windows are also proposed to be added. The FifthStreet façade willremain generally
as iswithnew siding and replacing the smooth cementfinishwith a redbrick façade treatment. The
existing windows on the east and westelevations are proposed to be retained. These windows are large,
with sandwiched divided light. New windows tomatch the size, shape, and style of the existingmain floor
window styles are proposed on the EastMain facing 'tower'elementwhere the stairwell up to the second
floor will be reconstructed. The upper floor window openings are proposed to remain.
Page 6 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
SiteDevelopmentDesignStandardsApprovalCriteria:
18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria
An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in
subsections A, B, C, and D below.
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.
Finding:
The 3,484 square foot property is commercially zoned and is nearly completely covered by the existing
structure, whichis non-conforming development. The C-1 zoned does not have setbacks required
excepting for landscape area, parking, buffering, or building code requirements. The existing 4,682
square foot structure is at or near the property lines. The proposed addition to the entry area in the
southeast portion of the structure extends to the property lines. The overhangs of the coveredentry extend
to the property lines. The entry door is slightly recessed to provide adequate area for ramping. The new
entry area substantially increases orientation to the public street.
There is a portion of the structure that was added at some point that is poorly connected on the north side
of the structure. This addition is reached via the stairs in the courtyard between the two properties or
from within the structure. The addition is at the second story on the Fifth Street side due to the grade
change of the property. Placing the structure's post adjacent to the sidewalk and the floor above forehead
height. The removal of this 221 square foot structure and the 55 square feet of stair and landing area will
not have substantial alterations on the structure's orientation to the street and is diminimis is the amount
of parking required for that portion of the building.
The removal of the addition improves the orientation of this side of the structure to Fifth Street and
removes a poorly design and poorly constructed, non-historic addition. A new metal stair and landing
will be provided to provide egress from the second story.
The property is in the detailed site review zone and developments are subject to a Floor Area Ratio
standard of .5. The property exceeds, the required FAR of 1,742 square feet, with more than 4,600 square
feet of building on the 3,484 square foot parcel.
The site covers more than 85 percent of the site with impervious surfaces. The proposal removes an area
of structure but does not reduce or increase the existing impervious areas.
The existing use of 599 E Main Street as a church sanctuary, including administrative offices, a pre-
school, community meeting space, event space, and community gathering space, in the main sanctuary
building required more than 60 parking spaces. This number of parking spaces was determined based on
photos of the interior of the space, and the uses of the space according to the previous owners.
The sanctuary space photos provided by the church show 224 - 244 seats. There were 16 rows of 7 chairs
and an additional circle of 20-chairs. A space with 224 seats would require at least 56 parking spaces.
Page 7 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
The office space in the basement and the second floor would have required an additional five parking
spaces. Due to the sheer number of spaces required with these two uses, the additional parking spaces
generated with the use of the pre-school area as a pre-K/daycare during the week were not added. The
existing use of the property requires 61 parking spaces, and none are provided on-site. The proposed use
of the site as assembly and general office space will not increase parking demand beyond the current
required number of parking spaces and is considered a decrease in occupancy.
There are two on-street parking spaces present along the frontage of the property. Due to the lack of on-
site parking, and that there is no way to perform a parking study to demonstrate how the use of the on-
street parking spaces is justified thus no further discussion on parking is presented. No on-site parking is
present, thus the request for the conditional use permit to not have on-site parking is requested. There is
no area or access for parking and the circumstances necessitating the conditional use permit are not able
to be remedied through the installation of parking or creation of an off-site parking agreement as there
are no parking lotswithin 200-feet that would meet those standards.
verlay Zones. Theproposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
B. O
18.3).
Finding:
The property is subject to the Historic District Standards for exterior additions. As evidenced in the
findings below it can be found that the proposed development complies with the historic site development
standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the rehabilitation of the historic, non-
contributing structure located at 599 East Main Street.
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.
18.4.2.040 Non-Residential Development
Finding:
The use of thesite is non-residential in the Commercial zone. The proposed exterior modifications
will have a positive impact on the streetscape
B. Basic Site Review Standards.
1. Orientation and Scale.
Finding:
The existing structure has a door the facesFifth Street and a set of double doors that face East
Main Street. The proposed construction of a coveredentry including glazing and a sidewalk
accessible double entry doorway provides a greater orientation to the street than the existing
structure presents. The proposed entry addition to the front of the building orients the structureto
Page 8 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
the street and the intersection of the two public streets provides direct access from the public
sidewalk.
The entry doors are proposed to be clearly visible, and the addition of glazing, brick, and
horizontal siding provides for substantial changes in materials that emphasize the commercial
business entrance.
The addition provides less than a 20-foot setback and the entrance is as close to the property line
as practicable while allowing ramping for access.
The existing structure occupies the majority of the facades.
There are no on-site parking or vehicle access areas.
2. Streetscape.
Finding:
The Fifth Street streetscape is not proposed to be altered. There are two Callery Pear trees in the
landscape park row on East Main Street. Both are in fair condition and the proximity of the one
closest to the intersection violates the spacing standards. This street treeis proposed for removal.
A street tree removal permit has been requested.
3. Landscaping.
Finding:
The landscaping is pre-existing. There is a narrow, at grade planter along the Fifth Street façade
that will have a ground cover installed post-construction. The remainder of the landscape area
along the east property line is a “natural state” and is not proposed to be altered.
4. Designated Creek Protection.
Finding:
Not applicable
5.NoiseandGlare.
Finding:
Additional light and glare beyond what is standard in the commercial zone are not anticipated.
The proposed uses are not substantially noisy beyond typical commercial-zoned uses. New HVAC
equipment will improve the noise generated by the existing equipment.
New exterior lighting and any newartificial lighting will comply with the standards of 18.4.4.050.
Page 9 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
6.Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings.
Finding:
The existingsiteis non-conforming in that it does not have any on-site vehicle or bicycle parking.
A poorly constructed addition is present on the north side of the structure that is causing damage
between the roof of the structure and the north wall of the original historic footprint. There is 221
square feet of building area to be removed, the stair and the landing accessing this space is 55-
square-foot portion of the structure is proposed to be removed.
The proposed addition to the front of the building is 220 square feet. This consists of atrium entry
by enclosing the existingstair and landing and creating an at grade pedestrian entrance. The
footprint of the structure is proposed to be decreased by one square feet. Thus no expansion of the
non-conforming site improvements.
The square footage of the building area removed and reconstructed does modify the parking
demands.
Most of the site for the purposes of site development standards will remain in a non-conforming
status due to the lack of property area that is not covered by structure. The proposal provides for
12 required bicycle parking spaces. These are provided in a U rack at the front of the building
between the building and the street. At the rear of the property in the area of the removed portion
of the structure, two additional U racks will be installed. The remaining two secure bicycle parking
spaces will be provided within the building. These spaces will be provided in the entry area of the
basement level office space.
The site location, lot size, structure location, setbacks,coverage, landscape areas, lack of vehicle
parking area are non-conforming and through the approval of the addition along the front of the
structure will not increase the non-conformity. There is no lot area to install any parking, the
existing lot coverage is retained and not to be enlarged leaving the site development area and
impacts the same as they have been since at least the early 1900s.
C. Detailed Site Review Standards.
Finding:
The subject property is within the DetailedSite Review Standards overlay. The property is in the
Detail Site Review Overlay Zone and developments are subject to a Floor Area Ratio standard of
.5 of the site area. The property exceeds FAR of 1,742 square feet as there is more than 4,600
square feet of building on a 3,484 square foot parcel. None of the building frontages are greater
than 100 feet in length. There ismore than 20 percent of the wall area facing the street as windows
and doorways. There are no blank walls.
There are substantial changes in relief on the surface of the existing building. The proposal
improves these with an improvement in material choices and quality. Additionally, changes in
Page 10 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
relief and fenestration are provided through the introduction of a red brick base with a water table
toreplace the smooth cement finish that exists around the base of the structure.
Horizontal lap siding is proposed on the structure with a smooth stucco type finish on the front
'tower' feature. The existing stairwell to the secondstoryis accessed from the single door that
faces Fifth Street, the "tower" elementwill have windows added and the stairway leading up the
second-floor offices will be constructed within this architectural element. New windows will
feature divided lights to match the existing window pattern found on the ground floor. There are
smaller, double-hung windows on the second floor that are visible to East Main Street, this shape,
style, and pattern will be maintained.
A new roof extension to provide pedestrian coverage from the rain and sun at the entry area is
proposed.
D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects.
Finding:
The proposed building is less than 10,000 square feetin gross floor area and does not have more
than 100-feet of frontage. It is not considered a Large-Scale Building.
18.4.2.050 Historic District Development
Finding:
The property is locatedwithin the Railroad HistoricDistrict.
The proposal is to rehabilitate the exterior of a historic, but non-contributing structure in a manner
that retains the form and the shape of the existing structure. The proposed alterations will have a
positive impact on the scale,form, and mass.
It can be found that the proposed exterior alterations are architecturally compatible with the
historic district design standards for a renovated commercial structure.
The proposal seeks to modify the front façade by installing a new atrium-style entry area with
aluminum and glass, commercial storefront doors. The existing windows on the east and facades
are proposed to be retained. New windows of similar size, shape, and style (divided light) as the
existing main level windows are proposed.
The standards speak to a comparison of historic buildings in the vicinity. In the case of the subject
property, the existing structure is commercial and appears commercialin form, setbacks,site
coverage, and functions. The immediatelyadjacent properties though zoned commercial have the
residential type of structures present, making comparison irrelevant to the proposal.
More relevantis to comply with the Historic District Design Standards and depicts an accurate
restoration of original architectural features on historic buildings. The proposal is most consistent
Page 11 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
with what is known about the architectural features of the structure.There is no evidence that the
structure's material façade treatments (or construction method) were anything other than the
existing siding material and concrete or smooth stucco base.
The applicant believes it can be found that the standards are met with the proposed replacement
exterior façade materials.
B.Historic District Design Standards.
1.Transitional Areas.
Finding:
The property is in the commercial zone and is the mostcommercial like structure. The adjacent
commercial properties are occupied by residential type of construction. Some of the uses are
commercial but the structures are residential in form.
It can be found that the exterior modifications incorporate several of the historicdistrict design
standard objectives such as a sense of entry, a rhythm of openings, and compatible materials. The
proposed restoration of the non-contributing, historic structure is consistent with the standards
from the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic District
2. Height.
Finding:
No modifications to the height.
