Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-14 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 14, 2020 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. December 10, 2020 Regular Meeting V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00015, 459 Russell Street. VII. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 appealing PA-T1-2019-00080 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 145 North Main Street OWNER/APPLICANT: BC Partners IV, LLC/Donn Comte APPELLANT: Donn Comte DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal by the applicant of the request for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and is designated the - a historic Ashland Tire Shop contributing resource within the district. No changes are proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low- Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-209BB; TAX LOT: 3503. 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). Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. VIII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00012 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 945 Tolman Creek Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Sean Darrell / Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: The application is request for a three-unit/four-lot Outline and Final Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review permit to allow the construction of a three-unit Cottage Housing Development for the property at 945 Tolman Creek Road. The existing structure is proposed to be divided into two units, and a third 400 square foot cottage unit is to be constructed at the rear of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; . IX.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 December 10, 2019 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Melanie Mindlin Stefani Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar the City Council was rescheduled to December 17, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None IV. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.November 12, 2019 Regular Meeting Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of November 12, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke on electric vehicles and solar panels. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00015 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 459 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC/Laz Ayala DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 13,816 square foot, two- story mixed-use building on the property located at 459 Russell Street (Lot 2 of the Falcon Heights subdivision). The proposed building will include a 4,837 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and a total of 13 residential studio units (497 s.f.) on the ground and second floors. The application includes a Property Line Adjustment between Lots 1 and 2, and an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards in order to utilize existing parking installed with the subdivision which does not comply with more recent parking lot treatment standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5. \[The current application would supersede the previously approved PA-T2-2018-00001 which granted approval to consolidate Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision to develop a single 22,469 square foot building. The current proposal also illustrates conceptual development of Lot 1 with floor plans, elevations and Ashland Planning Commission December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 3 landscape details, but these are conceptual and not being reviewed or approved here.\] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1, Detail Site Review Overlay; Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commission Harper and Chair Pearce declared no ex parte. Commissioner Norton, Brown and Thompson had no ex parte and one site visit. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte but had run past the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Proposal. Proposed Landscape Plan. Vicinity Map. Elevation Drawings. Falcon Heights Subdivision. Proposed Floor Plans. 2006 Aerial photo. Standard A Solar Shadow Study. Lot illustrations and photos. Parking Calculation. Elevation Drawings. Key Points for Staff. Site Plan. Clear Creek Drive plaza space illustration. Proposed Utility & Drainage Plan. Staff recommended approved with the Conditions in the draft findings. Questions of Staff - None Mark Knox/Ashland/Spoke to the proposal and provided background on why they went back to their original plan of phased building. They had no issues with the Conditions. The proposal would build thirteen units under 500 square feet (sq. ft.). Laz Ayala/Ashland/Spoke to housing trends getting smaller. The proposal would build housing the city lacked. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Knox confirmed there were two separate lots with most of the density on one. They would have a deed restriction specifying density as well as commercial and plaza space. Commissioner Harper suggested making the condition for the deed restriction clear. Mr. Ayala clarified the intent was having two one-story buildings. The second building would have 30% residential and 70% commercial on the ground level. Building would occur in phases. Public Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Harper/Norton m/s to approve PA-T2-2019-00015, as presented by staff with the Conditions. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Norton, Brown, Dawkins, Harper and Thompson, YES. Motion passed. Ashland Planning Commission December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 3 VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Requirements for plaza space in the Downtown Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay and C-1-D zone Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation (see attached): Detail Site Review Overlay Plaza Space Requirements Downtown. Existing Plaza Space Standards. Detail Site Review Overlay Applicability. Downtown Applicability. Downtown Applicability C-1-D Zone. Discussion Items; Public-Private Use, Ground Floor Area, Historic Development Pattern, Multi Story Development, Design Implications. Option 1: 18.4.2.040.D.b would eliminate the requirement for any private plaza space in the downtown area for new or redeveloped buildings. Option 2: 18.4.2.040.D.b would require one square foot of plaza space in the downtown area to apply to the area of the ground floor only, for a building 10,000 square feet or greater. Timeline for Public Hearings (2020). Mr. Molnar provided legislative history on the large-scale development standards. Commissioner Thompson voiced concern it would increase density and parking challenges. She suggested having a downtown parking analysis done or establishing an LID to resolve potential parking issues. Staff would include the suggestion in the recommendation to City Council. Parking was not required on the north side of Lithia Way. On the south side of Lithia Way in the C-1- D zone it was not required Commissioner Brown explained why Option 1 was more viable. Current plaza areas in the downtown were under used or over used depending on the time of the day or year. He supported having the building facades flush with the street. Overhangs would change the vertical sense of the city. Public Testimony Barry Thalden/Ashland/Submitted a document into the record (see attached). He explained why he supported eliminating the plaza space requirement. Mark Knox/Ashland/Agreed with Mr. Thalden Option 1. Laz Ayala/Ashland/Supported changing the plaza requirements. He addressed parking concerns. Transportation needs would rely more on shared transportation in the future eliminating the need for more parking. The Commission discussed their support of Option 1. Commissioner Harper/Brown m/s to recommend to City Council Option 1 as outlined by staff including Commission comments. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Commissioner Norton suggested a future study session that would look at improvements to existing parking, then address future parking needs. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 3 ThecurrentapplicationsupersedesPA-T2-2018-00001whichgrantedapproval toconsolidateLots1and2todevelopasingle22,469squarefootbuilding. ThecurrentproposalillustratesconceptualdevelopmentofLot1butthecurrent requestislimitedtotheproposedbuildingforLot2. (photo by Fred Stockwell) (Approved May 2008) pproved May 2018 First built & occupied Built & Occupied ConceptualProposed ConceptualProposed including two ADA-accessible subject to future Site Review (*no credit requested) draft o o o o AshlandPlanningCommission 12/10/2019 2 4 56 Historic Publicȟ0±¨µ ³¤GroundFloorAreaMultiStoryDesign Development UseDevelopmentImplications Pattern 78 910 11 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 14, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T2-2019-00015, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 13,816 SQUARE ) FOOT, TWO-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING ON LOT 2 OF THE FALCON ) HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AT 459 RUSSELL STREET. THE PROPOSED BUILDING ) WILL INCLUDE 4,837 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL ) SPACE, AND A TOTAL OF 13 RESIDENTIAL STUDIO UNITS (497 SQ. FT.) ON ) THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOORS. