Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGresham_292_PA-T1-2024-00238CITY OF HLAN" July 29, 2024 Notice of Final Decision On July 29, 2024, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA -T1-2024-00238 Subject Property: 292 Gresham Street Applicant: Rogue Planning and Development for Gresham House, LLC Description: A request for Site Design Review for the development of three dwellings in addition to the existing two dwellings. The proposal includes utility plans for extending public infrastructure to serve the new dwelling units; two exceptions to street standards; and a proposal to remove four trees. The property is within the Hargadine Historic District and Hillside Lands Overlay. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi -Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39- 1 E -09 -CA; TAX LOT: 5400 The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18,5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashiand, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.ar.us TTY: 800.735.2900 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION rw10i110W1 t 1 C PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2024-00238 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 292 Gresham Street OWNERS: Gresham House, LLC APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development for DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for the development of three dwelling units in addition to the two existing dwellings. The submittal materials include utility plans for extending public infrastructure to serve the neva dwelling units. The application includes requests for Exceptions to the Street Standards to not install sidewalks on the Gresham frontage and to install a curbside sidewalk on Holly, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees. The property is within the Hargadine Historic District and Hillside Lands Overlay. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09 CA; TAX LOT: 5400 SUBMITTAL DATE: May 23, 2024 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: June 21, 2024 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: July 29, 2024 APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 p.m.): August 12, 2024 FINAL DECISION DATE (4:30 p.m.): August 13, 2024 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: February 13, 2026 DECISION Summary The project proposes to construct three new dwellings in addition to the two existing dwellings already on site, for the development of five total multi -family residential dwellings in a multi- family residential zone. Per Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18.5.2.020.13, development of three or more dwelling units on a residential zoned lot requires Site Design Review approval. The subject property is rectangular in shape and is zoned R-2, a low-density multi -family residential zoning. Surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and to the south and west R-1-7.5, single family residential. Per the application, the subject property is developed with a single -story 1,513 square foot primary residence with a basement that was converted into a 618 square foot studio residential unit (425 Holly Street address), a 338 square foot below grade garage attached to the south side of the structure, and a carport -pergola accessed from Gresham Street. The driveway on Gresham Steet provides access to the residence at 292 Gresham and a narrow asphalt driveway on the southeast side of the property provides access to the residence 425 Holly Street and basement level garage. There are no street frontage improvements (curbs, gutters, paving, park row planting strips or sidewalks) along Gresham Street or Holly Street, and the applicant is requesting Exceptions to the Street Design Standards to not install sidewalks on Gresham and to install a curbside sidewalk on Holly. The subject property at 292 Gresham Street has access from both Gresham Street and Holly Street. The property is 0.35 acres or approximately 15,104 square feet in area. The minimum lot area for PA -T1-2024•-00238 292 Greshain Streetljnc Page I three dwellings is 9,000 square feet. Therefore, this lot meets the requirements for three or more dwelling units per AMC Chapter 18.2.5.080.D.b. The subject property as proposed conforms to the allowed density of 4.7 units for this zone with the requested five percent density bonus (0.3 5 acres x 13.5 base density for R-2 zone = 4.7 units maximum). Per the application and Chapter 18.2.5.080, the existing 1,513 square foot residence is equal to 1 unit, the 618 square foot studio is equal to 1 unit, the 496 square foot basement apartment is equal to .75 unit, the 1247 square foot residence is equal to 1 unit, and the 989 square foot residence is equal to 1 unit. This is a total of 4.75 units. The proposal requests a five percent density bonus for the provision of additional outdoor open space to allow for 4.75 dwelling units where 4.7 dwelling units is the base density. The additional open space satisfies the density bonus requirement. As provided in AMC 18.3.9.050.B.2.b, developments with fewer than ten units that provide more than two percent of the project area for common open space receive a one percent density bonus shall be awarded for each one percent of the total project area in common open space in excess of any common open space required in AMC 18.4.4.070, with the caveat that open space provided must meet the standards in AMC 18.4.4.070. The standard open space requirement is that at least eight percent of the lot area must be provided in common open space for Site Design Review, and an additional 1.064 percent for a total of 9.0164 percent of the lot area would be required to obtain the requested density. A condition of approval has been included below to require that the final permit submittals identify at least 1,361 square feet of common open space (15,104 square foot lot area x 0.090164 = 1361.84 square feet) and that this open space shall meet the requirements of AMC 18.4.4.070. The subject property is within the local Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District but is outside of the National Historic District boundary. The existing primary residence is not listed as a designated historic home. According to Jackson County records, the structure was built in 1957. The maximum allowed lot coverage in the R-2 zone is 65 percent. Lot coverage includes the total area of a lot covered by buildings, parking areas, driveways, and other solid surfaces that will not allow natural water infiltration to the soil. The maximum lot coverage for this lot is 9,909 square feet. With the existing and proposed structure and solid surfaces the proposed lot coverage is 7,134 or 47 percent lot coverage with 200 square feet of proposed permeable solid surface. The application states that four trees will be removed to construct the additional units: two black oaks, one white oak, and one ponderosa pine. Eight mature trees (oaks and cedars) will be protected and preserved by installing temporary fencing prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the loss of the four trees meeting the required one to one planting mitigation requirements. SITE DESIGN REVIEW Site Design Review applies to this proposal per Chapter 18.5.2.020.B.1, which requires Site Design Review for "three or more dwelling units on a lot in a residential zone..." In addition to the approval criteria, Site Design Review is also subject to the Building Placement, Orientation and Design standards for residential development found in AMC 18.4.2.030, and Landscaping and Screening found in AMC 18.4.4.030 and for Open Space and Tree Preservation, Protection and Removal; and 18. S. 7 for Tree Removal and Mitigation. The approval criteria for Site Design Review are found in AMC 18.5.2.050. PA -TI -2024-00238 292 Gresham Street/jnc Page 2 The first criterion for Site Design Review approval is that the proposal complies with all 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 application shows that the setbacks and separations for existing buildings and proposed building yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards ,have been satisfied. A condition of approval has been included to require that the final permit submittals demonstrate compliance with lot coverage standards, setbacks and solar access. The second criterion for Site Design Review approval is that the proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The subject property is within the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District. The application materials include calculations demonstrating that the proposal complies with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) limitations of the historic district, noting that the allowed MPFA for five units is 3,875 square feet and that as proposed the total floor area on the property will be 3,749 square feet. The application explains that the proposed new structures are similar in architectural character to the existing structure on the property. Many of the structures on adjacent properties were constructed after 1950. The siding direction, materials, overhang, orientation, and scale of the proposed structures are consistent with adjacent structures. The window sizes and openings and roof pitch and orientation have been designed to blend in with the neighborhood characteristics. Within the local historic districts, developments are subject to the Historic District Development Standards of AMC 18.4.2.050, and the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) serves in advisory role to the Staff Advisor with regard to these development standards. The Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) reviewed the application at its regular meeting on July 3, 2024, and made the following comments and recommendations: 1. Proposed roofing should be standing seam metal and should be gray or darker color to match the roofing of the existing building. 2. That the project as proposed seems to fit the neighborhood. 3. That the proposal is a great use of the site and HPAC likes that the proposed cottage designs are a contemporary interpretation of the 1950's design of the existing home. Staff notes that metal roofs in the historic districts are generally to be avoided per historic district design standards in Chapter 18.4.2.050.C.2.i. However, the proposed metal roofing for this project is being considered as an exception to the Historic District Development Standards as the metal roof matches the existing home on the site, provides benefits with regard to wildfire, and was supported by HPAC. The third criterion for Site Design Review approval is that "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards ofpart 18.4." The applicable standards for Building Placement, Orientation and Design for Residential Development are found in AMC 18.4.2.030 Building Placement, Orientation and Design (AMC 18.4.2.030. C) Two of the proposed new buildings (Units # 3 and 4) are orientated to Holly Street with access from a driveway from Holly Street, while Unit #5 is oriented to Gresham Street, behind the PA -T1-2024-00238 292 Gresham Street/jnc Page 3 existing residence with pedestrian access from Gresham Street. The proposed new units are described as contemporary single -story, ranch -style and two-story craftsman -style structures with low-pitched, gable roofing. As stated above the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee recommends that the standing seam metal roofing be gray or darker to match the existing structure. Open S ace AMC 18.4.2.030.H As provided in AMC 18.3.9.050,132b, developments with fewer than ten units that provide more than two percent of the project area for common open space receive a one percent density bonus shall be awarded for each one percent of the total project area in common open space in excess of any common open space required in AMC 18.4.4.070, with the caveat that open space provided must meet the standards in AMC 18.4.4.070. The standard open space requirement is that at least eight percent of the lot area must be provided in common open space for Site Design Review, and an additional 1.064 percent for a total of 9.0164 percent of the lot area would be required to meet the open space requirement and obtain the requested density. The site plan shows 240 square feet of open space area adjacent to each unit for a total of 1,200 square feet of open space area. In addition, there is a lawn and yard area connecting the open spaces and surrounding structures. A condition of approval has been included below to require that the final permit submittals identify at least 1,361 square feet of common open space (15,104 square foot lot area x 0.090164 = 1361.84 square feet) and that this open space shall meet the requirements of AMC 18.4.4.070. Parking Area Landscaping and Screening (AMC 18.4.4.030.F.2) Currently, there is a vehicular parking area in the driveway to the existing building accessed from Gresham Street. The parking area is screened from the house by a low wooden fence. Parkinggyout With regard to parking, with changes to meet the Climate -Friendly & Equitable Communities (CLEC) rules, Ashland no longer has minimum parking requirements and cannot consider off- street parking in land use decisions. The application states that no parking will be provided between the proposed buildings and the street. On -street parking is being proposed for the new units. There is an existing driveway parking area accessed from Gresham Street and an existing one car garage accessed from Holly Street. The application states that covered bicycle parking will be provided for five bikes next to proposed unit #5 and accessed from Holly Street. Accessible Packing Per Chapter 18.4.3.050, in cases where no parking spaces are voluntarily proposed, outside of the C -1-D zone, for commercial... and multifamily developments with three or more dwelling units, it is mandatory to provide at least one accessible parking space. Accessible parking shall be provided consistent with the requirements of the building code, including but not limited to the minimum number of spaces for automobiles, van -accessible spaces, location of spaces relative to building entrances, accessible routes between parking areas and building entrances, identification signs, lighting, and other design and construction requirements. Accessible parking shall be clearly identified on the building application submittals. PA -TI -2024-00238 292 Greshain Street/jnc Page 4 TREE PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal (AMC 18.4.4.030.D) The applicant proposes installing fencing to protect and preserve trees during construction. The proposal includes the removal of four mature trees. Conditions have been included to require a certified arborist assess the cedars and cork oaks along Holly Street and provide recommendations for sidewalk installation and protection during construction. Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation (AMC 18.5.7 The application states that twelve mature trees will be preserved during and after development, and that four trees will be removed to construct the new units. The trees proposed to be removed are as follows: 1. 28 -inch DBH Ponderosa pine 2. 24 -inch DBH California black oak 3. 22 -inch DBH Oregon white oak 4. 18 -inch DBH California black oak To mitigate the removal of the four trees identified above, four trees are proposed to be planted in open spaces. A condition has been included that a final landscaping and irrigation plan be provided with the building permit submittal and shall include a size- and species-specific detail, including the four proposed mitigation trees and required irrigation details. 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 application states that the property is currently served by adequate City of Ashland facilities for water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and electricity services from Holly Street. In staff's assessment, the proposal will create greater impacts on the level of residential use of the subject property, however, it will not have greater impacts or cause adverse impacts on the architectural compatibility, air quality, generation of traffic, noise, light and glare, or on the development of adjacent properties than the surrounding properties. There is an apartment building to the east of this property with greater density than this proposal. A condition of approval is included below to require a final electric service plan and final utility plan including a storm drainage plan to be provided for review and approval by the Public Works/Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit. Exceptions. to the Street Desi n Standard AMC 18.4.6.020. b The application requests two Exceptions to the Street Design Standards. Presently, the Gresham Street and Holly Street frontages are improved with curbs and gutters, but there are no park rows or sidewalks on either frontage. Gresham Street is classified as an avenue, and standard frontage improvements would typically include at least a seven -foot landscaped park row planting strip with irrigated street trees and a six-foot sidewalk. The application requests an Exception to the Street Design Standards not to install frontage improvements along Gresham Street citing the grade of the right-of-way behind the curb, the steepness of the street, that the improvements are shifted east within the right-of- way so there is only approximately six feet of available right-of-way behind the curb, large PA -Ti -2024-00238 292 Gresham Streetljnc Page 5 stature trees and significant public infrastructure which would conflict with sidewalk installation, and the adjacent development pattern and lack of connectivity within the broader neighborhood. In staff's assessment, while a number of the applicant's arguments do not merit exception, there are four large stature trees along Gresham Street that would be impacted by any sidewalk installation. As such, staff believe an exception is merited, however conditions have been included to require that: prior to permit issuance the applicant sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) for the future improvement of Gresham Street; that the applicant dedicate a public pedestrian access easement or additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate future city standard improvements along the full Gresham Street frontage; and that where it will not impact the large, established trees the six-foot area behind the curb shall be leveled and surfaced with decomposed granite to provide areas for those parking on Gresham Street to exit their vehicles. These decomposed granite areas shall be coordinated with a revised pedestrian circulation plan for the site. Holly Street is classified as a neighborhood collector. Standard frontage improvements would include at least a seven -foot landscaped park row planting strip with irrigated street trees and at least a five-foot sidewalk. The application requests an Exception to the Street Design Standards to install a curbside sidewalk with no park row planting strip along Holly Street, noting that the sidewalk would be narrowed in the vicinity of the Cork Oak (#E09) which is less than eight feet behind the curb. The application again notes the steepness of the street, large stature trees and significant public infrastructure which would conflict with sidewalk installation, as well as the adjacent development pattern and lack of connectivity within the broader neighborhood as bases for the exception. As with the Gresham Street frontage, staff believe that the presence and location of the large stature established trees do merit the exception requested to install a six-foot curbside sidewalk. Conditions have been added to require that before preparing final drawings for the sidewalk installation, the applicant shall consult with a certified arborist for recommendations to insure the long-term viability of the Cedar and Cork Oaks along Holly Street in terms both of how the sidewalk is to be installed and how the trees will be protected during installation. These recommendations shall be incorporated into the sidewalk plan and tree protection plan and provided with the plan submittal. The final criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards. As stated above the application is requesting an exception to the roofing materials that are preferrable within the Historic Districts. AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.i notes that metal roofing is to be avoided. The applicant is proposing to use standing seam metal roofing on the new structures. In considering this request, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) was supportive of the request, noting that standing seam metal roofing was compatible with the existing home but recommending that the roofing be a darker grey color to match the existing home. A condition incorporating the HPAC recommendation has been included below. COMMENTS Committee Comments The City of Ashland Tree Management Advisory Committee (Tree MAC) reviewed the application at its regular meeting on July 3, 2024. After a brief discussion the Tree MAC unanimously recommended that the trees identified for removal in the application be removed PA -T1-2024-00238 292 Gresham Street/jnc Page 6 for construction. The committee also recommended that further protective measures should be planned and followed for the cork oak. A condition is included below to require that an arborist assess the cork oak and make specific recommendations for the sidewalk installation and tree protection during construction. The City of Ashland Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) reviewed the application at its regular meeting on July 3, 2024. After discussion HPAC agreed with the overall concepts of the plan, and while the proposed metal roofing is counter to Historic District Development Standards, HPAC determined that with the proposed darker color of the roof was an appropriate match for the existing structure. City Utilitv Comments Final plans for utility installation shall be included with the building permit application and be approved by the Public Work, Planning, Building and Electric Departments prior to issuance of the building permit. Public Comments In accordance with the Land Use Ordinance, Notice of Complete Application (HOCA) was mailed to all surrounding properties within 200 feet of the subject property, as well as a physical notice posted along the frontage. After the mailing of the NOCA, two public comments were received. These comments generally expressed concerns with density, increases in traffic, sidewalks, tree preservation, and on -street parking, all of which are discussed elsewhere in this document, The applicant has submitted a burden of proof document showing that they meet the criteria of approval for Site Design Review and Tree Removal and the proposed use is in conformance with the zoning district requirements as well as the special use standards when meeting the conditions of approval. The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all 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. PA -TI -2024-00238 292 Gresham Street/jnc Page 7 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. The criteria of approval for an Exception to Street Standards are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.4.6.020.B.1 which require that all of the following criteria are net: a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. The criteria of approval for Tree Removal are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040.13.1 which require that all of the following criteria are met: a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The proposal for Site Design Review, Exception to the Street Design Standards and Tree Removal at 292 Gresham Street has demonstrated compliance with the applicable criteria. Planning Action #2024-00238 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2024-00238 is denied. The following are the conditions, and they are attached to the approval: PA -T1-2024-00238 292 Gresham Street/jnc Page 8 1) All proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) 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. 3) That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing. 4) Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the Public Works/Engineering Department, 5) All necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each of the proposed new units, and system development charges (including water, sewer, parks, transportation, and stormwater) shall be paid. 6) Prior to the preparation of final drawings for the sidewalk installation, the applicant shall consult with a certified arborist for recommendations for sidewalk installation and protection during construction to insure the long-term viability of the Cedar and Cork Oaks along Holly Street. These recommendations shall be incorporated into the sidewalk design and provided with the plan submittal. 7) The building permit submittals shall include: a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any required public or private utility easements. b) The final application shall demonstrate compliance with the R-2 building separation requirements from AMC Table 18.2.5.030.A which require separation equal to one-half the height of the tallest building, where building height is measured at the two closest exterior walls. The maximum separation required is 12 feet. C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be selected, placed, directed and/or shrouded so as not to directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) Stormwater from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected onsite and channeled to the City stormwater 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 stormwater collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. e) A final utility plan shall be submitted and 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. Any meters, cabinets, or vaults shall be in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at the applicant's expense. f) A final electric service, design, and distribution plan including a separate electric meter to the third unit, load calculations, and locations of all primary PA -TI -2024-00238 292 Gresham Streetljnc Page 9 and secondary services including any required 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. g) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction shall comply with Solar Access Standard A {AMC Chapter 18.4.8.030). Calculations shall be supported by building elevations or cross section drawings which clearly identify the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade on the submitted plans. Calculations shall be in the form [(Height ---- 6)1(0.445 + Slope)] = Required Solar Setback. h) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking and circulation areas, and any coverage other than natural landscaping to demonstrate compliance with the maximum 65 percent allowed lot coverage. i) Final calculations demonstrating that the proposed new units comply with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area requirements of AMC 18.2.5.070. j) An erosion control plan shall be provided addressing temporary and permanent erosion control measures including plantings (preserved and new), cuts or fills including berms, swales, stormwater detention facilities, and where grading is proposed. k) The final application will need to address the placement and screening of trash and recycling facilities to address standards. Applicants may wish to consult Recology to verify the sizing and placement of the trash and recycling facilities are adequate. 1) Bicycle parking facilities shall be shown on the final site plan per AMC Chapter 18.4.3.070. m) Final tree preservation, landscape planting and irrigation plans including size and species of trees (existing and proposed), timing of planting, maintenance, and irrigation for new plantings must be submitted and approved by Planning staff prior to the issuance of the building permit. The landscaping plan shall include the four proposed mitigation trees. n) The parking area for the third unit, as reconfigured, shall be shown on the final site plan that it meets the design standards regarding minimum parking area size and backup maneuvering space as outlined in AMC Chapter 18.4.3.080.B. o) That the proposed standing -seam metal roofing shall be a gray or darker color to match the existing structure as recommended by the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. p) Required accessible parking shall be clearly identified on the building application submittals. q) A clear demonstration that at least 1,361 square feet of open space meeting the requirements of AMC 18.4.4.070 is being provided in order to qualify for the requested density bonus. Open space shall be verified on site for installation according to the approved plan prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. r) The applicant shall sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) for the future improvement of Gresham Street and shall dedicate a public pedestrian access casement or additional right-of-way necessary to PA -TI -2024-00238 292 Gresham Streetljnc Page 10 accommodate future city standard improvements along the full Gresham Street frontage. S) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Holly Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalk shall be a minimum of six feet in width installed at curbside, with the potential to narrow the sidewalk to accommodate the existing cork oak tree. Holly Street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk and street lighting shall be constructed across the entire frontage of the site according to the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Where it will not impact the large, established trees along Gresham Street, a six-foot area behind the curb shall be leveled and surfaced with decomposed granite or similar material to provide areas for those parking on Gresham Street to exit their vehicles. These level areas shall be coordinated with a revised pedestrian circulation plan for the site to be provided for review and approval with the sidewalk plan. 8) Prior to final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All landscaping, including required recreational areas, and irrigation systems shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All utility service and equipment installations including the undergrounding of existing overhead electric services shall be completed and installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. e) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. ,. a fiJ emsZ'�' 4 � �.