3.Scale
.
Finding:
The scale of the property is not impacted by the proposed exterior modifications. The mass and
scale of the structure are proposed to be altered through the removal of a poorly constructed
addition at the rear of the building and the addition of a newentry atrium areawith double
storefront style entry doors.
4. Massing.
Finding:
The massing of the structure is not alteredwiththe proposal.
The existing exterior treatments provide vertical and historical rhythms. The continued use of
horizontal siding is consistent with the historical finish of the structure and the new glazing for the
entry and the new windows provides verticalelements to the design.
The existing structure is monolithic in its massing a scale. The proposed modifications alter the
mass of the ‘tower’ element into smaller, more varied masses.
Page 12 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
5.Setback.
Finding:
The proposed addition at the front of the building continues the same plan as the existing building's
historic building plane.
6. Roof.
Finding:
The roof is screened behind the parapet walls. No changes to the shape, pitch, or materials are
proposed.
7.Rhythm ofOpenings.
Finding:
The proposed addition of a commercial-style entrance provides an additional opening but does
not negatively detract from the existing pattern and rhythm of openings. The new windows within
the 'tower' element are proposed as the same shape, opening size, materials and form, and the
existing historic window pattern on the east and west building facades.
8. Base or Platforms.
Finding:
The existing structure has a daylight basement that provides a substantial base around the
structure. This base is proposed to be resurfaced with a red brick treatment. This will provide a
clear definition and a sense of platform for the structure.
9.Form.
Finding:
The form of the structure is commercial in shape, setback, coverage, more so than adjacent
properties. The proposed entry addition will not negatively alter the form.
10. Entrances.
Finding;
A well-defined, articulated primary entrance is provided into the structure on the Fifth and East
Main Street intersection with the atrium entry feature addition.
Page 13 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
11.ImitationofHistoricFeatures.
Finding:
The building modifications and proposed exterior design is consistent withthis standard. The
proposed exterior elevations are similar to the known, historical exterior elevation treatments and
are in keeping with those materials.
The proposed entry enhancements are contemporary in design and the design will enhance the
commercial structure.
New windows are proposed to be similar in shape, area, size of openings, and they will also be
divided light windows.
12.Additions:
Finding:
The proposed addition is to enhance the primary façade and to be visually prominent. The historic
district design standards seek preservation of historic contributing structures, sincethis structure
is non-contributing, the preservation of its historic character is unnecessary.
13. Garage:
Finding:
Not applicable.
C.Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions.
2.RehabilitationStandards. Inaddition to the standards of part 18.4, the approval
authorityuses the following standards forexisting buildingsand additionswithin the
Historic District Overlay. These standards apply primarily toresidential historic districts,
residential buildings in the Downtown Historic District, and National Register-listed historic
buildingsnotlocated within theHistoricDistrict Overlay. The purpose of the following
standards is to prevent incompatible treatment of buildings in the Historic DistrictOverlay
and to ensure that new additions and materials maintain thehistoric and architectural
characterof thedistrict.
Finding:
The proposed exterior modifications are proposed to a non-contributing structure that is within
the historic district overlay. The standards would seek generally to retain the important materials,
orientation, scale, and massing in context with the existing historically significant structure. The
existing structure is not historically significant and lacks characteristics that would be indicative
of pre-war, construction techniques, styles, materials, or character.
Page 14 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
The findings address how the proposed exterior modifications are vast improvements to a historic,
non-contributing, commercially zoned, high occupancy rated structure.
a.Historic architectural styles and associated features shall not be replicatedin
new additions or associated buildings.
Finding:
Not applicable, no additions proposed.
b.Original architectural features shallbe restored as much as possiblewhen
those features can be documented.
Finding:
The structure lacks evidence of original architecture. The only known photos of the exterior
are of the 1980s renovation. The window size, dimensional ratio, sandwiched divided light
panes in the main level, and side by side sliders in the basement level is proposed to be
retained.
c.Replacementfinishesonexteriorwallsofhistoricbuildings shallmatchthe
originalfinish.Exteriorfinishesonnewadditionstohistoricbuildingsshallbe
compatiblewith,butnotreplicate,thefinishofthehistoricbuilding.
Finding:
The existing siding on the majority of the structure's façade is a press-board, horizontal
lap siding. The proposal is to replace the siding with a hardi-board horizontal lap siding.
The smooth-coatedcement foundation is proposed to be overlayed with red brick. The front
"tower" element is proposed to have a smooth coat stucco finish.
d.Diagonaland vertical sidingshall be avoided onnew additionsoron historic
buildings except inthoseinstances where it was used as the original siding.
Finding:
No vertical siding is proposed.
e.Exterior wall colors onnew additions shall match those of the historic building.
Finding:
Page 15 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
The existing paint colors were beige and mauve. The proposed paint scheme for the
exterior includes a dark grey and black trim with natural wood accents.
f.Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured
aluminum siding, and artificial stone shall be avoided.
Finding:
The proposal includes a redbrick façade treatment.
g.Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows.
Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size, but
not replicate original windows in the historic building.
Finding:
The proposed new windows are compatible in proportion, shape, and sizewith the original
windows in the historic portion of the building. All the new windows are proposed to
include the 'sandwiched' divided lights as is present in the historic window pattern.
h.Reconstructed roofsonhistoricbuildingsshallmatchthepitchandformofthe
originalroof.Roofsonnewadditionsshallmatchthepitchandformofthehistoric
building,andshallbeattachedat a differentheightsotheadditioncanbe
differentiatedfromthehistoricbuilding.Shedroofsareacceptableforone-story
rearadditions.
Finding:
Not applicable
i.Asphaltor composition shingle roofs are preferred. Asphalt shingles thatmatch
theoriginalroof material in colorand texture are acceptable. Wood shake, wood-
shingle, tile, and metal roofsshall be avoided.
Finding:
The roof is not visible from the ground or adjacent properties.
j.Newporches or entries shall be compatible with, but not replicate, the historic
character of the building.
Finding:
Page 16 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
The newentry area is compatible with the historic character of the building and uses
glazing with divisions that reflect the rhythm of the divided lights in the windows of the
main sanctuary space whichreflects the historic opening shape and locations.
k.New detached buildings shall becompatible with the associated historic building
and shall conformto theabove standards.
Finding:
Not applicable
l.The latest version oftheSecretary of the Interior’sStandards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and
determining whether the above standards are met.
Finding:
The proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines. The original form of the structure is retained, the original cornerelement
at the intersection of East Main and Fifth Street is enhanced, and the tower elements are
retained. The proposal retains distinctive features (corner orientation, barrel roof behind
the façade and the tower type element); retains the finishes (stucco and horizontal siding,
divided light windows); and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize the structure.
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.
Finding:
There are adequate public facilities that service the property. The water meter is present on Fifth Street.
The Sanitary sewer is in Fifth Street. A stormwater sewer line is present in Fifth Street. No changes to the
property that would impact the public facilities are proposed.
Both East Main Street and Fifth Streets are public streetsimproved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm
drain, landscape park row, and street trees.One Callery Pear in the EastMain Street park row is
proposed for removal. A street tree removal permit has been requested.
Page 17 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
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, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist.
Finding:
No exceptions are requested.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CRITERIA
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 planpoliciesthat are not
implementedbyanyCity,State,orFederallaworprogram.
Finding:
The sitedevelopment is non-conforming with no provisions for on-site parking. The use isto retain the
occupancy rating of the religious institution/assembly occupancy and the use of the space for an incoming
office tenant. The use of the property as an office is permitted use the in the zone.
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.
Finding:
There are adequate publicfacilities that service the property. The water meter is present on Fifth Street.
The Sanitary sewer is in Fifth Street. A stormwater sewer line is present in Fifth Street. No changes to the
property that would impact the public facilities are proposed.
Both East Main Street and Fifth Streets are public streetsimproved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm
drain, landscape park row, and street trees.One Callery Pear in the EastMain Street park row is
proposed for removal. A streettreeremovalpermit has beenrequested.
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.
Finding:
The use of commercial property as a commercial use in the zone will not have a greater adverse effect on
the livability of the immediate impact area which is primarily commercially zoned. The target use of the
Page 18 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
zone for the site is a 1,742 square foot office building. Anofficestructure of 1,742 would require 3.48 or
four (4) parking spaces.
The proposal is to retain the existing structure and the existing occupancy rating would require 61 parking
spaces based on the number of seats within the sanctuary space where no on-site parking spaces are
provided.
The existing structureis 4,620 square feet in area. The portion of the building that was used as assembly
occupancy is just over 1,800 square feet of the building as seated assembly occupancy (1 sq. per 15 sq.
foot floor area) an occupancy of approximately 126 persons is permitted per building code requirements.
An occupancy of 126 which would require 31 parking spaces. In the event that the entire structure is office
space, the structure requires 9.24 or 10 parking spaces. The property has 74-feet of frontage on Fifth
Street,afterremoving 20-feet from frontage, thereis 54-feet remaining. This 54-feet could provide two
on-street parking credits.In no casecan the required number of parking spaces for any use, not even a
residential use could be on the property without the granting of the conditional use permitto continue the
non-conforming development of the commercially zoned site.
y in scale, bulk, and coverage.
a.Similarit
Finding:
The proposal is to make small addition to a non-contributing structure on a lot that has a non-
conforming development. The scale of the addition is minor in comparison to the area of the
structure but will greatly improve the orientation to the public street. The proposal does not
increase the bulk, or coverage of the site.
b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increasesin pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
Finding:
The generation of traffic and the effects on the surrounding streets by the use of the property as a
permitted use or conditional use (assembly occupancy retention) will not have a greater impact
than a busy church with Sunday service, community events throughout the week and church
business office hours during the weekdays.
The proposal includes the installation of bicycle parking facilities. This is to encourage bicycle
ridership. The proposed pedestrian entrance enhancements encourage walking.
c.Architecturalcompatibilitywiththeimpactarea.