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A PROP- ) ERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, AND AN EXCEPTION TO ) THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS IN ORDER TO UTILIZE ) FINDINGS, EXISTING PARKING INSTALLED WITH THE SUBDIVISION WHICH DOES NOT ) CONCLUSIONS COMPLY WITH MORE RECENT PARKING LOT TREATMENT STANDARDS IN ) & ORDERS AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5. THE CURRENT APPLICATION WOULD SUPERSEDE THE. ) THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PA-T2-2018-00001 WHICH GRANTED APPROV- ) AL TO CONSOLIDATE LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE SUBDIVISION TO DEVELOP A ) SINGLE 22,649 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ILLUS- ) STRATES CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 1 WITH FLOOR PLANS, ) ELEVATIONS, AND LANDSCAPE DETAILS, BUT THESE ARE CONCEPTUAL. ) AND ARE NOT BEING REVIEWED OR APPROVED HERE. ) ) OWNER/APPLICANT: Laz Ayala/KDA Homes, LLC ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #2800 and #2801 of Map 39 1E 09 AA are located at 449 and 459 Russell Street within the E- 2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct a 13,816 square foot, two- story mixed-use building on the property located at 459 Russell Street (Lot 2 of the Falcon Heights subdivision). The proposed building will include 4,837 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and a total of 13 residential studio units (497 s.f.) on the ground and second floors. The application includes a Property Line Adjustment between Lots 1 and 2, and an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards in order to utilize existing parking installed with the subdivision which does not comply with more recent parking lot treatment standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5. The current application would supersede the previously approved PA-T2-2018-00001 which granted approval to consolidate Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision to develop a single 22,469 square foot building. The current proposal illustrates conceptual development of Lot 1 with floor plans, elevations and landscape details, but these are conceptual and not being reviewed or approved here the current request is limited to the proposed building and site improvements for Lot 2. The proposal is outlined on plans on file at the Department of Community Development. PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 1 AMC 18.5.2.050 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described 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. 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. AMC 18.5.3.120.B 4) The criteria for Property Line Adjustment approval are described in as follows: Parcel Creation. 1. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. Lot Standards. 2. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 2 Access Standards. 3. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 10, 2019 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to 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. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 and that the proposal for a Property Line Adjustment meets all applicable criteria for Property Line Adjustment approved described in AMC Chapter 18.5.3.120.B. 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the first approval criterion for Site Design Review iThe 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. The Commission further notes that the application materials provided indicate that all of the applicable -1 zoning from AMC 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 are being complied with. PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 3 The Planning Commission finds that t-1 (Employment) and that within this zone, there is no minimum lot area, width, or depth; no minimum front, side or rear yard area except where abutting a residential zone to the side or rear; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum residential density. The subject property partly abuts residential zones to the rear along the north property line and as such AMC 18.2.6.030 requires that a ten-foot per story rear yard be provided. In addition, as part of the creatio between the subdivision and the residential properties to the north. The application indicates that the building has been designed with a Standard A setback in mind. Russell Street is not classified as an arterial street, and as such no arterial setback requirements come into play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and the proposed 26-foot 10-inch height here complies with the applicable E-1 height limit. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that tThe proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).Planning Commission further notes that the application materials explain that the proposal complies with the Residential Overlay regulations found in AMC 18.3.13.010, including but not limited to commercial and residential ground floor ratios as well as permissible residential densities. project is for an attractive and well thought-out mixed use development that will not only provide the City with needed small-unit housing and new office space close to the contextually compatible with the existing building on Lot #4, the two new buildings across the street on Lot #6, and the recently approved building on Lot #3.explains that they have tried to provide conceptual information on the likely development for Lot #1 to aid in considering the proposal in context, and the plans include building footprints, parking and the shared circulation pattern through the shared plaza. For properties within the E- a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The application proposes to adjust the property line between the two lots so that Lot #1 would be reduced in area from its current 19,278 square feet to 17,478 square feet, and Lot #2 would be increased from its current 18,377 square feet to 20,177 square feet. At the same time, the applicant proposes to consider the density for the combined area of Lots #1 and #2 to allow the building proposed here for Lot #2 to have 13 dwelling units less than 500 square feet in area (¾ units for density purposes), and to place a deed restriction on Lot #1 to limit its future residential development to no more than 3.2 dwelling units. Lot Adj. Area Density 449 Russell Street 17,478 6.019 d.u. density by adjusted lot area 3.2 d.u. limit proposed (Lot #1) 0.401 acres (-) 459 Russell Street 20,177 6.948 d.u. density by adjusted lot area 9.75 d.u. proposed (Lot #2) 0.463 acres (-) 37, 655 s.f. 12.96 dwelling units PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 4 Total 0.864 acres At E-1 density of 15 d.u./acre The Commission finds that the two lots are contiguous units of land under a single ownership and as such are to be considered a single lot for planning purposes. As proposed, the effect of this density allocation is to allow 2.8 additional dwelling units on Lot #2 while limiting the future development of Lot #1 to three dwelling units (or four ¾-dwelling units. This remains within the allowable density based on the combined area of the two contiguous lots. A condition has been included below to require that the deed restriction proposed by the applicant be signed and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot. The Commission further notes that both AMC 18.2.3.130.B.1 Dwelling in a Non-Residential Zone AMC 1Residential Overlay RegulationsIf there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. At least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor shall be designated for permitted uses and uses permitted with special use standards, not including residential uses.For Lot #2, the ground floor will be 6,840 square feet with 2,003 square feet, or 29.28 percent, dedicated to residential use. The Commission therefore finds that the ground floor commercial/residential split complies with the applicable standard for the ground floor. However, because single ownership representing a single lot for planning purposes, and this combined lot will ultimately involve more than one building, the Commission has included a condition below to require that the building permit submittals include a demonstration that not more than 50 percent of the total combined lot area shall be designated for residential uses. 2.5 The Planning Commission notes that the The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. The Commission notes that the application materials here assert that the proposal complies with all applicable Site Development and Design Standards of AMC Chapter 18.4 but for a single Exception discussed later in this document - because the proposal would continue to utilize the parking lot installed with the subdivision, which does not comply with the parking lot treatment standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5 that were adopted subsequent to the subdivision approval. Basic Site Review The Planning Commission notes that with regard to the Basic Site Review standards, t areas sit behind the proposed building and will be screened from the front of the property by the building, PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 5 and the proposed building occupies the majority of the streetscape. The s primary commercial entrance has been designed to face the primary street (Russell Street) and its public sidewalk, and the entrance is designed to be