- July 26, 2024 Brandon Goldmdn, Director Date Department of Community Development PA -TI -2024-00238 292 Gresham Street/jnc Page 11 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On July 29, 2024 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T1-2024-00238, 292 Gresham Street. .7y[ichaeCSuCCivan Signature of Employee Gkemm-devkplanninglPlanning ActaWAs by StreetlGlGreshamlGresham_2921Gresham_292_PA-7S-2024-00238MN cinglNOD%Gresham_292_PA-71-2024-09238_N0D_Mdavit of Mailing.doex 7129/2024 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA6300 BEAULIEU PAULINE AGNES 269 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5308 CALVER KARIN H 457 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5305 GAASCH JAMES EPHRAIM TRUSTEE 451 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5400 GRESHAM HOUSE LLC 14111 LIVINGSTON RD CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1002 BEY THOMAS M/AMBER 414 HOLLY ST ASHLAND OR, 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5600 FORNACIARI KATHLEEN JODY 375 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5000 GEORGE WILLIAM FIJULIA A 120 COVE VIEW DR WHITETHORN, CA 95589 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA6400 GRIMES CATHERINE S TRUSTEE ET 5141 E HANBURY ST LONG BEACH, CA 90808 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5300 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA4501 HIGHLAND PINES HOMEOWNERS ASS HODGIN MICHAEL TRUSTEE ET AL 718 BLACK OAK DR 695 WASHINGTON MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1011 KELLOGG LARRY G TRUSTEE 415 MERRILL CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA4800 LAW VICTORIA J 406 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1100 MARCH MELINDA ELLEN TRUSTEE E 384 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD202 NISKANEN KATHLEEN A TRUSTEE E 2599 PIONEER RD MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA4900 KOESTER MICHAEL J TRUSTEE ET 272 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CD101 LETTS LAURA 325 TAYLOR ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES PO BOX 490 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5302 OSWALT MARILYN K ET AL 517 WAGNER CREEK RD TALENT, OR 97540 Go to averyxom/templates Use AveryTemplate 5160 t PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5501 BIGELOW SHARON 299 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA4700 FORST MARVIS E TRUSTEE ET AL 451 THORNTON WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1006 GRAG ERT CYNTHIA A 430 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA6200 HERSHEY WILLIAM N TRUSTEE ET 291 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 1 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5500 JEFFERSON BRITTON H/MARGARET 397 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5303 LAU SALLY J TRUSTEE ET AL 465 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1010 LEVIN REID ET AL 425 MERRILL CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1001 MONOSOFF JEFFREY I TRUSTEE ET 436 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5304 PAGE KATHLEEN A TRUSTEE ET AL 467 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2024-00238391E09CA5306 PA -T1-2024-00238 PAM -2024-00238 391 E09CA4500 ROBERTS JOAN TRUSTEE ET AL ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SHANNON PATRICK ET AL 453 HOLLY ST 1314-B CENTER DR., PMB #457 464 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERYGo ■ PeelAddress Labelsail to ayer�xom/teTpipt • .� PA-T1-2024-00238 391E09CD1003 PA-T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5307 i PA-T1-2024-00238 STEINER JOHN TRUSTEE ET AL TAMURA ROBERT HNALERIE L TERRAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 402 HOLLY ST j 455 HOLLY ST 1 310 OAK ST, SUITE 3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA4801 i PA-T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5309 PA-T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5310 THIRKILL MICHAEL THOMAS JANET M THOMPSON DELANO D TRUSTEE 266 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 929 SPRING ST SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 461 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 , PA-T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5100 PA-T1-2024-00238 391E09CD100 PA-T1-2024-00238 391E09CD1012 THORMAHLEN PHILIP A TRUSTEE E WEIS MATT/CAVENER JAMIE WILHOIT HEATHER/AUSTIN PO BOX 855 442 HOLLY ST 350 GUTHRIE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ' ASHLAND, OR 97520 i 292 Gresham St NOD 07/29/24 j Michael Sullivan From: Melinda March <mmarch8899@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2024 3:13 PM To: planning Subject: 292 Gresham [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Sirs, I would like to know how 3 additional homes can be placed on the property at 292 Gresham St. Is there going to be additional driveway cuts? Is this the only property that will change? Are these single family homes?? Do they meet the lot size requirements of this property? It seems to me that the addition of 3 homes will decrease the value of my property, due to increased traffic, congestion of traffic and having less parking in the area. If these are small lots, there will be a lot of additional cars on the streets. I also am concerned about cutting trees down. We need every tree that is mature and producing oxygen. Replacing these large beautiful trees with small new trees(if even required) will not have the same oxygen production, provide shade and a place for birds to build homes. Thanks for your consideration, Melinda March 384 Holly St Ashland, OR 97520 From: Anne Steiner To:lam Subject: Fwd: 292 Gresham Street PA -Ti -2024-00238 Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 10:57:52 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Anne Steiner <anupsteinerngmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:52 AM Subject: 292 Gresham Street PA -T1-2024-00238 To: Cc: John Steiner <jnbnuno9550 mail.co�x�> TO: Ashland Planning Division Planning Action PA -T1-2024-002 Subject Property: 292 Gresham Street Owner: Rogue Planning and Development for Gresham House FROM: Anne and John Steiner 402 Holly Street Ashland, OR 97520 As a neighbor of this property, there are several objections we have to the proposed changes. There will be a number of adverse impacts to our neighborhood. In general, the developer is trying to jam too many units into the space. The only way to do this is to make too many exceptions to Ashland codes: Density: The property has been a single home dwelling going back to the 1950s. There is a mix of apartments, condos, and single family dwellings on the block. If the city approves this plan, the property goes from one unit to five. That is a significant increase in people and cars. By manipulating the building code to suggest that two basement apartments "don't count" in the planning doesn't change the reality. The reality is that pedestrian and vehicles will be increased by at least five times, but probably more. There is no plan to build additional off street parking. We will have more cars parked on the streets. There are (at best) currently four off street parking spots. The Gresham street parking space has a pergola straddling it. There might be tight parking for three very small cars, but most likely it will only be able to handle two. The corner of Holly and Gresham is a busy thoroughfare. Pedestrians, cars, wildlife, and bicycles use it constantly. There is a very steep hill on Gresham leading up to Holly Street. It creates a blind spot, as one cannot see what is coming up or down until you reach the crest, which is right at the corner of Holly and Gresham. Having cars parked on Gresham will create even more of a hazard, because it will make the street more narrow. When cars and trucks are parked on both sides of Gresham, we have witnessed near -misses of wildlife and pedestrians due to that blind spot. Since there is no sidewalk planned on the Gresham side of the property, more people and animals will be forced to walk in the street, which will be more narrow due to an increase of parked cars. This will make what is already a hazardous corner much, much worse. When it snows and/or is icy, cars skid and slide when attempting to drive down Holly or turn on Gresham. We see it every time it snows. Because of the slope of the streets on Holly and Gresham, the cars will slide into the corner of the property in question. Many people abandon their cars, blocking traffic or our driveway, because they cannot get down the hill. They are forced to start walking. Now imagine more cars parked on the street, more pedestrians - it's a recipe for disaster. The property will need more parking, a sidewalk on Gresham, and/ or fewer units in order to be safe. Trees: Cutting down four beautiful, large trees in order for the developer to build as many separate units as possible onto the lot is exactly what the code was intended to prevent! There is no good reason for cutting down four trees on the property. Wildlife will be affected and it will increase greenhouse gasses. We urge you to not allow this plan as it is now to go forward. The property as planned will be too congested and will not provide adequate parking. Sincerely, John and Anne Steiner 492 Holly Street Ashland, OR 97529 PA -T1 -2024-00238 292 Gresham Street Multi Family Site Design Review Additional Findings: Site Design Review Approval Criteria 1.8.5.2.050 A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to. building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Finding: The property is within the R-2, Low Density Multi -Family Zone. There are 4.75 residential dwellings proposed on the property. For the purposes of density in the zone, with a density bonus of five percent, the proposal conforms to the allowed density. 18.2.5.080 Residential Density Calculations in R-2 zones A. Density Standard. Except density gained through bonus points under section 18.2.5.080 or chapter 18.3.9, Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay, development density in the R-2 and R-3 zones shall not exceed the densities established by this section. B. Density Calculation. 1. Except as specified in the minimum lot area dimensions below, the density in R-2 and R-3 zones shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public, and subject to the exceptions below. Finding: The .35 -acre (15,056 square foot) lot area allows for a base density of 4.7 dwelling units. (.35 X 13.5 = 4.7). There are four units. The existing home is a two unit duplex (Units 1 and 2) and two detached units (Units 4 & 5) a total of four. 2. Units less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations. Findin Unit 3 is less than 500 SF (.75). Including the four units, there are 4.75 dwelling units proposed. 3. Accessory residential units and duplexes are not required to meet the density or minimum lot area requirements of this section. See section 18.2.3.040 for accessory residential unit standards and section 18.2.3.110 for duplex standards. Finding: The existing duplex residence is included in the density calculations per section 18.2.3.110. C. Minimum Density. 2. Exceptions to Minimum Density Standards. The following lots are totally or partially exempt from minimum density standards: b. Lots located within any Historic District designated within the Ashland Municipal Code. Finding: The property is located in a Historic District and is exempt from this section. D. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. 1. R-2 Zone. Base density for the R-2 zone shall meet the following standards: c. For more than three dwellings, the base density shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre. The permitted base density shall be increased by the percentage gained through the residential density bonus in subsection 18.2.5.080.E. Finding: The proposal requests a five percent density bonus for the provision of additional outdoor open space (18.2.5.080.E) to allow for 4.75 dwelling units where 4.7 are permitted. E. Residential Density Bonus. 1. Density Bonus Points Authorized. Except as allowed under chapter 18.3.9, Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay, the permitted base density shall be increased only pursuant to this section. Findin The proposal seeks a five percent density bonus for the provision of additional common open space as allowed under this section (18.2.5.080.E). 2. Maximum Density Bonus Points. The total maximum bonus permitted shall be 60 percent. Findin : A density bonus of not more than five percent of the required total project area in common open space in excess of the required 1,219.7 square feet of is requested. 3. Density Bonus Point Criteria. The following bonuses shall be awarded: b. Common Open Space. The maximum bonus for provision of common open space is ten percent. A one percent bonus shall be awarded for each one percent of the total project area in common open space in excess of any common or private open space required by section 18.4.4.070 and this chapter. The common open space shall meet the standards in section 18.4.4.070. 18.4.4.070 Open Space A. Required Area. Finding: Eight percent of the total lot area, 1,219.7 square feet is required as open space areas. A five percent increase of the required open space is 61 square feet to achieve the necessary density bonus to allow for 4.75 dwellings. A total of 1,280.7 square feet will be identified on all building permit set landscape and irrigation plans. The site plan specifically depicts 240 square feet of open space area adjacent to each unit for a total of 1,200 square feet of area. These areas are private turf surface `yards' for the units_ The remaining 80.7 square feet of common opens space is a natural area to the north of the existing dwelling, east of the parking pad accessed from Gresham Street and west of Unit 5. C. Common Open Space. Common open space that is provided to meet the minimum required open space area in subsection 18.4.4.070.A shall meet the following standards. See definition of common open space in part 18.6. 