Finding:
Page 19 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
The proposed exterior additions are architecturally compatible with the historic interest area. The
majority of the nearby properties are occupied by residential style, commercially zoned structures
and the subject property is the only commercial type in the impact area.
d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
Finding:
The proposed modification to the structure and the continued use of the property for commercial
activities, will not generate additional air quality issues, dust, odors or other environmental
pollutants.
e.Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Finding:
The proposed renovations to the structure are proposed to retain the assembly space and general
office space will not generate noise, light, or glare beyond what is expected in a commercially
designated zone. There are no immediately adjacent residential properties that would be impacted
by the use of commercial tenant space.
f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding:
The proposed addition of a pedestrian-oriented entrance on the commercial building and removal
of a portion of the poorly constructed structure and substantial upgrades to the commercial
building will not prevent adjacent commercial properties from developing as envisioned in the
comprehensive plan.
g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.
Finding:
Unknown what other factors will be relevant.
4. A conditionaluse permit shall not allow a usethat is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant
to this ordinance.
Finding:
The use of the commercial property as office space with assembly space is a permitted use in the zone.
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.
Page 20 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
f. E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter18.2.2 BaseZones 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.
Finding:
The floor area of the property if developed as new construction would 1,742 square feet of building and
pedestrian area. A general office building of 1,742 would require 3.48 or four (4) parking spaces.
Page 21 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
Historic Resources Inventory National Register of Historic Places
Figure 1: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1911
Page 22 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
Figure 2: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1928
Page 23 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
Page 24 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
Page 25 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
Page 26 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
Page 27 of 27
Received 1.21.2021
()*+$,-$./01234
!"#$%&!'
(,5563)*+$78981,:583*$78:2;*583*
0("1234563"1$!
, -.*-*+*(-+++*/
78 $39:";<"=/0*+
!"#$%&'""()*()*+*(
.& & 8>3&'"0?(-?@@-0A+0
B37 &C%2>3"D23&'"0?(-00*-*+@+
123$#+:8<$#+:8$""$ 1233)3=$.>*),3
?,;@$(12//<$#+:8$""$ 1233)3=$.>*),3
!2:$A$#2B$C,* ;,:8;*+$.44;8//
A=(E+= F/G++
0=="E"H$23"I%"
DE38;$"3-,;52*),3.::1)>23*$"3-,;52*),3
D2J32"K$L2 !".657%D2J32"K$L2 !".657%
;M3&6' 2C$3%'
;M3&6"?0A".5CN&6"I%" 2C$3%"?0A".5CN&6"I%"
996&77' 78 $39:";<""=/0*+ 996&77' 78 $39:";<""=/0*+
O0(+P"-=(-A-0((+
,8>3&',8>3&'
O0(+P"-=(-A-0((+
;,F8>*$78/>;):*),3
#62J&M$!"7& &6$%2>3"J$62$3C&
$G88/
G88$78/>;):*),3<.5,63*<
F>LL&6C2$ "I2%&"<&J2&M"O.! &"BPQ(:?//R++"
F>392%2>3$ "S7&",&6L2%"O.! &"BPQ(:+=*R++"
T$62$3C&"O.! &"BBPQ*:(=+R/0"
2C$3%'#$%&'
Q?:/0=R/0"
.>%$ "K&&7'
Received 1.21.2021
STREET TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
A tree that is located in any public street right-of-way or other public property may not be removed until a Street Tree Removal Permit has been
submitted according to the Application Submission Requirements, below, and reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland.
An application for street tree removal must demonstrate that the tree is an emergency, hazard, or dead tree as outlined below in the Application
Submission Requirements.
Application Submission Requirements. An application for a street tree removal permit shall include all of the following information.
1.Application Form and Fee. The application must include the information requested on the Street Tree Removal Permit form provided by
the City of Ashland and the permit application fee. Only those property owners of a lot adjoining the street tree location or homeowners’
associations responsible for street trees in their development or subdivision may apply to remove an adjoining street tree. If a tree is
located in front of more than one property, each property owner or homeowners’ association official must sign the Street Tree Removal
Permit form.
2.Site Plan. A site plan of the property drawn to scale containing the following information. The scale of the site plan must be at least one
inch equals 50 feet or larger.
a.North arrow and scale.
b.Property boundaries including dimensions of all lot lines and driveway locations.
c.Location and width of all public streets, planting strips, and sidewalks adjoining the site.
d.Size, species, and location of the tree(s) proposed to be removed.
3.Written Statement. A written statement explaining how the proposed street tree removal satisfies one of the following approval criteria.
The Community Development director may require additional information to demonstrate that the proposed removal satisfies one of the
following approval criteria including: 1) a written statement to be prepared by an arborist licensed by the State of Oregon Landscape
Contractors Board of Construction Contractors Board and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of
Consulting Arborists; and 2) an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form to be completed by an
arborist.
Street Tree Removal Approval Criteria
a)Emergency Tree Removal. The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons
or property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, and/or
there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be
obtained through the non-emergency process.
b)Hazard Tree Removal. 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. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to
fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing
damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated.
c)Dead Tree. The tree is dead. A dead tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle
dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season.
Replacement and Stump Removal. Applicants for approved Street Tree Removal Permits are required to remove any stumps and replace the tree.
Stump removal and replacements for approved street tree removals shall meet the following requirements.
1.Any street tree removed shall be removed at ground level or lower. If a tree is removed below ground level, the surface must be restored to
finish grade and any regrowth which occurs shall be promptly removed.
2.All street trees shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the City of Ashland Recommended Street Tree List.
3.The minimum size for a replacement tree is eight feet in height or one inch in caliper measured at 12 inches above the root crown.
4.Applicants for a Street Tree Removal Permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable
value.
5.If a street tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimize size described above.
Type of Tree(s) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approximate Diameter at breast height _______________ Height ________________________ Canopy _____________________________
Location of Tree ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reason for Request _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are there underground utility lines and/or overhead power lines present? ___________________________________________________________
If yes, please list which lines are present _____________________________________________________________________________________
Is there sidewalk damage? _______________ If yes, has a Public Works permit been issued? ____________
OVER
C:\\Users\\lucasa\\Desktop\\Street Tree Removal Permit_Revised 2016.doc
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
39 1E
Assessor’s Map No. ________________________________________________ Tax Lot(s) ______________________________________
Zoning _____________________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER
Name ________________________________________ Phone ______________________ E-Mail _________________________________
Address _________________________________________________ City __________________ Zip _______________________________
Name ________________________________________ Phone ______________________ E-Mail _________________________________
Address _________________________________________________ City __________________ Zip _______________________________
PROFESSIONAL PERFORMING THE TREE REMOVAL (e.g., tree service)
Name ________________________________________ Phone ______________________ E-Mail _________________________________
Address _________________________________________________ City __________________ Zip _______________________________
ARBORIST, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________
Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________
As owner of theproperty involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. I hereby
certify that the statements and information contained in this application are in all respects, true and correct. I further understand that if this request is subsequently
contested, the burden will be on me to establish:
1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence to support this request;
2)that the information contained in this application are adequate; and further
3)that all trees, structures, or improvements are properly located on the ground.
__________________________________
____________________________________________________
___________
Property Owner’s Signaturewner’s (Date
required)
OSig
STAFF DECISION:
Permit is hereby (circle one): Approved Approved with Conditions Denied
Conditions of Approval ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Is the tree 18” d.b.h or greater? NOYESHas the City has been notified:NOYES
___________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Community Development Director/Planning Manager Signature Date
C:\\Users\\lucasa\\Desktop\\Street Tree Removal Permit_Revised 2016.doc
STREET TREE REMOVAL
599 E Main Street
The request includes a tree removal permit for the two street trees in the parkrow on East Main
Street. These trees are Callery Pears. It is unknown exactly which species, but based on research
of the Callery Pear tree, they are poor landscape plant choices and in an area that has a
commercial pear industry. They are known as a troublesome tree that becomes invasive due to
cross pollination should be removed and replaced with a large stature tree that isn’t declared as
an invasive species in some parts of the country.
The request is for removal of a 10.2” diameter at breast height Callery Pear and a 12.7” diameter
at breast height Callery Pear tree. These trees are a poor street tree choice. Though they were
planted more than 30 years ago, they have not shown substantial growth. They do not possess
well cared for canopies and the newest information in the arboriculture industry is that the
Callery Pear should be removed and replaced. https://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/tree-
plant-descriptions/callery-pear-not-recommended
Page 1 of 2
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 2.9.2021
The street tree chapter AMC 13.16 does not provide criteria for removal but says thatif a tree is
dead or dying the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in the chapter.
The street removal application form does not appear to speak to situations where the street tree
is in a fine overall health condition but is a poor choice of street tree, does not meet spacing
standards or when it is or becomes considered an invasive species. These trees are not in a
condition that requires emergency removal, they are not in a hazardous condition, they are not
dead, nor are they dying. The application form also appears to necessitate an arborist evaluation
of the health of the street trees proposed for removal. There are no assertions that the trees are
in poor health. They are in a poor condition due to lack of maintenance and poor canopy
condition, and previous injury due to it appears cars, but they are not unhealthy nor would they
meet any ISA hazard levels. Throughout the Midwest, including, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, the Callery pear is considered an invasive species.
Articles regarding Callery Pear trees:
Naturally Speaking: Pretty and invasive – the Callery pear
https://www.washtimesherald.com/community/naturally-speaking-pretty-and-invasive-the-
callery-pear/article_40c606b8-51fb-11eb-a22f-5fc0d1cc2542.html. January 11, 2021.
Here’s why you should think twice before planting a Bradford pear tree.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/environment/2020/04/21/bradford-pear-trees-why-
you-should-think-twice-before-planting/2995229001/. April 21, 2020
Below is additional information regarding the requested street tree removal.
The removal of the trees will not have any impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters
or protection of adjacent trees. None of the trees proposed for removal are part of a windbreak.
The removal of the two Callery Pears will not have any impacts on the tree densities. The adjacent
neighborhood has a significant number of both street trees and landscape trees, a substantial
canopy coverage and species diversity.
The property is zoned commercial. The trees are in the in the right-of-way and this criteria does
not apply.
One larger stature, healthy deciduous tree selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide
will be planted centrally located on the parcel, providing adequate separation from the power
pole (10-feet) and adequate separate from the intersection (25-feet) as specified in AMC 18.4.4
030.E.2.b. The stumps will be removed and the new tree will be planted in accordance with the
standards for street tree planting.