clearly visible, functional and open to the public during typical business hours. The residential entrances have been placed on secondary elevations. The applicant explains that the design will accommodate an array of uses including commercial offices and service businesses that will benefit from the building design and accessible public sidewalks. The proposal includes a public sidewalk built to current city street standards, and street trees selected from the approved street tree list are to be installed at one per 30 feet of frontage. All site and building lighting is to meet requirements not to directly illuminate adjacent properties and to comply with the noise ordinance requirements as well. The applicant emphasizes that they have an interest in minimizing any typical nuisance issues related to lighting or noise in order to provide the expected , and to that end all lighting is to be down-directed to minimize any potential glare. The application materials provided include landscaping and site plans identifying a screened trash and recycling area. The Planning Commission finds that the application satisfies the standards for Basic Site Review. Detail Site Review With regard to the Detail Site Review Overlay standards, the application materials identify Lot #2 as adjusted herein to be 20,177 square feet in area, and the proposed building for Lot #2 is to be 13,816 square feet. This equates to a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.68, not including the plaza space or any pedestrian areas, for Lot #2. The Planning Commission finds that this exceeds the minimum requirement for a 0.50 F.A.R., however because the two contiguous lots under a single ownership are being considered together with regard to density and shared plaza space, the Planning Commission finds that the combined lots also need to be considered together for planning purposes with regard to Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.). As such, the combined Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of the two buildings will need to meet the minimum 0.50 F.A.R. when considered in terms of the combined lot area. This means that 0.50 F.A.R. x the 37,655 square foot combined lot area would equal 18,828 square feet, less the 13,816 square foot building area proposed here would require at least a 5,012 square foot area for the future building on Lot #1. The Planning Commission finds that the conceptual building design illustrated here exceeds 13,000 square feet and as such the F.A.R. requirement can and will be addressed with the future building on Lot #1. A condition has been included below to require that compliance with the F.A.R. on this basis be provided with the Site Design Review application for Lot #1. The proposed building frontage has a variety of jogs and other distinctive changes in the façade for the purpose of creating an attractive street façade, and that the walls facing the street and plaza space will areas, pedestrian entrances and display areas are to be transparent while also addressing current building code and conservation standards relating to energy efficiency. The applicant explains that the building incorporates lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish to give emphasis to the entrances, and that PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 6 the bwindows and vertical forms of the building that not , and will provide a minimum seven-foot covered area (awning and recessed entry) at the doorway entrance for pedestrians to assemble. The applicant further notes that the buildings will front onto a 13-foot sidewalk with street trees planted in irrigated five-foot by five-foot tree wells that, along with the building awnings, provide design of the plaza space will visitors and residents. The landscape plan includes landscaping between the existing driveway and the neighboring residences to the north. The applicant explains that the landscaping and irrigation in these areas were installed with the subdivision infrastructure in 2003-2004 and have since matured, but that in some areas the landscaping has been vandalized or has died, and that any missing landscaping materials will be replaced prior to occupancy to ensure that required sight-obscuring screening is maintained. A condition to this effect has been added below. The application materials point out that the building materials include changes in relief for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area, and that bright paint colors or significant amounts of The Planning Commission finds that the application satisfies the standards for Detail Site Review. Large Scale Development The Commission notes that in terms of the Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments in AMC 18.4.2.040.D., the proposed building has been designed to divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale, and that the design incorporates changes in building masses, has sheltering awnings and recessed entrances, and includes a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces. In addition, the design includes The subject property is outside the Downtown Design Standards Overlay, and as such is subject to standards which limit the building area and length. The application explains that the total square footage of the proposed building is 13,816 square feet, and the frontage is 67 lineal feet, and as such the buildings comply with the standards limiting their footprints and areas to less than 45,000 square feet and their lengths to no more than 300 feet. The Commission notes that the project proposes to provide an approximately 2,889 square foot shared central plaza space to address a combined building area of up to 28,890 square feet between the two parcels to satisfy the minimum ten percent plaza space requirement. The applicant emphasizes that the plaza was designed to serve multiple purposes ranging from a view corridor, a break in the building mass, a place for gathering and recreation, a wind break, and an area for seating, dining and general relaxation for both the commercial and residential tenants. The applicant emphasizes that the design here generally seeks to mimic the space on Parcel #6 across the street which is noted as functioning well and being used often. The plaza incorporates five of the required elements for plaza space sitting spaces, a mixture of sunlight PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 7 and shade, outdoor eating areas, protection from wind, and trees. The general layout accommodates seating in various locations (benches, seating wall, planter seats) while retaining an open, central plaza to accommodate assembly. Given that the proposal involves shared plaza space between the two buildings to meet the combined plaza space requirement, and that the applicant recognizes the importance of coordinating the building elevation, material treatment, and pedestrian circulation so this space will cohesively function with the eventual development of a building on Lot #1, even if developed by a different party, a condition has been included Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot #2, the applicant shall provide a revised plan for the shared plaza space which shall serve as the approved plan for the coordinated development of a cohesive plaza space for the two lots and which includes improvement details with consistent material treatment elevations and plaza elevation are generally consistent. While the conceptual building design for Lot #1 is not approved here, the shared plaza space plan shall be considered the guiding document for the plaza space with the development of the two buildings. In addition to this plan, the applicant shall provide easements and agreements necessary to address the shared use of the plaza space between the two lots. Automobile Parking The Planning Commission finds that the applicants have provided the following parking calculations to address the which are detailed in AMC 18.4.3.040: 459 Russell Street Mixed-Use Lot #2 13.0spaces 13 One-bedroom units < 500 s.f. @ 1.0 space per unit = 9.674 spaces 4,837 s.f. of general office @ 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = Total Parking Required Lot #2 = 22.674 spaces Surface Parking Provided (Off-Street): 43 spaces (including two ADA-accessible) Parking Required for Lot #2 23 spaces Remaining Off-Street Parking for Lot #1: 20 spaces () subject to future Site Review On-Street* Parking Available: 9 spaces (*no credit requested) The Planning Commission finds that a total of 30 off-street parking spaces were installed as part of the at the applicant proposes to construct 13 additional off-street parking spaces here to provide a total of 43 off-street parking spaces. The Commission notes here that all parking spaces originally provided as part of the subdivision are required to remain open and available to tenants and customers from all lots within the subdivision. The Commission finds that, as detailed above, the total parking required for the proposed development of Lot #2 is 23 spaces, which will leave 20 spaces to accommodate the future development of Lot #1. At the time of development of Lot #1, a Site Design Review application would need to demonstrate that the available parking remaining will PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 8 accommodate the proposed uses. No on-street parking credits are requested with the current application, but credits could be requested at a future date should