1. Dimensional Standards. Common open space shall have no dimension that is less than 20 feet and a minimum area of 400 square feet, except as described below. Findin : The area to the north of the residence that is the common open space exceeds 20 -feet in all dimensions and is more than 400 square feet. The dimensional area of the space is 800 square feet or 20 feet by 40 feet. a. Pedestrian Connections. Finding: There are pedestrian connections proposed through the development, leading to entry of each unit and through the common area. b. Natural Features. Common open space may include areas that provide for the preservation or enhancement of natural features that meet the requirements of this section and the definition of common open space. See definition of common open space in part 18.6. Natural features located in common open space shall be counted toward meeting common open space requirements. Natural features may be located within a required buffer or perimeter yard area. Fin 'n There are large stature trees that are preserved in the exiting yard areas. Each unit has a private open space area designated adjacent to the structure. The 800 square foot area north of the existing residence is a natural area with a walking path, established trees, rockery and a new shade tree. 2. Location. Common open space shall not be located within a required yard abutting a street, except for pedestrian connections and natural features as provided in subsection 18.4.4,070.C.1, above. Finding: The common open space area is not a required yard abutting street. 3. Slope. Common open space designed for active use, such as lawn and picnic areas, shall be located on slopes less than five percent, except for areas regulated by the Building Code (e.g., walkways). Natural features designed for passive use, such as riparian corridors and wetlands, may be located on slopes greater than five percent. Finding- The indin :The open space is not for active use. It is a passive space. Within the 800 square feet, more than 80 square feet is less than five percent and is existing lawn and Landscape areas. ASHLAND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Planning Application Review July 3, 2024 PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2024-00238 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 292 Gresham Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development for Gresham House, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for the development of three dwellings in addition to the existing two dwellings. The proposal includes utility plans for extending public infrastructure to serve the new dwelling units; two exceptions to street standards; and proposed removal of four trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi -Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39 -1E -09 -CA; TAX LOT: 5400 After a brief staff report explaining the details of the proposal, and a presentation by the applicant's agent Amy Gunter of Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, HPAC members discussed that the proposal noting: • Emery noted that the property is not within the National Register of Historic Places - listed Siskiyou Hargadine District but is at the southerly edge of the locally adopted historic district. The property is non-contributing within the local district. Generally, the historic homes in the vicinity are all downhill, including the Craftsman at 500 Holly Street. It was further noted that there is an apartment complex adjacent and a trailer court with RV parking nearby. Emery indicated that the project as proposed isn't altering the Gresham streetscape and seems to fit the neighborhood, and that he had no issues with the designs as proposed. Scharen concurred with Emery. • HPAC discussed the windows on Cottage #4, questioning the clerestory -style window placement over double -hung windows. Shostrom indicated he felt this worked as a contemporary interpretation of the 1950's design of the existing home. Brouillard questioned whether the windows could be treated similarly on Cottages #3 and #4. Shostrom suggested that the windows on #4 worked to tie-in the first and second stories. • There was also discussion of having only one window on the north elevation of Cottage #5 noting that this was both to avoid exposure to the adjacent unit and because the electric meters and HVAC equipment was being placed on this north side. • Shostrom noted that he felt the proposal was a great use of the site and indicated that he liked the proposed cottages' contemporary take on 1950's design of the existing home. Brouillard concurred. • Skibby expressed some concern with plain metal roofing and indicated that grey or darker standing seam metal to match the existing home would be preferrable. Recommendation: Shostrom/Skibby m/s to recommend approval: of this application as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. I T Y 0 IF ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2024-00238 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 292 Gresham Street OWNERIAPPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development for Gresham House, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for the development of three dwellings in addition to the existing two dwellings. The proposal includes utility plans for extending public infrastructure to serve the new dwelling units; two exceptions to street standards; and a proposal to remove four trees. The property is within the Hargadine Historic District and Hillside Lands Overlay, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi -Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39-1 E -09 -CA; TAX LOT: 5400 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 24, 2024 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: July 9 2024 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING: Wednesday July 3, 2024, of 5:00 ISM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Whburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541552.2050 ushland.or.us TTY: 600.735.29011 k �t L r Uj... .. .. ! 1 Irl k wwr HOLLY ['T HOLLY `'.T k c S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Whburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541552.2050 ushland.or.us TTY: 600.735.29011 AS HL P -V N D The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted on Page 1 of this notice. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at "What's Happening in my City" at htt s:// is.ashland.or.usldevelo ment ro osaIsl. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winbum Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing plan ningCc ashland.or.us. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments within the 14 -day comment period to planning(c,ashland.or.us or to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Wnburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown on Page 1. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a land use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting the application. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Jennifer Chenoweth at 541-552-2045 or Jennifer.chenoweth(c ashlandoregon.gov In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.+750 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C, Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way 'lel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 niv ashland oyes. TTY: 800.735.2900 ry walls►: 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 Resign; 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. PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 16.3.10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.8) Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b, The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit, 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Resign Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. G. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone, In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e, The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax 541.552.2050 vrr�al ash[and.or uu TTY: 800.735.2900 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On June 24, 2024 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T1-20240023$, 292 Gresham Street. M chaeBuffiyarl. Signature of Employee G:lcomm-devlplanninglPlanning AslionsWAs by StreatlGlGreshamlGresham_2921Gresham_292_PA-T1-2024-00238lNol cingiOresham_292_PA-T9-2024-00230_NOC_Alhdavitof Mailing.docx 612412024 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA6300 BEAULIEU PAULINE AGNES 269 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5308 CALVER KARIN H 457 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CD1002 BEY THOMAS M/AMBER 300 ELK DR REDDING, CA 96003 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5600 FORNACIARI KATHLEEN JODY 375 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5305 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5000 GAASCH JAMES EPHRAIM TRUSTEE GEORGE WILLIAM F/JULIA A 451 HOLLY ST 120 COVE VIEW DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 WHITETHORN, CA 95589 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5400 GRESHAM HOUSE LLC 4111 LIVINGSTON RD CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA6400 GRIMES CATHERINE S TRUSTEE ET 5141 E HANBURY ST j LONG BEACH, CA 90808 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5300 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA4501 HIGHLAND PINES HOMEOWNERS ASS HODGIN MICHAEL TRUSTEE ET AL 718 BLACK OAK DR 695 WASHINGTON MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 4 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1011 KELLOGG LARRY G TRUSTEE 415 MERRILL CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA4800 LAW VICTORIA J 406 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA4900 KOESTER MICHAEL J TRUSTEE ET 272 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD 101 LETTS LAURA 325 TAYLOR ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CD1100 PA -T1-2024-00238 MARCH MELINDA ELLEN TRUSTEE E MARQUESS & ASSOCIATES 384 HOLLY ST PO BOX 490 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CD202 NISKANEN KATHLEEN A TRUSTEE E 2599 PIONEER RD MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5302 OSWALT MARILYN K ET AL 517 WAGNER CREEK RD TALENT, OR 97540 Go to a.very.com/templates I Use Avery Template 5160 i PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5501 BIGELOW SHARON 299 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 i PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA4700 FORST MARVIS E TRUSTEE ET AL 451 THORNTON WAY ! ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1006 f GRAGERT CYNTHIA A 430 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA6200 HERSHEY WILLIAM N TRUSTEE ET 291 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 i I PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5500 JEFFERSON BRITTON H/MARGARET 397 HOLLY ST E ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5303 LAU SALLY J TRUSTEE ET AL 465 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CD1010 LEVIN REID ET AL 425 MERRILL CIR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1001 MONOSOFF JEFFREY 1 TRUSTEE ET 436 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5304 PAGE KATHLEEN A TRUSTEE ET AL 467 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5306 PA -T1-2024-00238 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA4500 ROBERTS JOAN TRUSTEE ET AL ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SHANNON PATRICK ET AL 453 HOLLY ST 1314-B CENTER DR., PMB #457 464 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Alfez a avery.ca/gabarits Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CD1003 STEINER JOHN TRUSTEE ET AL 402 HOLLY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA4801 THIRKILL MICHAEL 266 GRESHAM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5100 THORMAHLEN PHILIP A TRUSTEE E PO BOX 855 ASHLAND, OR 97520 292 Gresham St NOC 06/24/24 39 'Go to ave em plates •use . .D PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5307 PA -T1-2024-00238 TAMURA ROBERT HNALERIE L TERRAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 455 HOLLY ST 310 OAK ST, SUITE 3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CA5309 PA -T1-2024-00238 391 E09CA5310 THOMAS JANET M I HUMPSON DELANO D TRUSTEE 929 SPRING ST 461 HOLLY ST SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 E ASHLAND, OR 97520 I I PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CD100 � ! PA -T1-2024-00238 391E09CD1012 WEIS MATTICAVENER JAMIE WILHOIT HEATHER/AUSTIN 442 HOLLY ST 350 GUTHRIE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Aliez a avery.ca/gabarits �1 Utiiisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 S ? r E F � NIs �s 1 µy } S Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5006 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Email: Planning@ashland,or,us FILE # DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Site Design Review for Multi -Family Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ® YES ONO Street Address 292 Gresham Street Assessor's Map No. 39 t E 09CA Zoning M Tax Lot(s) 5400 Comp Pian Designation Low Density Multi -Family Residentia APPLICANT Name Rogue Planning & Development Phone 541951-402CE-Mail Address 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 ................................... PROPERTY OWNER Name Gresham House LLC Address 4111 Livingston amygunter. planning@gmail.com city Medford Phone 541-944-299iE-Mail Zip 97501 Mdeboer@lithia.com City Central Point Zip97502 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Site Planning Nage Terrain Landscape Archite(phone 541-500"4776 E -Mail sam@terrainarch.cc Address 310 OAK STREET SUITE 3 Title Civil Engineer Address PO BOX 490 Marquess & Associates City Ashland Zip 97520 Phone 541-772-7115 E -Mail Jhigday@marquess. City Medford Zip 97501 I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection, In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If 1 have any doubts, t am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signa re Date As owner of the property involved in this request I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. P',1.w 5122124 Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [ro he completed by City Staff] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER /1 G:komm-devVplanningTomis & Handouls2oning Permit Applicabon.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ❑ APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. ❑ PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. ❑ FINDINGS OF FACT — Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre -Application Comment document. ❑ TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS — Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11 x17 inches. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. ❑ FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) ❑ LEEDO CERTIFICATION (optional) —Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps; • Hiring and retaining a LEEDO Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and • The LEEDO checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE; • Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. • Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment • All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. • The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1,30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St). • A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. • If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. GScomm-devlplauniagSPorms & HattdoutAVZ ning Permit Applk. ion doc PLANNING ACTIN FEES FAAPlanning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-b00b DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 292 Gresham APPLICANT Name Roque Planninq & Development Phone 541 -951 -402+E -Mail amyqunter.planninq(@ mail.com Address 1394-B Center Dr., PMB#457 City Medford State OR zip 97501 FEE SCHEDULE — Please Mark AII,ThatApply ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS =. + x $3.00 per sq.ft. Total Li Zoning Permit - FENCE $35.25 + Zoning Permit - HOME OCCUPATION $35.25 Solar Setback Variance Zoning Permit - ACCESSORY STRUCTURE $35.25 $1,271.25 Street Tree Removal $100.00 Land Use Approval Extension $420.50 Lot Line Adjustment $420.50 El Any Other Administrative Action $420.50 $1,271.25 Variance Base Fee # of Lots Total Final Plat Review - PARTITIONS $165.50 + x $13.00 per lot $ $5,000.00 Final Plat Review - SUBDIVISIONS $420.50 + x $35.25 per lot $ Residential Site Review $1,271.25 Base Fee 5 x $84.50 per unit Per Sq. Ft. Final Plan/Performance Standards Subdivision TYPE I REVIEWS Sign Permit -NEW $165.25 + x $3.00 per sq.ft. $ Li Sign Permit - REPLACEMENT $35.25 + x $3.00 per sq.ft. $ TYPE I REVIEWS Total Tree Removal Permit (not associated with another action) $100.00 Solar Setback Variance $1,271.25 Amendments to Conditions $1,271.25 Physical & Environmental Constraints $1,271.25 Conditional Use Permit $1,271.25 Variance $1,271.25 Any other Type I Review $1,271.25 Independent Review of Wireless Communications Facilities $5,000.00 Base Fee -4 of Units Total Residential Site Review $1,271.25 + 5 x $84.50 per unit $1693.75 Final Plan/Performance Standards Subdivision $1,271.25 + x $84.50 per unit $ Land Partition $1,271.25 + x $84.50 per unit $ Base Fee Valuation Total Commercial Site Review $1,271.25 + x 0.5% $ TYPE II REVIEWS Total Conditional Use Permit $2,663.25 Variance $2,663.25 Any other Type H Review $2,663.25 Independent Review of Wireless Communications Facilities $5,000.00 Base Fee # of Lots Total Outline or Preliminary Plat for Subdivision $2,663.25 + x. $170.25 per lot $ Final Plan with Outline/Performance Standards Subdivision $3,397.00 + x $170.25 per lot $ TOTAL FEES: 1 $1,693.75 Applicant's Signature Date 7�p" 5.22.2024 Property Owner's Signature Date AMC 18.5.1.050. A.1 & AMC 18.5.2.060.A.1 Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type I review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The application shall not be considered complete unless the appropriate application fee accompanies it. Base Fee Valuation Commercial Site Review $2,66.25 + x 0.5% Is TYPE III REVIEWS Total Zone/Comprehensive Plan Map Change $3,397.00 Comprehensive Plan Change $3,397.00 Annexation $5,110.00 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment $5,110.00 ' Any other Type M Review $3,397.00 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS Total Comprehensive Plan Map/Large Zoning Map Amendment $5,963.50 Land Use Ordinance Amendment $5,963.50 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $5,963.50 APPEALS Total TOTAL FEES: 1 $1,693.75 Applicant's Signature Date 7�p" 5.22.2024 Property Owner's Signature Date AMC 18.5.1.050. A.1 & AMC 18.5.2.060.A.1 Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type I review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The application shall not be considered complete unless the appropriate application fee accompanies it. Site Design Review for Multi Family Development Subject Prooert Property Address: 292 Gresham Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09CA; 5400 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-2 Adjacent Zones: R-2 and R-1-7.5 Property Owner: Gresham House LLC 4111 Livingston Road Central Point, OR 97502 Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services 1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 Site Planning: Terrain Landscape Architecture Attn: Sam Bickel 310 Oak Street, Suite 3 Ashland, OR 97520 PROJECT PROPOSAL: A request for Site Design Review to allow for the development of five multiple -family residential dwellings on the low-density, multi -family residentially zoned (R-2) property at the northeast corner of Gresham Street and Holly Street. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property consists of Lots 11 and 12, Block 50 of the Summit Addition to Ashland. The corner lot is northeast of the Gresham Street and Holly Street intersections. The property is a 15,065 -square - foot, .35 -acre lot. The lot has 132.38 feet of frontage on Gresham Street and 113.8 feet of frontage on Holly Street. The property is occupied by a 1,513 -square -foot single -story residence with a basement that was constructed in 1956. There is a 618 -square -foot finished basement that is a studio dwelling unit (425 Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 1 of 27 Holly Street). There is also a 338 -square -foot below -grade garage attached to the south side of the structure. There is a driveway apron and driveway area accessed from Gresham Street that provides access to the entry of the residence at 292 Gresham Street. The driveway curb cut and parking pad area existed before the purchase of the property by the current owner. The driveway area was improved through re -grading and poured -in-place concrete walls vs, the stack -block that was there. A pergola structure was recently added to provide interest on the facade and generate shade for the parking pad. The basement -level garage is accessed from Holly Street by a narrow asphalt driveway on the east side of the property. The lot configuration considers Holly Street the front for the property setbacks be the definition of lot lines and corresponding yard area/setback definitions and measurements. The existing structures comply with setbacks. The property is within the local Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District but falls outside of the National Historic District Boundaries. According to the National Register nomination form the areas south of the homes that front upon Iowa Street were developed largely in the 60s and 70s and not reflective of the period of significance for the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District. The subject property is occupied by a single -story with a finished basement residence. The home is below the grade of Gresham Street and as the property slopes downhill to the east, the structure sits above a finished basement. There is a recessed entry with a covered porch area leading to the entrance. The existing circa 1951, ranch -style residence has a low -pitch, single gable roofline that parallels Gresham Street. The open soffit eaves have decorative corbels in the gable ends. The residence has a brick base, horizontal siding, and historically appropriate, single -hung, vinyl windows. There are two original windows in the bedrooms facing Holly Street above the below -grade garage. At the rear of the residence, a 6 -foot by 23 -foot, 180 -square -foot deck is present. On the south side of the residence, under a sloping roof is a below -grade garage. There are approximately 1,500 square feet of parking, asphalt, and driveway areas. The general topography of the property slopes gradually at eight percent from the south to north. On the east side of the property, there is a steep drop to the grade of the adjacent property to the east. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 2 of 27 There are several trees on the property or within the adjacent right-of-way. The trees include Ponderosa pines, Oaks, Cork Oak, fir, spruce and cedar. Gresham Street has a 60 -foot -wide right-of-way. Gresham Street is designated as an Avenue. Gresham along the frontage of the property is improved with pavement curb and gutter. There are no sidewalks on this portion of Gresham. Holly Street is designated as a Neighborhood Collector Street and also a 60 -foot wide right-of-way. Holly Street has also improved with curb and gutter. There are no landscape park rows or sidewalks on the adjacent properties both abutting and across Gresham Street and Holly Streets. This is due to the substantial grade of the public right of way, the steepness of the public streets, the steepness of the adjacent undeveloped right of way, limited right of way, large stature trees, and utilities. Figure 2: Zoning Districts Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Figure 1: Historic District Boundories Page 3 of 27 Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 4 of 27 DETAILED PROPOSAL: The request is to construct three new dwelling units in addition to the existing duplex within the residence for a total of five residential dwellings. There is a 1,513 -square -foot, three-bedroom, one -bath unit at 292 Gresham Street (Unit 1). Within the basement and the converted screened porch area is a 618 -square -foot studio unit (Unit 2). Unit 3 is proposed to be a 496 -square -foot basement addition to the south side of the existing, below - grade garage. This one -bedroom, one -bath unit is setback 20 feet from the front property line (Holly Street) and more than 10 feet from the Gresham Street side. The unit has a front entry facing Holly Street, orienting the unit and its front entry to the front property line. This unit is a basement and does not count in the maximum permitted floor area calculations. Unit 4 is a 1,247 -square -foot, two-story, two-bedroom, 1.5 -bath unit. This structure is setback more than 40 feet from the Holly Street front property line and six feet from the east property line. This new structure is on the north side of the property. A paved pathway leads from the unit to the parking area on the Gresham Street side of the property. Unit 5 is 989 square feet in area and is proposed as a single -story, two-bedroom, one -bath. This structure is 12 feet north of the proposed Unit 4 and six feet from the east property line. The proposed structure complies with solar setbacks for the property slope of -.08 percent downhill to the north and the structure has an increased setback from the north property line because of this. For density in the zone, the proposal conforms to the allowed density. The .35 -acre (15,056 square foot) lot area allows for a base density of 4.7 dwelling units. (.35 X 13.5 = 4.67). The existing residence, Unit 1, is one of the 4.7 units (1). Unit 2 is a studio unit (.75), Unit 3 is less than 500 SF (.75). Unit 4 is 1,247 SF (1) and Unit 5 is 989 SF (1) for a total of 4.5 dwellings. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the Historic District for the development of five (5) dwelling units is (15,056 X .56 = 8425.76 X .46 = 3,875 SF). The proposed gross habitable floor area to calculate MPFA is 3,749 SF. The floor area of Units 1, 4, and 5 is included in the MPFA calculations. Units 2 and 3 are basement areas and are not included in the MPFA calculations. The proposed buildings are similar in architectural appearance and materials used on the properties in the vicinity. The majority of the structures on the immediately adjacent properties were constructed after 1950. The homes are a variety of vernacular construction, ranch houses, apartment complexes, and various representations of 1950 -- 1970s architecture. The property to the northeast, across Gresham Street, has a 1910 structure which is the oldest structure in the immediate area. There is not a distinct historic development pattern on the adjacent properties. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 5 of 27 The siding direction, materials, overhangs, orientation, and scale are consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. The proposed structures propose similar window sizes and openings as found in the vicinity, similar roof pitch and orientation have been proposed. The proposed additional units do not require vehicular parking areas. The surface parking adjacent to Gresham Street is preexisting with no changes proposed. This surface parking is not modified as part of this proposal. The existing garage space retains its functionality as a single -vehicle garage with the existing driveway from Holly Street and back-up/turn-around area retained. Bicycle Parking: There are two bicycle parking spaces within the garage. A covered bike parking structure for eight bikes is adjacent to Unit 4. Trees: There are several trees throughout the property. The trees have been assessed and the layout intentionally preserves the majority of significant trees on or adjacent to the site. Two Oak trees will be removed to accommodate the realignment of the driveway and construction of Unit 3. There is a stature Ponderosa Pine tree and a smaller stature Oak tree that will be removed to provide a development area for Unit 4. The open spaces of the property that are outside of the setback areas where the large stature trees are found are to remain in as natural of a state as possible in an attempt to retain the trees. There are lawn areas to the west and north of the primary residence and proposed Unit 5 that will remain a level area for the enjoyment of the tenants. Each unit will have an area that is directly adjacent to an entrance that will provide private open space for the individual tenants. Slopes: The property within the hillside overlay zone is shown to have an area of steep slopes. There is a small area that includes the area of slope identified as more than 25 percent and subject to Hillside Development Standards. This sloped area is a remnant of the grading for yard area improvements and site terracing and grading for the construction of the 1956 residence and the 1960s apartment complex on the adjacent property to the east. There is a substantial slope adjacent to the retained cut from the adjacent property construction along the east property line. Additionally, adjacent to the base of the 36 - inch DBH pine tree, there are short terraces of landscape retaining walls. These areas appear as Hillside Slopes and Severely Constrained land, but the areas are man-made and they should not be subject to hillside development standards as they are not truly severely constrained and with the site development will be altered. There is a large retaining wall from the construction of the adjacent apartment complex Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 6 of 27 on the property line that will have a more than six-foot setback and engineering oversight during construction. The small area of artificially created slopes that are by current codes considered 'u ndevelopable'. A slope analysis was conducted that determined where the areas of severe constraints are located, and the minor areas are not severely constrained and are artificial. Public Infrastructure: The proposal includes utility plans for the extension of public infrastructure to serve the proposed new dwelling units. These include an extension of electric infrastructure and additional