Page 2 of 2
RECEIVED BY EMAIL 2.9.2021
Flash over wall cap w/ drip edge
Timber wall cap, slope to drain
T.O. Parapet
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
±10'-0"
Gil Livni
2x Parapet wall
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
Low slope membrane roofing
Metal cap at parapet
2x6 Parapet wall
Membrane roof over rigid insul.
sloped to drain over 5/8" roof
Existing roof framing
sheathing per structural
2'-0"
Full height blocking per structural
1/2" ceiling sheathing
T.O. Wall
3/4" T&G Ceiling and Soffit
5/8" Gyp board
R-42 Insulation
Roof framing per structural
5/8" Gyp board
w/ R-42 Insulation
1x Interior window trim
Header per structural
5/4x6 Exterior Window head trim
Gyp wrapped opening
Clad window units
Metal or Hardie Panel siding finish
±12'-0"
over WRB over sheathing per structural
Sloped 2x window sill
Structural sub-fascia
5/4x Interior window stool
Metal wrapped over & fastened to soffit
5/4x6 Exterior window apron trim
Hardie lap siding
Metal or Hardie Panel fascia
Stone ledge cap w/ sloped profile
/Users/patrickmay/Dropbox (4d Proof)/4d Proof Team Folder/202043 Church Remdel/20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
New floor finish (T.B.D.)
T.O. Subfloor
Existing sub floor
Existing floor framing
15'-3"
Sineage (T.B.D.)
5/8" Gyp board
R-21 wall insulation
1/2" Gyp board
Soldier course over windows
Clad door & window units
Clad window units
±10'-0"
Stone ledge sill cap w/ sloped profile
Existing Sidewalk
Veneer brick siding
New concrete entry porch
Existing concrete sidewalk
MODEL FILE:
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
Existing concrete stem wallNew concrete floor
Existing lower level slab (V.I.F.)
Max
6"
SHEET TITLE
WALL SECTIONS
T.O. Slab
Existing footings
SD-3.1
Section Through Existing Exterior WallSection Through New Entry
12
01'2'3'01'2'3'
SHEET 1OF 1
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
MODEL FILE:
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
SHEET TITLE
CONCEPT RENDERINGS
SD-1.0
SHEET 1OF 1
1
SD-4.1
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
ADA W/C
OFFICE 1
10
9
8
11
7
12
6
13
5
14
4
15
3
ADA W/C
16
2
17
1
18
19
1
20
SD-4.2
HALL
STAIR
COURTYARDFOUNDATION
OFFICE 2
1
SD-4.4
2
MODEL FILE:
SD-3.1
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
1
SD-4.3
1
SD-3.1
SHEET TITLE
FLOOR PLANS
Basement
1
02'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SD-2.0
SHEET 2OF 1
1
SD-4.1
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
191817161514
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
F
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
KITCHENETTE
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
ADA W/C 3
2
1
1
DOWN
SD-4.2
STAIR
SIDE WALK
TREE STRIP
OFFICE 3
PLANTER
DOWN
LOBBY
UP
1
SD-4.4
WHEEL
CHAIR LIFT
2
MODEL FILE:
SD-3.1
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
1
SIDE WALK
SD-4.3
1
SD-3.1
SHEET TITLE
FLOOR PLANS
TREE STRIP
SD-2.1
First Floor
1
02'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SHEET 3OF 1
1
SD-4.1
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
DOWN
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
OFFICE 4
UP
1
SD-4.2
ROOF TOP
1
SD-4.4
2
MODEL FILE:
SD-3.1
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
1
SD-4.3
1
SD-3.1
SHEET TITLE
FLOOR PLANS
Second Floor
1
02'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SD-2.2
SHEET 4OF 1
Flash over wall cap w/ drip edge
Timber wall cap, slope to drain
T.O. Parapet
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
±10'-0"
Gil Livni
2x Parapet wall
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
Low slope membrane roofing
Metal cap at parapet
2x6 Parapet wall
Membrane roof over rigid insul.
sloped to drain over 5/8" roof
Existing roof framing
sheathing per structural
2'-0"
Full height blocking per structural
1/2" ceiling sheathing
T.O. Wall
3/4" T&G Ceiling and Soffit
5/8" Gyp board
R-42 Insulation
Roof framing per structural
5/8" Gyp board
w/ R-42 Insulation
1x Interior window trim
Header per structural
5/4x6 Exterior Window head trim
Gyp wrapped opening
Clad window units
Metal or Hardie Panel siding finish
±12'-0"
over WRB over sheathing per structural
Sloped 2x window sill
Structural sub-fascia
5/4x Interior window stool
Metal wrapped over & fastened to soffit
5/4x6 Exterior window apron trim
Hardie lap siding
Metal or Hardie Panel fascia
Brick course cap
New floor finish (T.B.D.)
T.O. Subfloor
Existing sub floor
Existing floor framing
15'-3"
Sineage (T.B.D.)
5/8" Gyp board
R-21 wall insulation
1/2" Gyp board
Soldier course over windows
Clad door & window units
Clad window units
±10'-0"
Brick finish returns to window
Brick course cap @ sill
Existing Sidewalk
Veneer brick siding
New concrete entry porch
Existing concrete sidewalk
MODEL FILE:
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
Existing concrete stem wallNew concrete floor
Existing lower level slab (V.I.F.)
Max
6"
SHEET TITLE
WALL SECTIONS
T.O. Slab
Existing footings
SD-3.1
Section Through Existing Exterior WallSection Through New Entry
12
01'2'3'01'2'3'
SHEET 5OF 1
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
New 2x trim to butt existing/new siding
(510)913-5110
New stucco siding to wrap corner
Existing siding to remain
Existing windows to remain
Existing windows to remain
NORTH ELEVATION
1
02'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
MODEL FILE:
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
SHEET TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SD-4.1
SHEET 6OF 1
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
3 Coat stucco system
Existing siding
Metal clad wall cap w/ drip edge
Stucco window returns
Existing windows to
remain (this elevation
only)
Hardie-lap siding w/ 7" exposure
New fixed window units
Metal clad fascia
Metal cladding
Metal cladding
Fixed window units
40"x54" Framed business sinage
Brick cap course
Veneer brick cladding
EAST ELEVATION
1
02'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
MODEL FILE:
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
SHEET TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SD-4.2
SHEET 7OF 1
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
3 Coat stucco system
Hardie-lap siding w/ 7" exposure
True Divided Light Clad Widnows
Replace Existing, Maintain Placement
Metal clad fascia
Metal cladding
New awning window units
Metal cladding
Brick cap course
New iron fence
New awning window units
SOUTH ELEVATION
1
02'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
MODEL FILE:
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
SHEET TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SD-4.3
SHEET 8OF 1
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC
Gil Livni
453 Tucker Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(510)913-5110
WEST ELEVATION
1
02'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
MODEL FILE:
20201230 Sanctuary 1:2:2020.pln
SHEET TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SD-4.4
SHEET 9OF 1
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T1-2021-00141, ) REQUEST FOR
A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599 AN EXTENSION
)
East Main Street including converting the former church to use as office/assembly OF THE TIME
)
space and adding a new entry. The application also includes requests for a LIMIT
)
Conditional Use Permit as it involves the alteration of an existing non-conforming ORS 227.178(1)
)
development where no off-street parking is available, and Street Tree Removal
)
Permits to remove and replace two Callery Pear street trees (10.2-inch & 12.7-inch
DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street.
APPLICANTS: Rogue Planning and Development Services
Applicants request a _30-_ day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1).
3/5/2021
_______________________________ _________________
Applicant Date
_______________________________ _________________
Applicant Date
\[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the “120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days.”\]
Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Review
For Exterior Modificationsto a
Non-Contributing Historic Structure
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS to supplement findings dated January 19, 2021
Subject Property
Property Address: 599 East Main Street
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09AC; Tax lot 7600
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: Commercial
Zoning: C-1
Adjacent Zones: C-1, R-2
Railroad Historic District
Request:
The proposal isto convert the structure into amodern office building that includes an
approximately 1,900 square foot assembly or group space that is part of the office uses within
the structure.
The purpose is to not intensify the recognizeduse of thesanctuaryportion of the structure as
assembly/group occupancy, but the adapt the large area, large occupancy rated structure into a
community asset.
The proposal seeks to allow for uses that have been historically allowed (offices and a 1,900
square foot gathering space). This proposal seeks to allow for use of the building as an office
tenancy and allows for the tenants to utilize the space to host business associated conferences
and other similar events. These ‘events’ would be more limited than a busy Saturday/Sunday
event space,56 weeksa year ata thriving religious institution that included offices, pre-school
and community space.
The property owner is making substantial building upgrades on the interior that would be
required for a larger occupancy rated structure with assembly occupancy areas and mixed uses.
The current church building lacks those features. Additionally, the modifications are a substantial
financial investment into the structure, modernizing the historic building and beautifying a
Commercial zoned neighborhood,corner property.
HistoricandProposedUses:
Theexistingbuildinghasthe1,900squarefootsanctuaryareaandthelargerbuildingareathat
contains office areas that operated during ‘typical’ office hours throughout the week. The church
also held larger ‘events’ every Sunday and often Friday and Saturday (weddings, funerals,
community events, etc.) with weekly community meeting times and larger group events
throughout the calendar year. A weekly preschool with approximately 30 students and three
teachers operated at the church building for many years.
The proposal increases occupancy accessibility provisions and safety measures through the
installation of accessible routes, accessible and separated restroom facilities, and fire sprinkler
system. The property owner and the potential tenant are not intending for a concert venue to
replace the previous church functions but wants to assure the building is able to retain uses
allowed as permitted uses in the C-1 zone. These include the permitted use a commercially zoned
property as ‘entertainment’ which has been on a separate tax lot with no historical evidence of
on-site parking. Anticipated assembly events would be for the tenants of the office space. One
of the companies courted for tenancy has business conference events and business supporting
events. The company is a technology-based industry and envisions the space being used to help
promote their and similar businesses to boost the economy and technology advancement for
Ashland business sector.
Based on the photographic evidenceprovided bythe previous occupants, there were between
224-244 seats in the 1,900 square foot sanctuary area. There is approximately 750 square feet of
office on the second floor and approximately 1,980 square feet of office space in the daylight
basement.
The church was constructed prior to 1928 – the earliest Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate a
church building on the property in 1911. No on-site parking has been provided for the church use
since its development more than a century ago.