the proposed uses ever be intensified. Bicycle Parking The Planning Commission also finds that the required bicycle parking for the proposal includes 13 required covered bicycle parking spaces for the 13 proposed one-bedroom residential units, and at least two additional covered bicycle parking spaces for the proposed 4,837 square feet of office space. The applicants have proposed to provide 15 covered bicycle parking spaces between two locations, with 12 spaces to be placed on the north side of the building and three spaces to be placed in the common hallway All proposed bicycle parking spaces are to be designed in compliance with the Bicycle Parking Design Standards noted in AMC 18.4.3.070. Vehicle Area Design The Planning Commission finds that the -existing, and was constructed in 2003-2004 in conjunction with the other subdivision improvements. The curbing, drainage, landscaping areas, irrigation conduit, asphalt thickness, etc. met the Building and Planning standards at the time, and the applicant intends to utilize the parking lot as originally constructed, completing the necessary landscaping and irrigation improvements shown in the landscape plans, and has not proposed to bring the parking lot into compliance with the more recently adopted parking area design requirements from AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5, which would require substantial modifications to surfacing and stormwater drainage provisions. An Exception to these standards is therefore required, and is discussed under section 2.7 below. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that the fourth criterion for Site Design Review approval is 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 property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. The Commission further notes that the application materials indicate that all key facilities are in 2003-2004. The application further explains that all utilities to service the buildings are available within the adjacent Russell Street right-of-way or are already stubbed to the property, but that if necessary, services will be installed at the time of construction in accordance with Ashland Public Work Standards. The applicant indicates that in meetings with the various city utilities, it has been indicated that adequate City facilities are available to serve the subject property. The Commission further finds that Planning staff has noted that in discussing the available public facilities with the Public Works, Fire and individual utility departments they have determined the following: Water There are eight-inch water mains in place in the adjacent rights-of-way for Russell Street and Rogue Place, and another eight-inch water main is in place along the northern property line. PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 9 The applicant will need to extend services and pay any applicable service and connection fees required for any new water services installed as part of this project. The Fire Department has also indicated that because the project is mixed-use, monitored fire sprinklers will be required. anitary Sewer SThere is an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Russell Street and an eight-inch main in Rogue Place. Electricity The Electric Department has indicated that capacity was sufficient at the time of the subdivision although anticipated loads may have changed based on the level of development proposed here. The applicants will need to work with the Electric Department to arrive at a final service plan addressing the service needs of the proposed building and its tenants. Urban Storm Drainage The Public Works Department noted that stormwater issues were considered in the subdivision infrastructure installation, and there is an 18-inch storm sewer main in Russell Street, along with 12-inch mains in Rogue Place and along the northern property line. Paved Access & Adequate Transportation Russell Street is a commercial neighborhood collector street, and was improved to city street standards as part of the subdivision infrastructure installation, with the exception of sidewalks and street trees which were to be installed as each lot develops. The Engineering Division has noted that with sidewalk installation along the frontage of Lots #1 and #2, an ADA-accessible ramp will be required at the corner of Russell Street and Rogue Place. The street standards call for a five-foot hardscape parkrow with tree wells, five-foot by five-foot city-standard tree grates, and irrigated street trees and an eight- to ten-foot sidewalk. The applicant has proposed to meet these standards with the installation of a 13-foot sidewalk corridor. With the construction of subdivision infrastructure, a pedestrian bridge over Mountain Creek was constructed to provide a link for pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent residential subdivision (Mountain Creek Estates) and down through the subdivision via Thimbleberry Lane to the North Mountain Park area. A future street connection will extend Russell Street to connect with Clear developer was required to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) to participate in the cost of constructing a future railroad crossing at Fourth Street. The application materials further indicate that a Traffic Engineer enlisted to review traffic-related issues concluded that based on the low volume of vehicle trips and proximity to multi-modal facilities and service, a traffic impact analysis (T.I.A.) was not required. In the TIA review prepared by Alex Georgevitch Consulting based on the previous proposal for the site (PA-T1- 2018-00001) which involved 11,241 square feet of commercial space and ten condominiums rather than the 4,837 square feet of commercial space and 13 studios proposed here , Alex Georgevitch, P.E. concluded that the site was estimated to generate approximately 21 trips during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, and further noted that there would be a less than 2.6 percent increase in PM PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 10 Peak Hour traffic on East Hersey Street in 2034 and a 0.9 percent increase in PM Peak Hour traffic along North Mountain Avenue in the same period. Georgevitch indicated that these volumes were very low and would not in his opinion warrant analysis of any signalized or stop controlled intersections or turn lanes. As such, he found that a traffic impact analysis was not merited. Based on the above information, the Planning Commission finds that existing public facilities and utilities are in place and available to serve the project, and have been preliminarily identified on the Site Plan provided and discussed in the narrative. Utilities and street improvements were largely installed with the subdivision: water service, sanitary sewer and storm drainage are available in Russell Street, and the applicant has indicated that services will be extended as necessary to connect to the proposed buildings. Conditions have been included below requiring that final electrical distribution, utility, storm drainage, and street improvement plans be provided for review and approval prior to building permit submittal, and that any fees for necessary service upgrades or connection to address specific service requirements for the proposed buildings be paid for prior to permit issuance. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the final criterion for Site Design Review approval provides that the Planning Commission may approve Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if certain circumstances are found to exist. In this instance, an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards is necessary for the applicant to utilize existing parking and parking lot improvements which were installed with the subdivision but do not comply with more recent parking lot treatment standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5. In considering an identical request for the adjacent Lot #3 at 469 Russell Street in 2018, the Planning Commission noted that AMC s PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 11 2.8 In considering the requested property line adjustment, the Planning Commission finds that no additional lots are being created with the proposal, and that the resultant lot configuration will conform to the standards of the E-1 zoning district which does not have minimum lot area or dimensional requirements. The Commission further finds that development of the resultant lots will be required to comply with applicable setback and lot coverage standards, which will not change with the adjustment. Neither the current configuration nor the proposed adjustment involve physical constraints as both lots are free of floodplain corridor lands, severe constraints slopes and water resource protection zones. In terms of the vehicle area design standards of AMC 18.4.3.080, neither lot shall be made less conforming with the requested adjustment and the Commission has considered and approved an Exception, discussed above, to allow the applicant to utilize the parking lot originally designed, approved and installed with the subdivision rather than requiring compliance with the more recent standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5 addressing the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking. 2.9 The Planning Commission finds that utilities and street improvements were largely installed with the subdivision creating the lot, and that the applicant proposes to complete these by extending services to the building proposed and installing city standard frontage improvements. The proposed new building has been designed with city standards in mind, with the primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas; visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to and placed along Russell Street with a shared plaza space between the proposed building and the building to be built on Lot #1. Parking is located behind the building and surface parking will be visible from the second-story windows. The Commission finds that with the conditions attached below, the proposal seems well-suited to the standards, the site and the vicinity. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 The Planning Commission concludes that based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the proposals for Site Design Review approval for a new two-story mixed-use building at 459 Russell Street and Property Line Adjustment are supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, the Planning Commission approves Planning Action #T2-2019-00015. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2019- T2-00015 is denied. The following are the conditions attached to the approval: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to that, as proposed by the applicant, prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot, the applicant shall provide a signed deed restriction agreement which limits the density of Lot #1 to 3.2 dwelling units and allows 9.75 dwelling units for Lot #2. This would allow three standard units, or four ¾-units that were less than 500 square feet in gross habitable floor area, for the future building on Lot #1 and thirteen ¾ units on Lot #2. 2)That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 12 3)That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). 4)That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing; commercial fire apparatus access including angle of approach and any necessary easements; provisions for firefighter access pathways; fire flow; fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC); fire extinguishers; a Knox key box; and monitored fire sprinklers for mixed-use buildings. 5)That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Russell Street, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 6)That the front business entrance(s) adjacent to Russell Street shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours, and the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 7)The Site Design Review application for the future development of Lot #1 shall include calculations demonstrating compliance with the standards for mixed-use developments in AMC 18.3.13.010.C.1 and for Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) based on multiple buildings on the combined lot area of Lots #1 and #2 which are, at the time of this approval, contiguous lots under a single ownership being considered as one for planning purposes. Similarly, the traffic impacts considered in reviewing Lot #1 shall consider the combined impacts of Lot #2. 8)That building permit submittals for Lot #2 shall include: a)The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility or drainage easements, mutual access easements, fire apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian access easements. b)The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described in the application and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used. c)Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d)Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) required size and species specific replacement planting details and associated irrigation plan details, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications. Street trees should be watered regularly for two to three years to ensure they can fully establish themselves; 2) lot coverage and required landscaped area calculations, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 15 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided. e)Final stormwater drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The stormwater plan shall address Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peak flows do not exceed pre-development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the torm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfall events must be collected on PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 13 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. f)A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service e. g)A final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions h)That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of city-standard street frontage improvements for the full frontage of the subject property, including five-foot width hardscape parkrows with irrigated street trees with city standard five-foot by five- foot square metal tree grates, eight-foot sidewalks, and city-standard pedestrian scale street lighting for the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering Departments. If necessary to accommodate city standard street frontage improvements, the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way or provide public pedestrian access easements. Any necessary easements or right-of-way dedications shall be submitted for the review and i)Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes 15 covered bicycle parking spaces as proposed by the applicants. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle parking, and bicycle parking within a building shall be a minimum of six feet long by three feet wide by four feet high and clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. j)That the building permit drawings shall clearly demonstrate that an area of at least seven feet in depth is provided at the front entries to provide pedestrians with protection from rain and sun as required in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. This depth may be met by a combination of any entry recess and the depth of an awning or other covering. k)Final solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A as proposed by the applicants. Calculations shall be in the \[(Height 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] formula and elevations or cross section drawings shall be provided clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 14 l)A revised plan for the shared plaza space which shall serve as the approved plan for the coordinated development of a cohesive plaza space for the two lots and which includes improvement details with consistent material treatment and grading details which ensure enerally consistent. While the conceptual building design for Lot #1 is not approved here, the shared plaza space plan shall be considered the guiding document for the plaza space with the development of the two buildings. In addition to this plan, the applicant shall provide easements and agreements necessary to address the shared use of the plaza space between the two lots. m)Demonstration that with the ultimate development of the two contiguous lots (Lot #1 and Lot #2), not more than 50 percent of the total combined lot area shall be designated for residential uses as required in AMC 18.3.13.010.C.1. 9)That prior to the issuance of the building permit or commencement of site work including staging or the storage of materials, all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation shall be paid. 10)That prior to the final approval of the project, signature of the final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscaping including the sidewalk corridor, parking lot and driveway; landscaping; required buffers between zones, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. Any irrigation, landscaping or other screening required on the subject property in the subdivision landscaping plan which has died or been removed shall be replaced to insure that the required sight-obscuring screening and buffer between zones is provided and maintained. b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric, Engineering, Planning, and Buil by the Staff Advisor. c) Sanitary sewer laterals, water services including connection with meters at the street, and underground electric services shall be installed according to the approved plans to serve all units prior to signature of the final survey plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. e) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, parkrow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet of frontage, and street lighting, shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. f) The CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association or similar maintenance agreement shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. This agreement shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways, planting strips and street trees. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved plan shall be considered a PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 15 violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. g) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. h) 15 required covered bicycle parking spaces shall be installed according to approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. January 14, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2019-00015 January 14, 2020 Page 16 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 appealing PA-T1-2019-00080 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 145 North Main Street OWNER/APPLICANT: BC Partners IV, LLC/Donn Comte AGENT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC APPELLANT: Donn Comte DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal by the applicant a request for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located Ashland Tire Shop Automotive- a historic contributing resource within the district. No changes are proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 391E09BB; TAX LOT: 3503. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday January 14, 2020 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if y-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 Senior Planner Derek Severson in the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305 or via e-mail to derek.severson@ashland.or.us . G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-APPEAL-2019-00010.docx SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL CRITERIA (AMC 18.5.2.050) An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-APPEAL-2019-00010.docx ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT January 14, 2020 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Appealing PA-T1-2019-00080 OWNER/APPLICANT: BC Partners IV, LLC/Donn Comte APPELLANTS: BC Partners IV, LLC/Donn Comte LOCATION: 145 North Main Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCES: Ashland Land Use Ordinance: https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse 18.1.4 Nonconforming Situations 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses 18.2.3 Special Use Standards 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.12 Site Development and Design Overlays 18.3.12.050 Historic District Overlay 18.4 Site Development and Design Standards 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.7 Signs 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria 18.5.1 General Review Procedures 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permits 18.5.6 Modifications to Approved Planning Applications 18.6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: October 29, 2019 - February 26, 2020 Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 1 of 12 REQUEST: The original application was arequest for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located in the Skidmore Academy HAshland Tire Shop - a historic contributing resource within the district. No changes were proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. Planning staff initially approved the application administratively subject to a number of conditions, and subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Decision, applicant Donn Comte filed an appeal request. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application Conditional Use Permit #001 for the Reconstruction and Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use was approved in April of 1966 to allow the modernization of an existing service station (which had been owned by applicant Fred Taylor since August 22, 1927) to bring the property standard of present day image and advertisingincluding the placement of a new 10-foot by 6- foot electrical advertising display on a pole mount, with the intent to modernize the business and make it even more presentable. Conditional Use Permit #002 for a Nonconforming Use was approved in June of 1967 to allow a retail outlet for an automobile filling station and allied products. The applicant at the time (Humble Oil Company, which acquired the property in April of 1967) wished to substitute an internally illuminated plexi-Enco for the previously approved Signal Oil Company display. The new sign was to be an 11-foot by 8-foot oval mounted on the existing pole. Planning Action #79-144 was approved by the Planning Commission in December of 1979 granting Conditional Use and Site Review permits for the expansion of a non-conforming use and structure. At the time, the subject residentially-zoned property was the location of a pre-existing service station/major auto repair shop, with the findings at the time noting that the auto repair use had been in place since prior to 1947 and the service station use pre-dating that. The Conditional Use Permit was to allow the discontinuation of the service station use in favor of the auto repair shop with the expansion of the building to include an additional 666 square foot service bay. At the time, the applicant proposed to: Close all curb openings and driveway aprons along the North Main Street frontage, restricting egress and ingress movements to the property to be only from Bush Street with the installation of brick planters along the North Main Street frontage. Remove the gas statio Remove much of the outdoor storage and landscape the site in such a way as existing unsightly and incompatible activities and storage being conducted outside the enclosure of the building Renovate both the north and east facades of the building. Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 2 of 12 While elevation drawings of the proposed renovations are discussed in the minutes, none are present in the file. The Planning Commission minutes from December 12, 1979 however do include the following: Dale Bohannan, designer, reviewed the drawings with the Commission. He stated they had tried to integrate the addition into the existing building, that siding would be vertical of some kind because they wanted to avoid the bowling alley type appearance of the building. Subsequent to the December 1979 approval, the applicant requested to modify this approval to allow a single egress point (i.e. an exit-only driveway) at the southernmost portion of the property onto North Main Street. The Planning Commission approved this modification in June of 1980. There are no other planning actions of record for this property. Code Compliance records note difficulty with the applicant complying with the promised site landscaping in 1980, and more recently in 2014 and 2015 there has been compliance outreach as the site appeared to be serving as a storage lot rather than an auto repair business, and was also accumulating trash, debris and weeds. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site Description The subject property is located at 145 North Main Street, at the corner of North Main and Bush Streets, and is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The property is in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and is designated the Ashland Tire Shop in the district survey document. constructed in about 1936, and was most likely built as a gas station. The survey document suggests that it shares design similarities with the General Petroleum Station that was erected at the corner of Gresham and North Main Street in the same period. The structure was leased to a variety of automobile-related uses including the Ashland Tire Shop in 1948, Har , 1979. The property is considered to be a historic contributing resource within the district, and is noted as representing a rare remaining example of the form in the area and, as such, accurately reflects both the growing influence of the automobile during the historic period and the attempts to integrate those uses into previously residential settings as Main Street developed into first the Pacific Highway and then U.S. Highway 99. While modernized, most notably in the use of metal roll-up doors, the Ashland Tire Shop retains high integrity for a resource of its type and accurately reflects the limited commercial uses \[that\] developed within the Skidmore- Academy District during the period of significance. The subject property has a number of non-conformities including that the commercial/automotive use is not a permitted use in the residential zoning district; and that where controlled access standards call for a 100-foot separation between Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 3 of 12 curb cuts and/or intersections on North Main Street, a 50-foot separation between driveways on Bush Street, and a 35-foot separation between driveways and intersections along Bush Street, the site has a continuous curb cut around the corner on both sides of the intersection only partly blocked by a planter, and a second curb cut a short distance down Main Street. Street standards also require that access be taken solely from Bush Street as the lesser order street. Current Proposal With the application under consideration here, no changes were proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. The proposal is limited to a request for Site Design Review approval to allow exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District. The applicant had initially obtained a building permit to replace damaged plywood sheeting and framing studs in order to ensure at least minimal structural integrity for residential uses for the residentially-zoned property, but when it was determined by the Building Division that the scope of work involved went beyond that which had been permitted (i.e. to include changes to the use and occupancy classification; removal of plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems; and changes to siding, doors and windows of a historic contributing resource subject to a previous Conditional Use permit and Site Review approvals), a stop work order was issued for all work other than necessary bracing and support, and the applicant was advised that land use