meters to service the dwellings. Water meters, sanitary sewer connections, and stormwater connections that comply with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual standards are provided on plan sheets 02.01. The utility extensions and connections were designed by civil engineers familiar with the complexities of developing in constrained lot areas with trees and multiple dwelling units. Two exceptions to the street standards have been requested herein. One exception is to not install park rows and sidewalks along the property's Gresham Street frontage which is consistent with the street pattern because of the physical constraints behind the curbline along all the Gresham Street frontage. These include large -stature trees, utility lines, and topography. These factors create demonstrable difficulties in meeting the standards and the requested exceptions are warranted and consistent with the street development standards which seek improvement to the multi -modal transportation alternative. A six-foot curbside sidewalk is proposed along the Holly Street frontage where the Ashland Street Standards require an eight -foot landscape parkrow and a six-foot sidewalk. The proposal is to install a sidewalk that fits within the existing right of way of Holly Street and retains both of the large -stature trees within the right of way. There is not a park row proposed. This requested exception to the street standards with the development of the multi -family residential dwellings. This is due to the location of large stature, unique trees, the lack of connectivity to any other sidewalk in the vicinity, and the steep slope of the property at the intersection of Holly Street and Gresham Streets that prevents accessible sidewalk development. There are limited sidewalks in the neighborhood and the adjacent property to the east and across Holly Street to the west, there are no sidewalk connections. Conclusion: The requested approval of the site design review for the development of three new additional dwellings upon the two-family dwelling property at 292 Gresham Street. The property is zoned multi -family residential and contains an existing dwelling, moderate slopes, and large -stature trees. The proposal provides for additional dwellings as envisioned in the zone and by the comprehensive plan designation of the zone. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 7 of 27 This low-density, multi -family, infill development is sensitive to the natural environment through the retention of many of the existing trees. The proposed infill development provides ample private and common outdoor areas for the tenants' enjoyment. The proposed new construction is cohesive with the existing development pattern and building orientation in the neighborhood. The layout and design are mindful of the historic standards, setbacks, and coverages, and are consistent with the scale of structures in the vicinity. The proposal provides adequate infrastructure to service the proposed development and provides for pedestrian improvements on Holly Street in a constrained right of way. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 FINDINGS OF FACT Page 8 of 27 Multi Family Site Design Review 18.5.2.020 B. Residential Uses. Site design review applies to the following types of residential uses and project proposals, pursuant to section 18.5.2.030, Review Procedures: 1. Three or more dwelling units on a lot in a residential zone, and one or more dwelling units on a lot in any other nonresidential zone. Finding: There are more than three dwellings proposed on the residential lot. Site Design Review Approval Criteria 1.8.5.2.050 A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Finding; The property is within the R-2, Low Density Multi -Family Zone. The proposal will comply with all required setbacks. The proposed lot coverage, density, building height, orientation, architecture and other applicable standards for multi -family development have been met or can be met with the imposition of conditions. There are five (5) residential dwellings proposed on the property. For the purposes of density in the zone, proposal conforms to the allowed density. The .35 -acre (15,246 square foot) lot area allows for a base density of 4.7 dwelling units. (.35 X 13.5 = 4.7). The existing residence, Unit 1, is one of the 4.7 units (1). Unit 2 is a studio unit (.75), Unit 3 is less than 500 SF (.75). Unit 4 is 1,247 SF (1) and Unit 5 is 989 SF (1) for a total of 4.5 dwellings. The proposed structures comply with setbacks of the zoning district and the historic district additional front yard setback requirements. Unit 4 has a 20 -foot front setback. unit 5 has a 30-x- foot setback. The rear yard setback and the solar setback along the north property line met for Unit 5. The side yard setbacks for Units 4 and 5 is at six feet, the minimum in the zone. The is 12 -feet of separation between Units 4 and 5 and more than 12 -feet of separation between both units and the primary structure. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the Historic District for the development of five (5) dwelling units is (15,056 X .56 = 8425.76 X .46 = 3,875 SF). The proposed gross habitable floor area for Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 9 of 27 the purposes of calculating MPFA is 3,749 SF. The floor area of Units 1, 4 and 5 is included in the MPFA calculations. Units 2 and 3 are basement areas and not included in the MPFA calculations. The additional units do not require additional parking therefore, new vehicle parking area is not proposed. The existing garage space, its back up and turn around area for that space and two surface parking spaces accessed via the Gresham Street curbcut is retained. The existing and proposed coverages have been scrutinized and the total lot coverage proposed is less than 65 percent as allowed in the zone. Gresham House LOT AREA; 15,246 LOT COVERAGE: 65% 9,909 Existing Structure: 1,865 Existing Solid Surfaces: 2,468 Proposed Structures: 2,492 Proposed Solid Surfaces; 309 Proposed Permeable Solid Surface -200 PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 47`Yo 7,134 OPEN SPACE: 8% 1,219.7 Proposed: 1,668 DENSITY: 13.5 DU /ACRE 4.7 Existing: I Proposed: 3.5 Total Proposed Density: 4.5 MPFA: 3,842 Existing Square footage: 1,513 Proposed: 2,236 3,749 B. Overlay Zones, The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 1$.3). Finding: The property is within the Local Historic District boundaries but outside of the National District Boundaries of the Siskiyou Hargadine Historic District. The National District nomination form notes that the areas south of Iowa Street are not included because the development pattern is largely that since Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 10 of 27 the 1970s have developed in a way that does not support the pattern or appearance of the area during the historic period of development. The proposed buildings utilize elements of historic design periods that are present in the district and on the adjacent properties. The Design Standards are met with the new construction of units that are complimentary to the mid-century modern aesthetic of the existing 1950 ---1970s aesthetic that is found predominantly on the adjacent properties. There are a few historic homes but the majority of structures in the impact area are reflective of their period of design and thus the reason the area is not in the National Historic District. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development B. Historic District Design Standards. The property is occupied by a non -historic, non-contributing, one-story three-bedroom residence. The single -story ranch -style home is above a finished basement with an attached below -grade garage. There are no modifications to the structure that alter it from its current exterior improvements which include horizontal siding with a six-inch reveal. The proposed new units can be found to be compatible with the existing structure. Height: The proposed structures are similar to the average height of structures in the vicinity. The proposed structures are substantially lower in height than the apartment complex on the adjacent property. The only historic structures in the vicinity are across Gresham Street and a few properties to the north on Iowa Street. The addition to the garage on the downhill side of the residence with the unit that faces towards Holly Street, Unit 3, the low -pitch roof, and the window style allow for substantial natural light and provide a strong orientation to the street. Unit 4 is a two-story, unit that has a low -pitch, gable roof that is similar in height to the two-story structures in the vicinity. A single -story shed roof faces Holly Street reducing the massing of the two story. A front entry faces Holly Street though the unit is more than 48 feet from the Holly Street right of way. Unit 5 is a single -story structure that is not more than 16 feet tall in average height. Scale: The scale of the proposed structures is within the range of other multifamily dwellings in the vicinity. The limited square footage of the structures at 496 square feet, 989 square feet, and 1,247 square feet is consistent with single-family residences in the vicinity as well. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 11 of 27 Massing: The mass is broken through the use of compact development and compact footprints. There are large windows orienting Unit 3 to Holly Street. Through the incorporation of stepped ridges, traditional gable roofs, and low -pitch angular roof forms similar to a traditional ranch, the structures all have massing that is lessened and consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. Unit 5 is a single -story structure that is most central to the property. This structure has an offset gable roof. Setback: The setbacks far new construction comply with the standards of the zone. Roof: The proposed pitch on the new structures is the some pitch and roof style (gable and shed roof) as the existing structures. Unit 3, the basement unit is attached to the existing 3:12 pitch shed roof of the garage with a 2:12 pitch back towards the garage roof, creating a butterfly roof. This low -stature structure is only 10'3" tall on the south exposure which is similar to the existing structure pitch. Unit 4 has a 3:12 pitch gable roof. This two-story structure's height and pitch are similar to the various roof forms and pitches in the vicinity. The roof form is broken into a series of masses with the single -story shed roof on the south side of the structure facing Holly Street. Unit 5 is a single -story structure that is most central to the property. This structure has an offset gable roof. One half has a 3:12 pitch and a 4:12 pitch. Standing seam metal roofing is the preferred material type both far the type of roof pitch and for longevity on apartment dwellings. The rhythm of Openings: The units have a consistently spaced window pattern that is reflective of the rhythm of openings found in more modern architecture that is located within this portion of the Siskiyou-Hargadine local historic district. The windows are proposed as single -hung and casement -style, vinyl windows. The replaced windows on the front residence are more consistent with historic design standards and will improve the front elevation of the residence substantially. The most historic home in the neighborhood is across Holly Street to the northwest. Base or Platform: The structures show a slight concrete foundation stem wall that will be exposed for 6 inches. This provides a sense of a base and makes the structure appear grounded. Brick base treatment reflective of the primary dwelling on the site is proposed to provide a strong base. Form: The form of the new structures is consistent with multi family dwelling development and is sensitive to the aesthetic of the homes within the Siskyou-Hargadine Historic District. The units Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 12 of 27 have compact forms and utilize the topography of the site to reduce the visual impacts and the mass. The low -pitch roofs and the similar window styles to the other homes in the area reduce visual impacts. Entrances: The primary residence facing Gresham Street has a clear entrance with a covered, recessed front entry. There is a walkway from the right of way to the entrance. The proposed addition to the garage side of the some structure and facing Holly Street, Unit 3, has large windows to vastly improve the orientation of the structure to the front property line and towards the public street. This structure is setback 20 feet from the street. There is a covered entry facing the east towards the shared driveway/walkway. The large stature of deciduous trees between the building and the street limits the visibility of the unit to Holy Street. Unit 4 is setback more than 48 feet from the front property line. The covered front entry faces Holly Street. Imitation: The proposed new structures have elements of the existing historic contributing structures on the properties within the National District Boundaries and the historic homes in the impact area. The proposed units are similar to but not identical to the existing 1950s structure on the subject property and those in the vicinity. The proposal provides exteriors with more modern material choices but elements of the past including brick fagade. The 6 -inch cottage -style lap siding is the proposed siding material for the structures. The color will match or be complementary. Though there are a variety of housing styles in the vicinity. Ranch style and other 1950 —1970s craftsman and American bungalow cottage style construction are the predominant styles found throughout the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District in the immediate area. The proposed new units have elements of those design styles. Garage Placement: The garage exists, no changes to the placement of the garage are proposed. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. 