The primary focus of the proposal the substantial alterations the exterior of the structure to
remove an unsightly and poorly constructed addition and materials, with the addition of a
pedestrian oriented entry area.Additionally,there are substantial interior changesand structural
modifications tothe building are necessaryand allow for the use of the assembly occupancy
space as a lower intensity office space that may have assembly type events on occasion.
The entry door is proposed to be oriented towards the intersection of Fifth and East Main Streets.
The location of theentry dooris toprovideadequate clearancewithin the space for the stairs
and a manlifttothe main sanctuary level. This new entry area will provide access to the stairway
‘tower’ on the east side of the entry lobby.
The proposed brick base is a dark red “Klamath” brick. The revised exterior elevations and the
section drawings better locate thebrick,andthewatertable in proximity to the windows.
Additional details on the materials and dimensions are provided.
Transportation Impacts from the Conditional Use Permit:
The use of commercial property as acommercial use in the zone will not have a greater adverse
effect on the livability of the immediate impact area which is primarily commercially zoned. The
proposal is to increase the area of the building slightly to provide a pedestrian entrance on the
East Main and Fifth Street frontage. The property has no parking and the modification to the non-
conforming site necessitates a conditional use permit.
The target use of the zone for the site is a 1,742 square foot office building. An office structure
of 1,742 would require 3.48 or four (4) parking spaces.
The proposal is to retain the existing structure and the existing occupancy rating would require
61 parking spaces based on the number of seats within the sanctuary space where no on-site
parking spaces are provided.
The existing structure is 4,620 squarefeetin area. The portion of the building that was used as
assembly occupancy is just over 1,800 square feet of the building as seatedassemblyoccupancy
(1 sq. per 15 sq. foot floor area) anoccupancy of approximately126 persons is permitted per
building code requirements. An occupancy of 126 which would require 31 parking spaces.
In the event that the entire structure is office space, the structure requires 9.24 or 10 parking
spaces. This is more than twice what would be required to be provide if the site was developed
with the FAR required for the ‘target use’ of the zone, but to bring the area of the building into
conformance, more than 50 percent of the structure would need to be removed.
The property has 74-feet of frontage on Fifth Street, after removing 20-feet from frontage, there
is 54-feet remaining. This 54-feet could provide two on-street parking credits. In no case can the
required number of parking spaces for any use, not even a residential use could be on the
property without the granting of the conditional use permit to continue the non-conforming
development of the commercially zoned site.
The Conditional Use Permit is to allow for the expansion of an existing, non-conforming structure
on a commercially zoned property that has no parking. The use of the structure was a religious
institution, that use predated the zoning code of the city thus there isn’t a ‘conditional use
permit’ approval of the church use of the property as require per today’s land development
ordinance.
The property has been occupied with a large area, numerous occupancy potential, site filling,
church structure for nearly 100 years. There has never been parking associated with the large
occupancy,largeareachurchstructure.
According to the records the Church shared with the propertyowner the church hostednot only
traditional Sunday Services, Sunday School, all large denominational holiday services that drew
larger crowds than the typical 100+ Sunday worshipers. There is photographic evidence of a 244-
person occupancy in the Sanctuary area alone.
There was a weekday preschool with approximately 30 students and three teachers. There were
anywhere between three to five office and staff of the church at the property during the
weekdays. Additionally, the church had a robust ‘class’ program. They offered art classes, and
held art shows, there were musical classes and recital events. The church buildings was used for
other community gatherings held in the sanctuary space.
All of these uses occurred at 599 East Main Street, where there is no on-site parking. All of the
users parked on-street or walked from the neighborhood. This proposal does not increase the
occupancy of the property.
Though thechurch useshavebeenreducedin the recent years, there is nothing that would
prevent a new/revived church occupant with the same anticipated occupancy from reusing the
space without the proposed substantial site upgrades.
The proposed adaptive reuse of the structure as an office space that is allowed to holdevents
relatedto their business is no different thana law office hosting a law conference, or a real estate
office hosting a training event, and is less impactful to a neighborhood than a 5X a week
preschool, in a church that held weekly evening events, weekly Sunday worship, funerals,
weddings and community events that fulfill the mission of the church or was sponsored by a
church member.
This is the same expected transportation to the site for the proposed professional officeuse. The
professional office uses will have typical office hours and likely M- F operationswith little
weekend impacts. Whereas the church had weekly pre-school and office traffic inaddition to
evening classes and events with a heavy impact on weekends. The transportation and parking
impacts from the office will be more predictable and consistent when compared to a church that
could have numerous large person events through out the week.
Where no previous bicycle parking was provided, the proposal is to provide covered and
uncovered secure bicycle parking facilities, increasing the transportation options.
Additionally,the exterior modifications will greatly enhance the pedestrian experience on East
MainStreetandFifthStreets.TherewillbepedestrianorientedentrancesonEastMainandat
therearofthebuildingorientedtoFifthStreet.Boththesemodificationsincreaseconformity
with the Site Design Standards and encourage pedestrian use of the structure.
The property is in close proximity todowntown, shopping at Safeway, the Library, other
commercial businesses, yet outside of the area that is typically heavily parked, Oak/Pioneer/First
to Fourth, Lithia Way to A Street during the tourist season.
Based on numerous site visits, photographic evidence from previous street view programs, there
is adequate on-street parking on along the properties 74-feet of frontage adjacent to Fifth Street,
54 feet of which is available for on-street parking. There is parking across Fifth Street as the
residence there has alley parking. There is on-street parking on C Street, and on Sherman Street,
across East Main Street. Ample on-street parking is available within 200-feet of the structure.
The site has a Walkscore of91. According toWalkscore.com, 599EMain Street is a“walkers
paradise”and daily errands do not require acar. The property is centrally located and is within a
20-min walk of neighborhoods south of SOU, areas all the way to the northwest in the areas west
of Glenn Street and south of Hersey Street, the Fordyce Street neighborhoods. Additionally, the
site scores an 84 on Bike score and is considered Very Bikeable with biking convenient for most.
www.walkscore.com.599-e-main=st-ashland-or-97520. East Main Street has a designated bike
lane acrossthefrontage oftheproperty. Theability for residents that work or patronize the
property to walk or bicycle from nearly every major neighborhood in town increases the
likelihood of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and that a finding can be made that the use of the
property as an professionaloffice and the proposed modifications to the structure to enhance
the pedestrian and bicycle experience are improvements to the multi-modal functionality of the
site and that short of removal of 50 percent of the structure to accommodate parking, there are
The proposal does not increase the occupancy of the structure and is a decrease in overall
occupancy of the sanctuary space.
48 Fifth Street:
The property at 48 Fifth Street is a separate, legal lot of record. The property is occupied by an
approximately 1,200 SF commercial structure. Though previously owned in common by the
church and presently owned in common, that was not always the case. Additionally, the
property’s parking area adjacenttothe alleywas required when the structureat48 Fifth Street
was constructed are notassociated withthis application.
Per thedecision of PA-1993-00123 the uses were evaluatedseparately in fact the staff report
states “no additional capacity, in terms of additional seating in the sanctuary, was being added as
part of this application, therefore, there was essentially no change in the use.” The report goes on
to note that the parking spaces shown adjacent to the Fellowship Hall were not required to be
improved because there was not a change in the use. Though the previous uses were in common
and there were associations made, the parking for the structure at 48 Fifth Street isrequired for the
functionality of 48 Fifth Street as a commercial use in the commercial zoning district. The proposed
parking in 1993 appears to have been adequate parking for an approximately 1200 SF office space
and cannot be reallocated to a separate property that is no longer associated with the uses at 599 E
Main Street.
Attachments:
PA-1993-00123
1994 Building Permit
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
October 12, 1993
PLANNING ACTION 93-123 is a request for a Site Review to construct a fellowship hall to
the rear of the existing sanctuary. The existing structure will be demolished at 48 Fifth
Street.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1; Assessor's Map #: 9AC;
Tax Lot #: 7500.
APPLICANT: Foursquare Church
On Wednesday, September 22, 1993, an administrative hearing was held in the Planning
Office to review this application. In attendance were Bill Molnar, Associate Planner and
Planning Director John McLaughlin serving as Hearings Officer.
McLaughlin reviewed the request, noting that the application involved the demolition of
an existing building, and replacing it with a residential-style building that will serve as a
fellowship hall for the church. McLaughlin said that no additional capacity, in terms of
additional seating in the sanctuary, was being added as part of this application, therefore,
there was essentially no change in the use.
The building to be demolished is listed as "compatible" on the Historic Inventory, and
therefore it can be removed without City Council approval. The replacement design
continues on with the residential character established along Fifth Street, even though the
property is zoned commercial.
The design is reminiscent of Craftsman, with the lower roof pitch and the porch-style of
covered walkway from the church. There is an entry directly toward Fifth Street,
maintaining the residential character.
McLaughlin said that the design was appropriate for the area, and that it had been
reviewed by the Historic Commission Review Board, and they had concurred with the
design.
Improved landscaping was shown on an additional plan, with some parking located off
the alley. Since the application does not involve an increase in the intensity of the use, the
City could not require the improvement of the parking spaces. The applicants had
indicated that the spaces would be landscaped, with a gravel parking surface.
McLaughlin said the applicants would be required to sign in favor of future alley
improvements, but not improve the alley at this time.
McLaughlin then reviewed the criteria for approval of a site review, which are as follows:
A.All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B.All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C.The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property.
McLaughlin stated that given that there were no increases in the intensity of the use as a
church, and that the property was zoned commercial next to a residential area, this design
was appropriate, and based upon the submitted information, found that it complied with
the criteria for approval of a site review.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions and on the proposal being subject to each of
the following conditions, we approve Planning Action 93-123. Further, if any one or more
of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action 93-123 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached
to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the property owner sign in favor of future improvements to the alley.
3) That all necessary building permits be obtained prior to the commencement of
construction on the site.
4) That all proposed landscaping be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the building.
5) That the parking area be surfaced with a 3/4" minus crushed rock, or equivalent,
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building.
If no appeal is filed, this request will become final when reviewed by the Ashland
Planning Commission on
October 12, 1993.