approval would first need to be obtained because the work included exterior changes to a contributing non-residential building in a Historic District. Subsequent to the stop work order, the applicant submitted the current land use application to consider the proposed exterior modifications. II. Project Impact As detailed in AMC 18.Commercial, Industrial, Non-Re the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit. Similarly, as detailed in AMC 18.5.6.030.A.6 & A.7, a change to a building elevation that the Staff Advisor determines is not in substantial conformance with the original approval, or a change to a change to a condition of approval is considered a modification subject to review under the approval criteria for the original project or plan approval. The current application was approved by staff on December 18, 2019 with a 12-day appeal period which extended through the end of business on December 30, 2019. On December 30, 2019 prior to the end of the appeal period, Donn Comte timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Mr. Comte is the applicant, and a member and registered agent for BC Partners IV, LLC which owns the subject property and thus has standing to appeal. The notice of appeal identified the following grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1) The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding; 2) The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which is commercial; and 3) Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding. Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 4 of 12 AMC 18.5.1.050.G. explains that appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff de novo and follow the standard Type II public hearing procedure except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of the appeal is not limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. Site Design Review Decision Given that the building size, footprint, associated site improvements and use are not proposed Design Review is in addressing the Historic District Development standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 in any exterior modifications and, once land use approval is in place, obtaining required building permits for the full scope of the work proposed. The Building Official has requested that a special inspection be obtained prior to building permit application to verify what work has been completed to date and to identify potential building code issues prior to the applicant preparing a permit submittal, and a condition to that effect was included in the original staff approval. Here, staff would first note that AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.b provides that: If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review or Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these (historic district development) standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker. The full Historic Commission reviewed the application at their regular monthly meeting on November 6, 2019 and recommended approval of the application. Their recommendations are attached as an exhibit hereto. Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 5 of 12 Photo 1. Viewed from North Main Street Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 6 of 12 Photo 2. Viewed from the corner of North Main Street and Bush Street additional materials which asserted that the only evidence of original siding on the building is corrugated metal and T1-11, and indicating their desire to utilize T1-11 siding or a vertical board and batten treatment. The applicant further indicated that the entire building was re- Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 7 of 12 sided with an expansion in 1980, which is consistent with the minutes of the 1979 Planning Commission meeting discussing the service bay assessment. In reaching the original decision, it was that T1-11 would not have been an original siding material T1-11 and while it was likely used in the 1979-1980 re-siding mentioned, it has now been removed and the Historic District Development standards are explicit that vertical siding is not to be used except where it was the original siding. The Historic Commission, which is charged by code with advising the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission with regard to the application of the Historic District development standards, has indicated that the gable ends of the original portion of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding which the Commissioners believe is the best indication of original external materials. On that basis, the original staff decision incorporated the recommendations of the Historic Commission as conditions of approval. III. Appeal Request On December 30, 2019 prior to the end of the appeal period, Donn Comte timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Mr. Comte is the applicant, and a member and registered agent for BC Partners IV, LLC which owns the subject property and thus has standing to appeal. The notice of appeal identified the following grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1)The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding. 2)The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which is commercial. 3) Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding. IV. Staff Response The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding. The Rehabilitation Standard addressing siding is in AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.d and reads, Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except in those instances where it was used as the original siding.he applicant provided only evidence of original siding on the building is corrugated metal and T1-11, and indicating their desire to utilize T1-11 siding or a vertical board and batten treatment. The applicant further indicated that the entire building was re-sided with an expansion in 1980, which is consistent with the minutes of the 1979 Planning Commission meeting discussing the service bay . The additional materials did not include a request to extend the 120-day clock to allow another month for additional Historic Commission Review. In Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 8 of 12 T1-11 would not have been an T1-11 did not gain -1980 re-siding mentioned, it has now been removed and the currently applicable Historic District Development standards are explicit that vertical siding is not to be used except where it was the original siding. The Historic Commission, which is charged by code with advising the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission with regard to the application of the Historic District development standards, had indicated that the gable ends of the original portion of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding which the Commissioners believed was the best indication of original external materials. On that basis, the original staff decision incorporated the original recommendations of the Historic Commission as a condition of approval that the applicant utilize 1x8 tongue and groove siding or, as an alternate, stucco - with the modification that staff also believed another compatible horizontal siding treatment would be appropriate. The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which is commercial; and ith each recommendation tied to a specific standard therein. These standards apply primarily to residential historic districts, residential buildings in the Downtown Historic District, and National Register-listed historic buildings not located within the Historic District Overlay. The purpose of the following standards is to prevent incompatible treatment of buildings in the Historic District Overlay and to ensure that new additions and materials maintain the historic and architectural character of the district. property is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District which is noted in the National Primarily residential in character subject property is residentially zoned, and the existing non-conforming use is a commercial automotive use operating under a Conditional Use Permit within a primarily residential Architectural compatibility with the impact areaconsideration. e primarily to residential historic districts are not exclusively residential and were appropriately used here given the location (within a residential historic district) and the context (seeking architectural compatibility therein). Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding. As detailed above, the Historic Commission, which is charged by code with advising the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission with regard to the application of the Historic District development standards, had indicated based on available photos of the building prior to the removal of existing exterior materials and features, that the treatment of the gable ends of the original portion of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding gave the best indication of original external materials. In accepting this determination, staff also noted that the applicant had further indicated that the entire building was re-sided with an expansion in 1980, which is consistent with the minutes of the 1979 Planning Commission meeting Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 9 of 12 discussing the exterior treatment with the service bay addition at the time. In reaching the T1-11 would not have been an original siding T1-11 did not gain popularity until seems to have been used in the 1979-1980 re-siding mentioned, it has now been removed and the currently applicable Historic District Development standards are explicit that vertical siding is not to be used except where it was the original historic siding. V. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 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 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. VI. Conclusions and Recommendations After staff initially approved the application, applicant Donn Comte filed a timely notice of land use appeal which identified three grounds for the appeal focused on what historic district development standards are applicable to the proposal and what the original material treatment for the historic building was in order to determine the appropriate treatment today. The administrative decision applied the found in AMC 18.4.2.050.C which are noted as applying primarily to residential is correct the subject property is residentially zoned and Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 10 of 12 located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, a primarily residential historic district and the non-conforming commercial automotive use is subject to a Conditional Use Permit within this district. Architectural compatibility with the impact area is a primary consideration for a Conditional UseRehabilitation Standards which speak to new additions, material treatments and historic and architectural character of the district (rather than more general massing, scale, etc. addressed in AMC 18.4.2.050.B) are the most appropriate for the proposal here to address the removal of exterior materials from a historic building. The Historic Commission is charged by code with advising the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission with regard to the application of the Historic District development standards, and here indicated based on available photos of the building prior to the removal of existing exterior materials and features, that the treatment of the gable ends of the original portion of the building with 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding gave the best indication of original external materials. In accepting this determination, staff also noted that the applicant had further indicated that the entire building was re-sided with an expansion in 1980, which is consistent with the minutes of the 1979 Planning Commission meeting discussing the exterior treatment with the service bay addition at the time. In re assessment that T1-11 original construction as T1-11 was used in the 1979-1980 re-siding mentioned, it has now been removed and the currently applicable Historic District Development standards are explicit that vertical siding is not to be used except where it was the original historic siding. On this basis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal request on all counts and uphold the staff approval with the original conditions which are detailed below: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in 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 the Site Review approval would need to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That prior to submittal of a building permit application, the applicant shall obtain a special inspection from the Building Division in order to determine the extent of work completed to date and identify any specific building code issues which will need to be addressed in the building permit application. 4) The following conditions are required for conformance with the applicable Historic District Development standards, and shall be incorporated into the building permit application as follows, subject to final review and approval by the Staff Advisor: a. The applicant shall restore or duplicate the entablature (horizontal architectural details under the eave line of the roof), including the enclosed soffit, along the entire North Main Street façade of the building and along the original office structure (i.e. brick entry feature) on the Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.b. & c. See Photos 1 Bush Street façade. ( and 2 above ). b. Smooth 1x8 tongue and groove siding, or another compatible horizontal siding to be reviewed by the Review Board and approved by the Staff Advisor, shall be used in place of the existing T1-11 siding on all sides of the building. The gable ends of the building include Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 11 of 12 tongue and groove siding which the Historic Commission determined to be indicative of the original external building materials. In lieu of horizontal siding, stucco would also be an acceptable alternative, as it was a common exterior building material for commercial (Rehabilitation Standard buildings and gas stations during the period of significance. AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.d.) c. That the exterior building colors shall be similar to the existing exterior colors including white and gray, along with the brick on the original office structure, as proposed by the (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.e.) applicant d. The windows on the original office structure (i.e., the brick entry feature) shall be true divided lights (i.e. with the glass divided into small panes) on the North Main Street and (Rehabilitation Standard AMC Bush Street facades to match the original windows. 18.4.2.050.C.2.g. See Bush Street side of the building in Photo 2, above). AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d e. The applicant shall submit architectural drawings as specified in (e.g. section drawings and drawings of architectural details) with the building permit submittals. Building permits shall be reviewed for compliance with the above recommendations by the Historic Commission Review Board, with final review and approval by the Staff Advisor, prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00080/PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: BC Partners IV LLC/Appellant: BC Partners IV LLC Page 12 of 12 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review November 6, 2019 PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2019-00080 SUBJECT PROPERTY:146 N. Main St. APPLICANT/OWNER:BC Partners IV, LLC/Don Comte, Rogue Planning and Development as Agent DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and is designated the “Ashland Tire Shop” building –more recently “Hank’s Foreign Automotive”-a historic contributing resource within the district. No changes are proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Low Density Multiple Family ZONING:R-2 ASSESSOR’S ;; MAP:39 1E 09BB TAX LOT:3503 ; Recommendation: The Historic Commission recommends approving the application as proposed with the following recommendations. Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions(AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2) b. Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can be documented. c. Replacement finishes on exterior walls of historic buildings shall match the original finish. Exterior finishes on new additions to historic buildings shall be compatible with but not replicate, the finish of the historic building. The Historic Commission recommends restoration or duplication of the entablature (horizontal architectural details under the eave lineof the roof), including the enclosed soffit, along the entire N. Main St. façadeof the buildingand along the original office structure (i.e., brick entry feature) onthe Bust St. façade. See Photos 1 and 2. d. Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except in those instances where it was used as the original siding. The Historic Commission recommendssmooth 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding in place of the exiting T-111 siding on all sides of the building. The gable ends of the building include tongue and groove siding, which the Commission believes is indicative of the original external building materials. The Commission recommends stucco as an alternative to tongue and groove siding, which is common exterior building material for commercial buildings and gas stations in the 1930’s. g. Replacement widows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size, but not replicate original windows in the historic building. The Historic Commission recommends the windows on the original office structure (i.e., brick entry feature) are true dividedlight (i.e., with the glass divided into small panes) on the N. Main St. and Bush St. facades to match original windows –see Bush St. side of building in Photo 2. e. Exterior wall colors on new additions shall match those of the historic building. The applicant’s representative indicated the exterior building colors will be similar to the existing exterior colors including white and gray, along with the brick on the original office structure. 1 Other: Please submit architectural drawings as specified in AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d (e.g., section drawings and drawings of architectural details) with building permit submittals.If possible, the Historic Commission requests the opportunity for the Historic Review Board to review the architectural drawings prior to submitting the building permit. The Historic Commission recommends historically compatible garage doors and requests a sample profile at the time of the building permit submittals. Photo 1 Photo 2 2