__________________________________ __________________________
John McLaughlin, Planning Director Date
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
TIFFU!!UJUMF
DPODFQU!SFOEFSJOHT
TE.2/1
TIFFU!2PG!21
CVJMEJOH!BSFB
CBTFNFOU!!4-433!TR/!GU/81(.7#
2TU!GMPPS!!4-554!TR/!GU/
3OE!GMPPS!!:99!TR/!GU/
UPUBM!!8-864!TR/!GU/
555
555555555555555
555B
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
5
5
Hjm!Mjwoj
5
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
5
5
5
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
5
5
5)621*:24.6221
5
5
5
5
5
5
27(.7#
5
5
55
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5B
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
B
5
5
B
5
5
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
5
5
5
5555555
555B
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
B
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
FYJTUJOHFYJTUJOH
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
DPVSUZBSECVJMEJOH
5
5
B
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
5 6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
SFNPEFMFE
5
5
48(.5#
5
B
5
5
B
5
5
5
OFX
5
5
5
FOUSZ
B
9(.7#
OFX!QPSDI
55555555B
55555B
55
555555555555555
555B
555555555
555555555B
)FYJTUJOH*!USFF!TUSJQ
6UI!TUSFFU
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
O
9(.7#68(.7#
TIFFU!!UJUMF
TJUF!QMBO
TJUF!QMBO
2
TE.2/2
19(27(35(
TDBMF;!4043#!>!!!!2(.1#
TIFFU!3PG!21
2
TE.5/2
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
BEB!CBUI
8
9
7
:
26
5
B
35
B5
44
5
B
53
5
B
62
5
B
7
5
B
8
5
B
9
5
B
:
21
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
22
BEB!X0D
2
TE.5/3
23242526
TUBJS
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
TQSJOLMFS
SJTFS!SPPN
DPVSUZBSEGPVOEBUJPO
PGGJDF!2
2
TE.5/5
3
TE.4/2
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
2
TE.5/4
2
TE.4/2
TIFFU!!UJUMF
GMPPS!QMBOT
Cbtfnfou
2
15(9(27(
TDBMF;!209#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
TE.3/1
TIFFU!4PG!21
2
TE.5/2
G
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
LJUDIFOFUUF
31
Hjm!Mjwoj
2:
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
29
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
PQFO
21
BEB!X0D
B
5
5
5
:
9
8
EPXO
7
2
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
6
TE.5/3
5
4
3
2
TUBJS
TJEF!XBML
USFF!TUSJQ
PGGJDF!4
B
5
5
5
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
CMBDL!TUFFM!SBJMJOH
X0!TUBJOMFTT!DBCMFT
QMBOUFS
B
5
MPCCZ
XIFFM
DIBJS!MJGU
2
TE.5/5
3
TE.4/2
2
TJEF!XBML
TE.5/4
2
NPEFM!GJMF;
TE.4/2
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
TIFFU!!UJUMF
USFF!TUSJQ
GMPPS!QMBOT
Gjstu!Gmpps
2
TE.3/2
15(9(27(
TDBMF;!209#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
TIFFU!5PG!21
2
TE.5/2
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
EPXO Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
PGGJDF!5
PQFO!UP!CFMPX
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
2
TE.5/3
VQ
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
SPPG!UPQ
2
TE.5/5
3
TE.4/2
2
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
TE.5/4
2
TE.4/2
TIFFU!!UJUMF
Tfdpoe!Gmpps
GMPPS!QMBOT
2
15(9(27(
TDBMF;!209#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
TE.3/3
TIFFU!6PG!21
Gmbti!pwfs!xbmm!dbq!x0!esjq!fehf
Ujncfs!xbmm!dbq-!tmpqf!up!esbjo
U/P/!Qbsbqfu
°21(.1#
3y!Qbsbqfu!xbmm
Mpx!tmpqf!nfncsbof!sppgjoh
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
Nfubm!dbq!bu!qbsbqfu
Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
3y7!Qbsbqfu!xbmm
Nfncsbof!sppg!pwfs!sjhje!jotvm/
tmpqfe!up!esbjo!pwfs!609#!sppg
Fyjtujoh!sppg!gsbnjoh
tifbuijoh!qfs!tusvduvsbm
3(.1#
Gvmm!ifjhiu!cmpdljoh!qfs!tusvduvsbm
203#!dfjmjoh!tifbuijoh
U/P/!Xbmm
405#!U'H!Dfjmjoh!boe!Tpggju
609#!Hzq!cpbse
S.53!Jotvmbujpo
Sppg!gsbnjoh!qfs!tusvduvsbm
609#!Hzq!cpbse
x0!S.53!Jotvmbujpo
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
2y!Joufsjps!xjoepx!usjn
Ifbefs!qfs!tusvduvsbm
605y7!Fyufsjps!Xjoepx!ifbe!usjn
Hzq!xsbqqfe!pqfojoh
Dmbe!xjoepx!vojut
Nfubm!ps!Ibsejf!Qbofm!tjejoh!gjojti
°23(.1#
pwfs!XSC!pwfs!tifbuijoh!qfs!tusvduvsbm
Tmpqfe!3y!xjoepx!tjmm
Tusvduvsbm!tvc.gbtdjb
605y!Joufsjps!xjoepx!tuppm
Nfubm!xsbqqfe!pwfs!'!gbtufofe!up!tpggju
605y7!Fyufsjps!xjoepx!bqspo!usjn
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
Ibsejf!mbq!tjejoh
Nfubm!ps!Ibsejf!Qbofm!gbtdjb
Csjdl!dpvstf!dbq
Ofx!gmpps!gjojti!)U/C/E/*
U/P/!Tvcgmpps
Fyjtujoh!tvc!gmpps
Fyjtujoh!gmpps!gsbnjoh
26(.4#
Tjofbhf!)U/C/E/*
609#!Hzq!cpbse
S.32!xbmm!jotvmbujpo
203#!Hzq!cpbse
Tpmejfs!dpvstf!pwfs!xjoepxt
Dmbe!epps!'!xjoepx!vojut
Dmbe!xjoepx!vojut
°21(.1#
Csjdl!gjojti!sfuvsot!up!xjoepx
Csjdl!dpvstf!dbq!A!tjmm
Fyjtujoh!Tjefxbml
Wfoffs!csjdl!tjejoh
Ofx!dpodsfuf!fousz!qpsdi
Fyjtujoh!dpodsfuf!tjefxbml
Fyjtujoh!dpodsfuf!tufn!xbmmOfx!dpodsfuf!gmpps
Fyjtujoh!mpxfs!mfwfm!tmbc!)W/J/G/*
Nby
7#
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
U/P/!Tmbc
TIFFU!!UJUMF
Fyjtujoh!gppujoht
XBMM!TFDUJPOT
Tfyujpo!A!)f*!Fyu/!XbmmTfdujpo!A!)o*!Fousz
23
TE.4/2
13(5(7(
TDBMF;!409#!!!>!!!!2(.1#TDBMF;!409#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
TIFFU!7PG!21
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
Ofx!3y!usjn!up!cvuu!fyjtujoh0ofx!tjejoh
Ofx!tuvddp!tjejoh!up!xsbq!dpsofs
Fyjtujoh!tjejoh!up!sfnbjo
Fyjtujoh!xjoepxt!up!sfnbjo
Fyjtujoh!xjoepxt!up!sfnbjo
OPSUI!FMFWBUJPO
2
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
15(9(27(
TDBMF;!209#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
TIFFU!!UJUMF
FYUFSJPS!FMFWBUJPOT
TE.5/2
TIFFU!8PG!21
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
4!Dpbu!tuvddp!tztufn
Fyjtujoh!tjejoh
Nfubm!dmbe!xbmm!dbq!x0!esjq!fehf
Tuvddp!xjoepx!sfuvsot
Fyjtujoh!xjoepxt!up
sfnbjo!)uijt!fmfwbujpo
pomz*
Ibsejf.mbq!tjejoh!x0!8#!fyqptvsf
Ofx!gjyfe!xjoepx!vojut
Nfubm!dmbe!gbtdjb
Nfubm!dmbeejoh
Nfubm!dmbeejoh
Gjyfe!xjoepx!vojut
51#y65#!Gsbnfe!cvtjoftt!tjobhf
Csjdl!dbq!dpvstf
Wfoffs!csjdl!dmbeejoh
FBTU!FMFWBUJPO
2
15(9(27(
TDBMF;!209#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
TIFFU!!UJUMF
FYUFSJPS!FMFWBUJPOT
TE.5/3
TIFFU!9PG!21
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
4!Dpbu!tuvddp!tztufn
Ibsejf.mbq!tjejoh!x0!8#!fyqptvsf
Usvf!Ejwjefe!Mjhiu!Dmbe!Xjeopxt
Sfqmbdf!Fyjtujoh-!Nbjoubjo!Qmbdfnfou
Nfubm!dmbe!gbtdjb
Nfubm!dmbeejoh
Ofx!bxojoh!xjoepx!vojut
Nfubm!dmbeejoh
Ofx!jspo!gfodf
Csjdl!dbq!dpvstf
Ofx!bxojoh!xjoepx!vojut
TPVUI!FMFWBUJPO
2
15(9(27(
NPEFM!GJMF;
TDBMF;!209#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
TIFFU!!UJUMF
FYUFSJPS!FMFWBUJPOT
TE.5/4
TIFFU!:PG!21
NBHOPMJB!GJOF!IPNFT!MMD
Hjm!Mjwoj
564!Uvdlfs!Tusffu
Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)621*:24.6221
XFTU!FMFWBUJPO
2
15(9(27(
TDBMF;!209#!!!>!!!!2(.1#
NPEFM!GJMF;
31312341!Tboduvbsz!2;3;3131/qmo
TIFFU!!UJUMF
FYUFSJPS!FMFWBUJPOT
TE.5/5
TIFFU!21PG!21
Sf;!6::!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu0QB.U2.3132.11252
Hjm!Mjwoj!=ifmnbotqsjohtAhnbjm/dpn?
Tvo!3132.14.32!2343!QN
Up;!Efsfl!Tfwfstpo!=efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt?
Dd;!Hjm!Mjwoj!)nbhopmjbgjofipnftAhnbjm/dpn*
=nbhopmjbgjofipnftAhnbjm/dpn?<!Bnz!Hvoufs
=bnzhvoufs/qmboojohAhnbjm/dpn?
\\FYUFSOBM!TFOEFS^
Ifmmp!Efsfl-
Uif!psjhjobm!divsdi!pqfsbufe!gps!bcpvu!91!zfbst!mpu!$8711-!boe
eje!opu!pxo!ps!jodmvefe!59!6ui!Tu-!mpu!$8611!jo!jut!pqfsbujpot-
Uifz!cpvhiu!uif!ipvtf!pomz!jo!2:99/!
Uibol!zpv
Hjm!
Po!Uiv-!Nbs!29-!3132!bu!569!QN!Efsfl!Tfwfstpo
=efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt?!xspuf;
Hjm!'!Bnz-
Bgufs!ejtdvttjoh!zpvs!bqqmjdbujpo!gps!6::!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu
xjui!Cjmm!boe!Nbsjb-!xf(wf!efdjefe!up!tdifevmf!ju!gps!b!qvcmjd
ifbsjoh!cfgpsf!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!bu!uifjs!ofyu
sfhvmbs!nffujoh!bu!8;11!q/n/!po!Uvftebz-!Bqsjm!24ui/!!Ju
xpvme!bmtp!hp!cbdl!up!Ijtupsjd!Dpnnjttjpo!bt!qmboofe!po
Xfeoftebz-!Bqsjm!8ui!bu!7;11!q/n/
Gps!tubgg-!uifsf!bsf!b!gfx!lfz!jttvft!xf(wf!jefoujÑfe!uibu
tipvme!cf!npsf!gvmmz!beesfttfe!cfgpsf!uif!ifbsjoh;!
Qbsljoh!boe!Usbggjd!Hfofsbujpo!gps!uif!Vtf!Qspqptfe;
Uif!gjoejoht!qspwjefe!sfmz!po!uif!ovncfs!pg!tqbdft
sfrvjsfe!gps!uif!qsfwjpvt!divsdi!vtf!boe!uif!qspqptfe
pggjdf!vtf/!Ipxfwfs-!usbggjd!hfofsbujpo!gps!uif!qspqptfe
vtf!boe!b!ejtdvttjpo!pg!ipx!uibu!sfmbuft!up!uif!qsfwjpvt
divsdi!vtf!bsf!opu!beesfttfe/
Dpoejujpobm!Vtf0Ubshfu!Vtf!Dpnqbsjtpo
)iuuqt;00btimboe/nvojdjqbm/dpeft0MboeVtf029/6/5/16
1/B/4*!Ftqfdjbmmz!Hfofsbujpo!pg!UsbgÑd/!Uif!Ñoejoht
qspwjefe!mbshfmz!dpnqbsf!uif!qspqptfe!pgÑdf!vtf!up!uif
qsfwjpvt!divsdi!vtf-!cvu!ep!opu!beesftt!uif!Dpoejujpobm
Vtf!Qfsnju!dsjufsjb!jo!ufsnt!pg!b!dpnqbsjtpo!pg!uif
jnqbdut!pg!uif!qspqptfe!vtf!up!uiptf!pg!uif!ubshfu!vtf-
qbsujdvmbsmz!jo!ufsnt!pg!hfofsbujpo!pg!usbgÑd/!!
Ofjhicps!Dpnnfout;!Xf(wf!ibe!pof!mfuufs!gspn!b
ofjhicps!bcpvu!uif!divsdi-!boe!b!dpvqmf!beejujpobm
qipof!dbmmt!uibu!ejeo(u!uvso!joup!xsjuufo!dpnnfout!.!bmm
tbzjoh!uibu!uif!divsdi!vtf!bt!fyqfsjfodfe!jo!uif
ofjhicpsippe!xbt!mbshfmz!mjnjufe!up!Tvoebzt-!boe!uibu
tqsfbejoh!ju!uispvhipvu!uif!xffl!xjmm!bnqmjgz!uif
jnqbdut/!
Uby!Mpu!$8611!Ä!Uif!psjhjobm!divsdi!vtf!jodmvefe!Uby
Mpu!$8611!cfijoe!uif!tvckfdu!qspqfsuz-!boe!uif!qbsljoh
tqbdft!po!ju!xfsf!qbsu!pg!uif!psjhjobm!divsdi!dbnqvt/!
Uiftf!qbsljoh!tqbdft!iboemfe!tpnf!qbsljoh!efnboe!gps
uif!ebzdbsf-!qsf.tdippm!boe!divsdi!pggjdf!vtft-!bt!xfmm!bt
qspwjejoh!bu!mfbtu!b!njojnbm!nfbtvsf!pg!qbsljoh!evsjoh
tfswjdft-!boe!uifjs!tfqbsbujpo!gspn!uif!qsjnbsz!divsdi
cvjmejoh!jo!uif!dvssfou!qspqptbm!dpvme!cf!tffo!bt
jodsfbtjoh!uif!qbsljoh!jnqbdut!up!uif!ofjhicpsippe/!!Uijt
jt!mjlfmz!up!cf!ejtdvttfe!cz!ofjhicpst!boe0ps!uif!Qmboojoh
Dpnnjttjpo!evsjoh!uif!ifbsjoh/!!
Bttfncmz0Dpogfsfodf!Dfoufs0Usbef!Tipx!Vtf
Sfrvftu;!Uif!nbufsjbmt!qspwjefe!eftdsjcf!b!xjef
sbohf!pg!qpufoujbm!vtft!)
dpnnvojuz!nffujoht-!usbef
*!xjuipvu!dmfbs!efubjm!pg!uif
tipxt-!dpowfoujpot
nbhojuvef!pg!uiptf!vtft(!jnqbdut/!!Tubgg!dboopu!tvqqpsu
uijt!sfrvftu!bt!xf!ep!opu!tff!ipx!dmfbs!Ñoejoht!dpvme
cf!nbef!uibu!ju!nffut!uif!Dpoejujpobm!Vtf!Qfsnju
dsjufsjb/
Xf Xf(mm!cf!qsfqbsjoh!boe!nbjmjoh!opujdft!gps!uif!Bqsjm!24ui
nffujoh!tipsumz-!boe!J(mm!cf!xpsljoh!po!uif!tubgg!sfqpsu!boe
esbgu!Ñoejoht!cfhjoojoh!uif!xffl!pg!Nbsdi!3:ui/!!Boz
beejujpobm!jogpsnbujpo!zpv!dbo!qspwjef!beesfttjoh!uif
bcpwf!xpvme!cf!nvdi!bqqsfdjbufe/!!
Uibolt-
.!Efsfl
Efsfl!Tfwfstpo-!Tfojps!Qmboofs
Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Efqbsunfou!pg!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou
62!Xjocvso!Xbz-!Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)652*!663.3151!!!)652*!663.3161!!!2.911.
QI;!GBY;UUZ;
846.3:11
!efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt!!
F.NBJM;!
Uijt!f.nbjm!usbotnjttjpo!jt!uif!pggjdjbm!cvtjoftt!pg!uif!Djuz
pg!Btimboe-!boe!jt!tvckfdu!up!Psfhpo(t!qvcmjd!sfdpset!mbxt
gps!ejtdmptvsf!boe!sfufoujpo/!!Jg!zpv(wf!sfdfjwfe!uijt!f.nbjm
jo!fssps-!qmfbtf!dpoubdu!nf!bu!)652*!663.3151/!!Uibol!zpv/
Sf;!BEWJTPSZ!DPNNJTTJPO!IFBSJOH!UFTUJNPOZ
Efsfl!Tfwfstpo!=efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt?
Uvf!3132.14.13!1341!QN
Up;!Ejbof!Mfwjtpo!=ejmfwjtpoAipunbjm/dpn?<!Qmboojoh
Dpnnjttjpo!.!Qvcmjd!Uftujnpoz!=QD.qvcmjd.
uftujnpozAbtimboe/ps/vt?
Nst/!Mfwjtpo-
Xf(wf!sfdfjwfe!zpvs!dpnnfout!boe!xjmm!bee!uifn!up!uif
sfdpse!gps!dpotjefsbujpo!xifo!b!efdjtjpo!jt!nbef/!!
Uibol!zpv!gps!ubljoh!uif!ujnf!up!dpnnfou/!!Ju!jt!nvdi
bqqsfdjbufe/
.!!
Efsfl
Efsfl!Tfwfstpo-!Tfojps!Qmboofs
Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Efqbsunfou!pg!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou
62!Xjocvso!Xbz-!Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)652*!663.3151!!!)652*!663.3161!!!2.911.846.
QI;!GBY;UUZ;
3:11
!efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt!!
F.NBJM;!
Uijt!f.nbjm!usbotnjttjpo!jt!uif!pggjdjbm!cvtjoftt!pg!uif!Djuz!pg
Btimboe-!boe!jt!tvckfdu!up!Psfhpo(t!qvcmjd!sfdpset!mbxt!gps
ejtdmptvsf!boe!sfufoujpo/!!Jg!zpv(wf!sfdfjwfe!uijt!f.nbjm!jo
fssps-!qmfbtf!dpoubdu!nf!bu!)652*!663.3151/!!Uibol!zpv/
!Ejbof!Mfwjtpo!=ejmfwjtpoAipunbjm/dpn?
!Uvftebz-!Nbsdi!3-!3132!13;35!QN
!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!.!Qvcmjd!Uftujnpoz!=QD.qvcmjd.
uftujnpozAbtimboe/ps/vt?
!BEWJTPSZ!DPNNJTTJPO!IFBSJOH!UFTUJNPOZ
!
\\FYUFSOBM!TFOEFS^
Nz!ivtcboe!boe!J!pxo!bo!Btimboefs!dpoep!po!Fbtu!Nbjo
Tusffu!xifsf!nz!npuifs!vtfe!up!mjwf-!cvu!xf!opx!mjwf!jo
Dbmjgpsojb/!!Opu!voujm!upebz..Nbsdi!3..eje!J!sfdfjwf!zpvs!nbjmfe
#Opujdf!pg!Bqqmjdbujpo#!gps!uif!qspqptfe!divsdi!qspqfsuz
dpowfstjpo!po!uif!dpsofs!pg!Fbtu!Nbjo!boe!Gjgui!Tusffu/!!Zpvs
Opujdf!sfrvjsfe!boz!f.nbjmfe!dpnnfou!up!cf!tvcnjuufe!cz!21
b/n/!po!Nbsdi!2..pcwjpvtmz!bo!jnqpttjcjmjuz!gps!nf!jo!uijt
dbtf/
J!xpvme!ipqf!uibu!nz!pomz!dpodfso!dpvme!tujmm!cf!dpotjefsfe-
boe!uibu!jt!uif!rvftujpo!pg!qbsljoh/!!Jg!uif!qspqfsuz!jt!up!cf
vtfe!gps!pgÑdf0bttfncmz!tqbdf!uibu!xpvme!jowpmwf!ebjmz!vtf
boe!qbsljoh-!tvsfmz!uifsf!tipvme!cf!b!sfrvjsfnfou!uibu!uif
bqqmjdbou!qspwjef!qbsljoh!gps!uif!qspqptfe!vtf/!!Uif!qsjps
divsdi!vtf!foubjmfe!offe!gps!qbsljoh!pomz!po!Tvoebzt-!boe
uijt!qspqptfe!vtf!jt!bopuifs!nbuufs/
Uibol!zpv!gps!zpvs!dpotjefsbujpo/
Ejbof!Mfwjtpo
2379!Esblf!Djsdmf
Tbo!Mvjt!Pcjtqp-!DB!!:4516
March 10, 2021
Re: Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00141
599 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Planning Department:
I have never responded to a Notice of Application before, having lived at the same address for thirty-
three years and receiving numerous notices, but I feel very strongly about this particular planning
action.
599 East Main Street, the neighborhood, and the City of Ashland will benefit greatly from the repair,
remodeling, and new, positive use of this property, possibly involving increased tax revenue to the city.
It is now unsafe, dilapidated, and sadly, the dictionary definition of eyesore.
There is a need for safe shelter for those without homes that now gather, rest, and sleep on this
property. Sleeping exposed to the elements near streets that have heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic
is not the answer, nor safe.
This property will become an asset, improving and beautifying the whole neighborhood, and the City of
Ashland. This location is essentially the introduction for many people to what is the heart of Ashland.
All people who travel on East Main Street as the main thoroughfare can appreciate the transformation
into an attractive building, put to a constructive purpose.
On a personal note, Mr. GIL Livni has shown me his community spirit, that he cares about this
neighborhood and his neighbors. My house is on the opposite corner at 585 E Main Street and was
placed on the National Register of Historic Places (George H. Palethorpe House) in 1999. Built in 1888, it
is in disrepair. I am a single, elderly woman, who after making some changes as recommended by the
National Register, lacked the funds for further major repairs.
I am now attempting to rectify the deferred maintenance, starting with the roof. A chance meeting with
Mr. Livni was a lifesaver. He offered to talk to roofers, and found one whose estimate was 33% less than
other estimates I had been given. This will allow me to start with other repairs. He even drove to a
roofing supplier to bring back a sample of the shingles I had referenced. For a very busy general
contractor overseeing large projects on a much grander scale, to me, this shows unusual compassion
kindness, and caring, and reflects his personal values.
In short, I whole heartedly endorse, and have trust in, all aspects of this planning action.
Thank you.
Victoria Vannice
Sf;!Qb.u2.3132.11252/
Tvtbo!Dibsmfz!=cpsefsd3Azbipp/dpn?
Uvf!3132.15.17!2122!BN
Up;!Efsfl!Tfwfstpo!=efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt?
\\FYUFSOBM!TFOEFS^
Uibol!zpv!Efsfl
Zft!J!xpvme!mjlf!up!tff!zpvs!gjojtife!epdt/
J!hvftt!J!ibwf!njyfe!gffmjoht/!!Uif!pme!divsdi!jt!bo!fzf!tpsf!boe
tp!ju!xpvme!cf!ojdf!up!vqhsbef!uif!ofjhicpsippe!xjui!b!ofx
cvjmejoh/!
Xf!epo(u!ibwf!tusffu!qbsljoh!po!uibu!cmpdl-!pomz!bmmz///!tp!J
xpoefs!jg!uibu!xpvme!hfu!cvtz!!!Cvu-!J!ibwf!pgufo!uipvhiu!pg
dsfbujoh!b!mjuumf!cvtjoftt!bu!nz!qmbdf!boe!uijoljoh!ju!xpvme!cf
npsf!pg!b!xbml!vq!cvtjoftt/!!
J!uijol!J!xpvme!mfbo!upxbse!uif!vqhsbef/!!Xf!offe!hspxui!boe
wjsuvbmj{bujpo!jo!Btimboe
Uibol!zpv
Tfou!gspn!nz!jQipof
Po!Bqs!7-!3132-!bu!:53!BN-!Efsfl!Tfwfstpo
=efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt?!xspuf;
Ij!Tvtbo-
J(n!uif!tubgg!qmboofs!bttjhofe!up!uijt!qspkfdu/!!
Uif!#opo.dpogpsnjoh!efwfmpqnfou#!qpsujpo!pg!uif
efwfmpqnfou!jt!uibu!uif!mpoh.tuboejoh!divsdi!vtf!bt
uifz!ibwf!eftdsjcfe!ju!jo!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!xpvme!ibwf
sfrvjsfe!72!qbsljoh!tqbdft!boe!uifsf!bsf!op!qbsljoh
tqbdft!bwbjmbcmf!po!uif!qspqfsuz!)tp!ju!epft!opu
dpogpsn!up!qbsljoh!sfrvjsfnfout*/!!Djuz!dpeft!tbz!uibu
jg!b!opo.dpogpsnjoh!efwfmpqnfou!jt!bmufsfe-!ju!sfrvjsft
b!Dpoejujpobm!Vtf!Qfsnju!qspdftt!boe!uif!Qmboojoh
Dpnnjttjpo!mpplt!bu!uif!qspqptbm!jo!ufsnt!pg!jut
ofhbujwf!jnqbdut!up!uif!ofjhicpsippe!jo!dpnqbsjtpo
up!uif!vtf!fowjtjpofe!voefs!uif!{pojoh-!xijdi!gps!uijt
Dpnnfsdjbm!qspqfsuz!xpvme!cf!b!2-853!trvbsf!gppu
sfubjm!cvjmejoh/!!Uif!fyjtujoh!divsdi!cvjmejoh!jt!bcpvu
5-741!trvbsf!gffu/!!
Uif!bqqmjdbujpo!jt!qspqptjoh!up!sfnpefm!uif!cvjmejoh!up
dsfbuf!b!#npefso!pggjdf!cvjmejoh#!boe!uif!boujdjqbufe
ufobou!jt!b!ufdi!dpnqboz/!!Uif!bqqmjdbujpo!bmtp!btlt
up!sftfswf!uif!bcjmjuz!up!ibwf!(usbef!tipxt-
dpogfsfodft!ps!nffujoht(!jo!dpokvodujpo!xjui!uif!pggjdf
vtf/!!Uifsf!jt!opu!tqfdjgjd!efubjm!po!ipx!gsfrvfou-!ipx
mpoh!uifz!njhiu!mbtu!ps!ipx!nboz!buufoefft!uifsf
njhiu!cf!gps!uiftf!fwfout-!bmuipvhi!uif!bqqmjdbujpo
fnqibtj{ft!ju!xpvme!opu!ibwf!b!hsfbufs!jnqbdu!uibo
uif!qsfwjpvt!divsdi!vtf/!!Uifz!bsf!opu!qspqptjoh!up
qspwjef!boz!qbsljoh!xjui!uif!qspqptbm-!boe!uif
Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!xjmm!cf!dpotjefsjoh!xibu
jnqbdut!uibu!xpvme!nfbo!gps!uif!ofjhicpsippe!wfstvt
xibu!jnqbdut!uifsf!xpvme!cf!gspn!b!tnbmmfs!sfubjm
cvjmejoh!bt!uifz!nblf!b!efdjtjpo/!!
Zpv!dbo!sfwjfx!uifjs!bqqmjdbujpo!nbufsjbmt!po.mjof!bu;
iuuqt;00hjt/btimboe/ps/vt0bsdhjt0sftu0tfswjdft0qmboojoh0
Qmboojoh`Bdujpo0GfbuvsfTfswfs010495290buubdinfout0
57539!
J(n!gjojtijoh!vq!uif!tubgg!sfqpsu!xjui!sfdpnnfoebujpot
up!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!upebz-!boe!dbo!tfoe!zpv
uiptf!gjstu!uijoh!upnpsspx!jg!zpv(e!mjlf/!!
.!!
Efsfl
Efsfl!Tfwfstpo-!Tfojps!Qmboofs
Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Efqbsunfou!pg!Dpnnvojuz
Efwfmpqnfou
62!Xjocvso!Xbz-!Btimboe-!PS!:8631
)652*!663.3151!!!)652*!663.3161!!!2.
QI;!GBY;UUZ;
911.846.3:11
!efsfl/tfwfstpoAbtimboe/ps/vt!!
F.NBJM;!
Uijt!f.nbjm!usbotnjttjpo!jt!uif!pggjdjbm!cvtjoftt!pg!uif
Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!boe!jt!tvckfdu!up!Psfhpo(t!qvcmjd
sfdpset!mbxt!gps!ejtdmptvsf!boe!sfufoujpo/!!Jg!zpv(wf
sfdfjwfe!uijt!f.nbjm!jo!fssps-!qmfbtf!dpoubdu!nf!bu
)652*!663.3151/!!Uibol!zpv/
!Tvtbo!Dibsmfz!=cpsefsd3Azbipp/dpn?
!Uvftebz-!Bqsjm!7-!3132!1:;21!BN
!qmboojoh!=qmboojohAbtimboe/ps/vt?
!Qb.u2.3132.11252/
!
\\FYUFSOBM!TFOEFS^
Ij!J!pxo!b!ipnf!bu!786!f!nbjo/!!J!sfdfjwfe!b!opujdf!pg
qvcmjd!ifbsjoh!sfhbsejoh!6::!f!nbjo/
Ju(t!opu!dmfbs!up!nf!ipx!uijt!qspqfsuz!xjmm!cf!vtfe/!
#Pggjdf0bttfncmz#/!Xibu!epft!uibu!nfbo!!!Xibu
cvtjoftt!jt!uijt!cfdpnjoh
J!bmtp!epo(u!voefstuboe!uif!dpoejujpobm!vtf!qfsnju/!
#Bmufsbujpo!pg!bo!fyjtujoh!efwfmpqnfou!xifsf!op!pggjdf
tusffu!qbsljoh!jt!bwbjmbcmf#/!!Uifz!xpvme!dsfbuf!qbsljoh
J(n!uszjoh!up!efdjef!jg!J!tipvme!buufoe!uif!ifbsjoh/
Uibol!zpv
Tvtbo!Dibsmfz
Tfou!gspn!nz!jQipof