18.4.2.030 Residential Development Finding: The proposed addition to the garage side of the same structure and facing Holly Street, Unit 3, has large windows to vastly improve the orientation of the structure to the front property line and towards the public street. This structure is setback 20 feet from the street. There is a covered entry facing the east towards the shared driveway/walkway. The large stature of deciduous trees Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 13 of 27 between the building and the street limits the visibility of the unit to Holy Street. Unit 4 front entry faces Holly Street though it's more than 20 feet away. No parking is between the buildings and the street that does not already exist and exited before the purchase of the property (Gresham Street driveway). The garage is accessed from the rear of the structure utilizing the existing driveway accessed from Holly Street. Building materials, colors, and designs are compatible with the other developments in the area 18.4.4.070 Open Space A. Required Area. Finding: Eight percent of the total lot area, 1,219.7 square feet is required as open space areas. This infill lot has large stature trees and an existing residence. The new units and the existing duplex have substantial outdoor areas for use as open spaces. An area intended for private outdoor use by residents of an individual dwelling unit. Private open space includes decks, patios, porches, balconies, side and rear yards, and similar areas. The site plan specifically depicts 240 square feet of open space area adjacent to each unit for a total of 1,200 square feet of area. Additionally, there is a substantial 'lawn` and yard area connecting the open spaces and surrounding structures that exceed the minimum standards. These areas are around the large -stature trees, within the setbacks, and on areas that may exceed five percent slopes. With more than 35 percent of the site in a permeable state, there is ample open space for the tenants. C. Common Open Space. Common open space that is provided to meet the minimum required open space area in subsection 18.4.4.070.A shall meet the following standards. See definition of common open space in part 18.6. 1. Dimensional Standards. Common open space shall have no dimension that is less than 20 feet and a minimum area of 400 square feet, except as described below. a. Pedestrian Connections. Walkways and multi -use paths shall contribute toward meeting the required common open space area when at least one common open space is provided that meets the dimensional standards in subsection 18.4.4.070.C.1, above. Pedestrian connections may be located within a required buffer or perimeter yard area. Sidewalks in the public right-of-way (i.e., Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 14 of 27 public street) and walkways providing access to individual units may not be counted towards this requirement. Finding: There are pedestrian connections proposed through the development, leading to entry of each unit and through the common areas. There is substantial open space areas with more than 35 percent of the site as landscape areas demonstrates that the standards for common and private open spaces far exceed the minimum requirements. b. Natural Features. Common open space may include areas that provide for the preservation or enhancement of natural features that meet the requirements of this section and the definition of common open space. See definition of common open space in part 18.6. Natural features located in common open space shall be counted toward meeting common open space requirements. Natural features may be located within a required buffer or perimeter yard area. Finding: There are large stature trees that are preserved in the exiting yard area. These trees will remain in the common open space areas. Each unit has a private open space area designated adjacent to the structure. 2. Location. Common open space shall not be located within a required yard abutting a street, except for pedestrian connections and natural features as provided in subsection 18.4.4.070.C.1, above. Finding: The common open space areas are the existing natural areas where the trees are located. A substantial portion of this area is at the intersection of the two streets but outside of the required yard areas. Each unit has a private outdoor space that is at least 200 square feet or greater. 3. Slope. Common open space designed for active use, such as lawn and picnic areas, shall be located on slopes less than five percent, except for areas regulated by the Building Code (e.g., walkways). Natural features designed for passive use, such as riparian corridors and wetlands, may be Iocated on slopes greater than five percent. Findin_g:. The open spaces for lawn will be less than five percent. Natural areas where the trees are located will be retained in a natural state to limit disturbance. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 15 of 27 4. Improvements. a, Structures. Common open space may include structures and outdoor furniture typically associated with outdoor recreation such as decks, gazebos, arbors, benches, and tables. Structures located in common open space shall be unenclosed and uninhabitable. Unenclosed for the purpose of this subsection means 50 percent or more of the walls are 42 inches in height or less, but the structure may be covered. Finding: Not Applicable b. Fences and Walls. Fences, walls, hedges, and screen planting that are located on the perimeter of common open space shall not exceed four feet in height, except that fences in front yards and on the perimeter of the development shall meet the fence height requirements of section 18.4.4.060. This requirement shall not apply to fences located on properties adjoining but not located within a proposed development. See section 18,4.4.050, Fences and Walls, far fence permit and design standard requirements. Finding: Perimeter fencing of the property will comply with the fencing requirements from 18.4.4.060. Any fencing within the development to designate private open space from the common open space areas. No fencing is proposed as this time. c. Landscaping. Common open space shall be landscaped in accordance with section 18.4.4.030, Landscaping and Screening, except for natural features as provided in subsection 18.4.4.070.C.1, above. Finding: The existing yard area surrounding the large stature trees will be maintained in a natural surface to limit disturbance. The existing yard area that is lawn near Units 1 and 5 will remain lawn, 5. R-2 and R-3 Zones. In addition to the standards in subsection 18.4.4.070.C, above, common open space in the R-2 and R-3 zones shall meet the following requirements: a. Surfacing. A minimum of 50 percent of the common open space must be covered in suitable surfaces for human use, such as lawn areas, durable lawn alternatives, recreational fields, or courts. Up to 50 percent of the common open space may be covered by shrubs, mulch, and other groundcovers that do not provide suitable surfaces for human use if the Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 16 of 27 area is usable for the intended residents, such as community gardens or a natural feature with benches and walking paths. Finding: The open space area is lawn area where not natural surface around the large stature trees. The private open space areas immediately adjacent to the residence will be a durable lawn alternative. b. Play Areas. Finding: Not Applicable c. Credit for Proximity to a Park. Finding: Not Applicable D. Private Open Space. Private open space that is provided to meet the minimum required open space area in subsection 18.4.4.070.A shall meet the following standards. See definition of private open space in part 18.6. 1. Eligible Spaces. Decks, patios, porches, balconies, side and rear yards, and similar areas are eligible for private open space. a. Access. Private open space shall be directly accessible by a door from the interior of the individual dwelling unit served by the space. Finding_ The private open space areas are directly accessible from the unit they serve. Each unit has a private open space and there are substantial yard areas outside of the private open space areas. b. Walkways and Storage Space. The minimum area required for private open space shall not include area for ingress and egress to a ground -floor dwelling unit (e.g., walkway to dwelling unit door) or storage space (storage or bicycle rack). The ingress and egress area shall be measured as 36 inches in width and the length of the pedestrian route. Finding: Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 17 of 27 Walkways and storage areas, ingress and egress do not diminish the area of the private open space and the pedestrian route of 36 inches is maintained. Areas of pedestrian routes are not included in the open space areas. 2. Ground -Floor Dwelling Units. Decks, patios, porches, or yards shall be at least six feet deep and measuring at least 48 square feet. Ground -floor private open space shall not be located within 12 feet of recycling and refuse disposal areas. See definition of ground -floor dwelling unit in part 18.6. Finding: Each dwelling unit has more than an area of 6 feet deep and 48 square feet in area that is more than 12 feet from any recycle/refuse disposal areas. 3. Upper -Floor Dwelling Units. Balconies shall be at least six feet deep and pleasuring at least 48 square feet. See definition of upper -floor dwelling unit in pati 18.6. Finding. Not applicable. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection: There are 16 trees greater than six inches in diameter at breast height on the subject property. The utmost care was taken to preserve as many of the large - stature trees onsite. The proposal results in the removal of four trees. The remaining 12 trees are proposed to have tree protection fending installed at the dripline (except within the existing surfaces or the construction work areas). The Tree Protection and Preservation plan provides the details of the six-foot fencing that will be installed before site disturbance for the new construction. The trees along the north property line on the adjacent properties are protected by a six -foot - tall boundary fence. D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding: Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 18 of 27 The property is served by urban -level, public facilities. The proposal includes the extension of all necessary services for the existing and future dwellings. The proposed utility extensions are shown on Civil Engineering Sheets C2.01. Electric Service has been discussed onsite with Rick Barton of Ashland Electric and an Electric Distribution Plan was devised. The proposal does not increase the impervious surfaces by more than 5,000 SF over the existing site coverage area. Therefore, stormwater retention, detention, and treatment requirements are not triggered and the units connect directly to the city's approved storm drain system within Holly Street. All units have sanitary sewer services connecting to Holly Street as it is downhill from the project site. An exception to street standards is requested. See findings below. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. Finding: Not applicable. Street Standards Exception: 18.4.6.020.B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter 18.5.5 Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards are subject to 18.4.6.020.13.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards, below. Finding: A request to not install Avenue improvements to the existing Gresham Street right-of-way is requested and to install a curbside, six-foot sidewalk (reduced near large stature Cork Oak) without parking along Holly Street. There are no landscape park rows or sidewalks on the adjacent properties both abutting and across Gresham Street and Holly Streets. This is due to the grade of the public right of way behind the curb, and the steepness of the public streets. Gresham Street has a six percent slope along the frontage of the property with about a 20 percent slope behind the curb to the front property line. The Gresham Street improvements are shifted east in the right of way and there is approximately six feet of right of way behind the curbline. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 19 of 27 Holly Street has a grade of nearly 18 percent along the frontage of the property. There is approximately ten feet between the curb and the front property line on the Holly Street side. There is less grade behind the curbline on Holly Street allowing for the curbside sidewalk. Large -stature trees and significant public infrastructure exist within both right of ways and adjacent development and lack of connectivity are the reasons for the requested exception to the street standards. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: There are topographical constraints that present difficulty in meeting the standards. The topography along Gresham Street right of way, the large statue Spruce tree and Oak along the east side of Gresham Street, and the lack of right of way, retaining walls, and mature landscaping on the subject property and the adjacent property to the north are unique circumstances that prevent the installation of the sidewalk. Additionally, the future connectivity is extremely limited due to the adjacent property improvements, lack of right of way, and that Gresham Street exceeds 28 percent just north of the subject site, Holly Street has more right-of-way width and the grade adjacent to the curb is less steep. The large stature of Spruce trees is setback further with the curbside sidewalk proposed, there is adequate spacing to preserve the tree. The proposed sidewalk meanders around the large stature Cork Oak tree in the right of way. The sidewalk would extend to the east property line where the asphalt driveway apron of the subject property and adjacent property is located. There are electrical infrastructure utilities within the Holly Street right of way. The grade change, utilities, and large stature trees present challenges to the construction of a park row and sidewalk on the street frontage to the standards of an Avenue or a Neighborhood Street. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 20 of 27 i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience, Finding: No transit facilities are present in the neighborhood. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. Finding: The type of street proposed to be improvement is Holly Street, the neighborhood street. The driveway serving the bike parking structure is accessed from Holly Street. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. Finding: The requested curbside sidewalks are proposed along the Holly Street frontage. The right-of-way and pavement width of Holly Street is wide and allows for curbside, on -street parking. The curbside sidewalk provides a pedestrian refuge out of the travel lanes at the intersection, on the street that lacks connecting sidewalks. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding: The exception to the street standards for the curbside sidewalks is where topographical and physical constraints are present. The requested sidewalk improvements on one frontage are proportional to the development request. When considering the neighborhood character, the steepness of the streets and the adjacent properties, and the preservation of large -stature trees, the request herein is the minimum to alleviate the Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 21 of 27 difficulty in installing standard frontage improvements for an Avenue or a Neighborhood Street. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection. Fines: The proposed exception is consistent with the purpose and provides a safe environment for all users. The proposal for some sidewalks in a neighborhood where the is very limited connectivity is consistent with the standards. The proposed layout is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. Consistent with the standards, in certain situations where the physical features of the land create severe constraints, exceptions may be made. Exceptions could result in the construction of curbside sidewalk segments instead of setback walks. Exceptions should be allowed when physical conditions exist that preclude the development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include topography which is the reason for the requested curbside sidewalk. 18.5.7.040 Tree Removal Permit Criteria B. Tree Removal Permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. Finding Three deciduous trees have a DBH of 12 inches or more that are proposed for removal and one Pine tree has more than 18 inches DBH. These trees are within the area of the widened driveway, and one of the new units. The tree removal permit is necessitated by the construction of small -footprint, multi -family dwelling units within the setbacks and the allotted coverage areas. The design tried to accommodate the large stature pine tree but due to its size, lean, condition, location, and fire hazard potential in a multi -family development surrounded by other multi - Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 22 of 27 family developments and single-family housing, the tree could not safely be pruned in a manner to reduce fire hazards and/or protected in a manner that would not still have substantial impacts to the root zone because of the way the lawn area is uphill and above the tree where Unit 5 is proposed, there is no way to not have major impacts on this large stature tree. There are three Oak trees proposed for removal. These trees are impacted by the necessary repairs to the edge of the existing asphalt driveway, and the location of structures. There are several black and cork oaks retained. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding: The removal of the four trees will not have a significant impact on erosion, soil stability or protection of adjacent trees. The trees are not part of any windbreak. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Finding: There are three Oak trees proposed for removal and one Ponderosa Pine tree proposed for removal. The removal of these trees will not have a significant impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies, or species diversity. There are 12 larger -stature trees retained on the subject property following the development. There are substantial numbers of deciduous trees within 200 feet of the property. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding:. The tree removal facilitates the development of multiple -family housing as envisioned by the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan. The trees are not especially unique and are not in excellent health. The Ponderosa Pine is the most substantial due to its size and there are fewer due to intensification of previous years' droughts and the wildfire hazard reduction efforts within the city and as a result of development. The Ponderosa has a lean over the adjacent Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 23 of 27 apartment complex. Attempts were made to try and preserve the tree but due to its location adjacent to a 6 -foot cut on the adjacent property and the terraces around the tree leading to the irrigated lawn area above, the root zone of the Ponderosa Pine tree would be unavoidable no matter where structures were proposed when considering the property line setbacks, separation between building requirements, functional open space requirements, etc., that tree requires removal due to its location and condition. There is no reason to alter the development layout to preserve the Oak or Pine trees. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: There are large stature existing trees upon the property frontage that shade the street and the adjacent right of way, no new street trees are proposed. There are four mitigation trees in the open spaces to mitigate for the removal of the trees. There are no conifers proposed for mitigation. The mitigation trees will be identified on the Final landscape and irrigation plans that will be submitted with the building permit application. Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 24 of 27 Holly Street and Gresham Street intersection Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 25 of 27 Holly Street Frontage L: looking west, uphill towards Gresham Street. R: looking east, downhill Residential Site Design Review 292 Gresham Street May 22, 2024 Page 26 of 27 S v " s // F N PH Pz i 2 I q; R' _WN 0n m z C:50 R0 W K R* r _ a �mGE�7 sg n _WN 0n m z C:50 R0 W K R* r _ a GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLA 292 GRESHAM STS �D n ASHLAND], OR, 97520 Q N !I a C2 0 E GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLAIm" GRESHAM STASHLAND, OR, 97520 0 , _ p ........... ...... _ _ .. ........--- .—_��F--app :r a !vr m !..>�o❑ as �a E GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLAIm" GRESHAM STASHLAND, OR, 97520 • H i e e , 3 , 1 L4 i E i p �€ PROPERTY LINE 732.38 _ ''�b�s' --R -Y �; qp5 'i _ e. o� gi7 a 'S "I�q m$UH.F^ � � es =_ �� �' �$ ^m^ ;;�'- - �: gs' E� mo=m "=S''"`�� g� �,. ;. "4 'F3£3 a 'P inn' 2:',z �F��F s- nos���A,9`- n-�- �"c �u �`z:G �� mbs FR � � ^_ss g_T � s-Mg9¢° a 9EA �m -�a `a� _` ^s n�M o ^� ^fig a M1�n €� Z4700a�' o�� _ -a �� - » e_m�. HR �in 9Uq "�� Y��R's��,. q. � ;;� cin g�e� �_"�• n - a mr °€r.xe 8 $4A a s a' ^',`4hc$ s T a ig � s ��g n s9 S_ �_:s s$rxP �$ y "xbCR3 6 "u EBoq -6 sd'e R. N s"- - N IN ;n9 34 n(ea - ''n___ ao'5 ' a - 'H =��sit pa 2S C� 9 nn8 ,n =3s, q _-�� "n�=_ .., rF` h8 r. _s eMa y" VTse° R s`o F^ ata oF. 'd•'N RA Q.`. _i -., � 4- ' . 8 $ •_ -° "ae -c °4q - m ad' a "s gym¢ 0-4nm TIT - _ � ;:gad_ heyE3_ � Q m I mH6`s`l�asg . E• o s Z? P - - M M I "P O RTY v E-1 .3$ - l f'1 z 1; y�g E i pp - S S = - --------- — 1 A�a�co os ---------------- • H i e e , 3 , 1 L4 i E i p �€ PROPERTY LINE 732.38 _ ''�b�s' --R -Y �; qp5 'i _ e. o� gi7 a 'S "I�q m$UH.F^ � � es =_ �� �' �$ ^m^ ;;�'- - �: gs' E� mo=m "=S''"`�� g� �,. ;. "4 'F3£3 a 'P inn' 2:',z �F��F s- nos���A,9`- n-�- �"c �u �`z:G �� mbs FR � � ^_ss g_T � s-Mg9¢° a 9EA �m -�a `a� _` ^s n�M o ^� ^fig a M1�n €� Z4700a�' o�� _ -a �� - » e_m�. HR �in 9Uq "�� Y��R's��,. q. � ;;� cin g�e� �_"�• n - a mr °€r.xe 8 $4A a s a' ^',`4hc$ s T a ig � s ��g n s9 S_ �_:s s$rxP �$ y "xbCR3 6 "u EBoq -6 sd'e R. N s"- - N IN ;n9 34 n(ea - ''n___ ao'5 ' a - 'H =��sit pa 2S C� 9 nn8 ,n =3s, q _-�� "n�=_ .., rF` h8 r. _s eMa y" VTse° R s`o F^ ata oF. 'd•'N RA Q.`. _i -., � 4- ' . 8 $ •_ -° "ae -c °4q - m ad' a "s gym¢ 0-4nm o ! GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLA zonrnI'. �I I J m :292 GRESHAM ST =� :ASHLAND, OR, 97520 TIT ;:gad_ heyE3_ � e:= mH6`s`l�asg o s Z? P - - o ! GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLA zonrnI'. �I I J m :292 GRESHAM ST =� :ASHLAND, OR, 97520 0 s ��A mH6`s`l�asg o s Z? P z y�g 5555 pp S S L 5 A�a�co os i�a� R{ns7 of 'off z�2�9 e o ! GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLA zonrnI'. �I I J m :292 GRESHAM ST =� :ASHLAND, OR, 97520 -MEN A AV xx ----------- 0000e000 E) 0 'D 0000 o � i . i 1 -1, 1 1 1 g R, 9!Ka,; lap, Ir H . 4 , . I '., ", S I P NH jW. MH 21 ; , I mo a I �- o2l Ro 3, 12 GRADING GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLA m uu�w 1 7�;Z.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -MEN A AV xx ----------- 0000e000 E) 0 'D 0000 o � i . i 1 -1, 1 1 1 g R, 9!Ka,; lap, Ir H . 4 , . I '., ", S I P NH jW. MH 21 ; , I mo a I �- o2l Ro 3, 12 GRADING GRESHAM HOUSE PERGOLA m uu�w 1 7�;Z.4 I In ra aa�=Rspsgpfe�s a U $ f1 fTIII.ITiFS GAEFSIIAM HOUSE PERGOLA IN A e s�l• .'je " 1 ra z �C y i' F \ '�kg! M ��e�l�j#� scsigg� F gj f qgY fit! iii r �=3 V E ) FK i 3 E F� y}� q � M ^p e s�l• .'je " 1 ra z �C y U.+ g \ F gj f qgY fit! iii r �=3 V E ) FK i 3 E F� S ^p �C y \ r �=3 she_ URN.- Ns a C� � zo. � 5� (W, DETAE:S GRMAM HOLM PERGOLA p { aR m e ASLAM c;s�ua, slx�r ,-'S • .,A�.. :+� m - z �* q nm-ET,n &HT [RC 1 A �C y \ she_ URN.- Ns o g C� � (W, DETAE:S GRMAM HOLM PERGOLA p { aR m e ASLAM c;s�ua, slx�r ,-'S • .,A�.. :+� m - z �* q nm-ET,n &HT [RC 1 A . I ) q % P Ee , Cl)IL / §/ / ;§ E=9m 1 q (CO \ Am �m 2 \ t § z m `DEDD / E E ----- � � ( � � ( / ( )G 2 ! ) �\ m � \§ ) J ---------- 4 — 2 . F - l §§\ ! �0 �\ ~ PRIMECT, .jM111FCT NAMn . . 252 rG�Mf ST MARKma __ HOUSE i 7 ;Al. FLOOR � »� A s ;2 w _.� _ COTTAGESAm, OF § CJ Ct7 I� Ip to io a m §` O�Z4 § R q i E ff I �Z a 0 mscseaus § A� m s�w�v�Eu Da 1 Im -C 9 Im m_� R tb r E li ` d. 44 1c1 iTl n bm li SLOPED ' I �' m ETl z 3� f^ m n — o� I o ' z IIS 19 f? Ig Ip If Ia ! 1" I I C I I 77 II Ip I j I. I ja I I 19 111 r I5�' m a' tim ,n s� �m a 4� Z m I I li Inlw I Iro I I jN EN Ip I la{� jR Ir Ir >a I f { F 1 iP' !r-2' a'A' IT.tO' 53'-2' S-3Y.- 3'-6• —Y? n M E O r b 6 O � Y �5 Z a �i�cz W. +�o Ira" SFD.>� PROJECT IlAWiE: PE:53cN RE$IP�Nf1AL,iNt:. SCALE: IN 1-0• OWCINOFX,Y: JPROJECT: 292 GRESHAH ST JG......: hIPRK OE90ER GRESHAMHOUSE r deslgn_fe51den1�al P.o, EiP%8062 el 1 A1.1 FLOOR PLN- ELEVATIONS PRAWN gy, cSc A1.i FLOOR PLH-F3EYAFIGNS crrECHEoeY: sr �y�yyD OR COTTAGES gOtl-77820.56 sREEr t �'�R•�1f mv.tlesi9nres[EenEWLic DA7E 4f92a2< dF� § CJ Ct7 a m §` O�Z4 § R q 4 [CC-. mscseaus § L_ m s�w�v�Eu CJ VG §` O�Z4 N [CC-. 5LtlPEtl. GEILWG 1 Im Im m_� R tb E li ` d. 44 1c1 li SLOPED ' I �' m ETl z 3� f^ o� I v-9• f '"�' .....................�� to Z seAr unf.� , Z e I € �o I� I� IT I I ��� 1T -YY.' Z-9' 3'BY::” S -3x' Y-854• sa•-s1x• 1rk;;^ F ou m oN <�Z wm cl em �a mF > m a� p-i Ac tim 6r §ril 0f- Z m y — o a � o Z � Z 4N QN a E I I I� I I la Ir m� 14'6' i3'-6 C? rp� LJ h yrs.¢ su •ru, q�rn sc d: p 9 g a z x BF^ C� �a _ SL6PED ' GfJLING e rr b 01i 4 •r OMg §cc) is F HF 4In L m Z X 4 tb 9 CLIEIJF: PRo.iEC7 NAME: r neslcN tteslnF�vrInc, P.O.I[bX Bo6z scALe. v4,=i,a, orra €NDE%r: DPAWN KY. GSC cnecxFo eY: Jr jl'R0lEU'5,F,D,ll 2Bp RRESRph1 s ASML4flD GRESHAMHOUSF des%residenhai hIFDFOfin.DR Yl501 �,:., A1.1 FLOOR PLN-ELEVATIONS AI.E fLDOR PLN ELEVATIONS CR COTTAGFs 800-775-2956 UNIT 5 skEE DAre: arwzoza ,_1„n„ mr.6esipntesidenl�w. oF_ Z seAr unf.� , Z e ��� 1T -YY.' Z-9' 3'BY::” S -3x' Y-854• sa•-s1x• 1rk;;^ Product Details Dark Sky DESIGN CHAT VIEW IN YOUR ROOM SALE $79.95 $1i999 Q I Save $50.00 [ Ends 7/22/24 Pay in 4 interest-free payments of $19.99 with PayPai. Learn more FREE SHIPPING & FREE RETURNS* Ships Today if ordered in the next 2 Hr. 51 Min. 1 ADD 10 C�411RT V SAVE Product Help & Store Availability Reinforce the refined and contemporary style outside your home with this Ratner energy-efficient LED down light outdoor wall light that is Dark Sky rated. Additional Info: The slim and minimal design of the Ratner down light outdoor wall light offers a bright accent for porch areas, patios, and outdoor walkways. From the Possini Euro Design brand, the light has an energy-efficient LED module that is built in and produces light comparable to that of a 75 watt incandescent. The downlight design is also Dark Sky friendly, as it directs light down to the ground and not up into the night sky. It comes in a textured black finish that is neutral to blend in with whatever outdoor setting it is used in. is �', t�ri� • 6" wide x 51/2" high. Extends 6" from the wall. Backplate is 6" wide x 5 1/2" high. Weighs 1.3 lbs. • Built-in 13 watt LED module has a light output comparable to a 75 watt incandescent. 1,150 lumens. 3000K color temperature. 80 CRI. • Modern LED down light by the Possini Euro Design lighting brand. Textured black finish. Steel frame construction. • Dark Sky friendly design directs light to the ground, not the sky. Dark Sky regulations vary by region, so please check with your local municipality for requirements. For more information on our pricing, vis ttps://www.iampsplus.corn/help-and-p; 'es fagL Recently Viewed I View all Minka Lavery Everton 4 3/4" Bronze Dark Sky LED Outdoor wall Light $129.95 NtOREuLIKE Tf ilS rm W O L L :Y f t �PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN Scale: 1" = 20'-0" S T R E E T ACER PLATANOIDES'CRIMSON SENTRY' CRIMSON SENTRY NORWAY MAPLE 2 I PAR PAR PARROTIA PERSICA PERSIAN PARROTIA 1 PRELIMINARY PLAN' SCHEDULE SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CITY REMARKS TREES 0 ACE CRS ACER PLATANOIDES'CRIMSON SENTRY' CRIMSON SENTRY NORWAY MAPLE 2 0 PAR PAR PARROTIA PERSICA PERSIAN PARROTIA 1 0 QUE RUB QUERCUS RUBRA NORTHERN RED OAK 1 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY REMARKS SHRUB AREAS ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE 160 SF ARTIFICIALTURF 1,253 SF O FIREWISE MULCH AREA 1.357 SF FIREWISE MULCH W/ MINIMAL LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE CLEAN, SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL TO A MINIMUM OF T 7' OR AS NOTED ON THE PLAN. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEVE 3" OF UNSETTLED ORGANIC MULCH, EXCEPT WITHIN 9A' OFTHE PROPOSEDlEXMNG BUILDINGS, ADDITION, OR COMBUSTIBLE MANMADE AND NATURAL MATERIALS. 3. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE SERVED BY A DOMESTIC WATER METER AND A CITY OF ASHLAND APPROVED BACKFLOW DEVICE. 4. THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE OPERATED BYA FULLY AUTOMATIC SMART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER - 5. THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL CONSIST OF LOW VOLUME DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS. 6. ALL VEGETATION WILL BE NATIVE OR SIMILAR SPECIES. 7. ALL VEGETATION WILL TO BE FIREWISE PLANTS AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OFASHLAND. 8. MAINTENANCE OF TREES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OFTHE PROPERTY OWNER. ANY TREE THAT DIES WITHIN 5 YEARS OF THE INTIAL PLANTING MUST BE REPLACED WITHIN 31) DAYS, AFTER WHICH A NEW 5 -YEAR REPLACEMENT PERIOD SHALL BEGIN. SCALE: T" -2V-0" 20` 40' 66' "S~ i-n— TERRAIN LAlIOSR A[CHI€EC71)HL 310 o.k Street, S.H. 3 AA,I—d. 0-g— 97524 54T. .4776 iERSEPN�A1tCrLCOM Q J /O V Iu CD a- N Lu V) ¢O C Ci Q Lu CSI = C CV Q REVISIONS #__ DATE __._DESCRIPTION .^��-PRELIMINARY _ LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L1.2 PROJ,EGT NO., 2339, -. 06..26.2024, , TEAM: SS TOP OF ROOF _ — _ _ .. 12 TOP OF PLATE Z 5'-9" 4'-6" 19'-9" > 2'-9" 3'-0" 14,_0• W 12 03 MINI - SPLIT w- 2 LL>acr N£fQi As TP13KtESS p O IF-- 12 a RnwEL h -TER W1H Z O Ili Q —=0.5 _ 70P OF PI.di n (y LL y o FIN. FLR, _ 0 Ih N TOP OF PLATE ❑T.RAAGF W/ U N 6-1 n 3 -- m o W Z DVY J U it Q W F FIN. FUR. FIN. FLPcn o = V! WEST ELEVATION z SCALE: i!A" - 1'-0" 0 aLu z ..1 0 5 12 - - TOP OF PLAT_ �I T_OP OF PORCH PLATE _- 70p OF O W IKE COVEfi PLATE N� O = _ a 2•-4" 3'_3" 2'_5" q'_0" 3,_D" 2,_D" 3" -fl" 2'-p" a,_D" 5'-0" v z FIN. FLR_ _ - -. _. _ — _ — _ — _ FIN. FLR --Z33 8'-0" _ 22'-U" N n rD m F- n rn s Zo V m TOP OF PLATE _ 6'-0" 3U'-0" ._ w m � N a MAIN FLOOR PLAN MAIN FLOORILIVING S.F.: 780 W�❑fes rn SOUTH ELEVATION ® SCALE: 114"=1'-0" UPPER FLOOR LIVING S.F: 467 ZQb O SCALE: 114"-1'-0" TOTAL LIVING S -F: 1247 (7 ❑ 3 i2 q COVERED PORCH S.F.: 50 N W 3 3d w 2 ❑ 3 U.5 12 - C� FIN. FLR. mmTOP OF Pd ATE � — 70 ._ FIN. FLR. ----TUPUFR°° EAST ELEVATION o SCALE: 114"= T-0" = C7 N O w U U 7 R .. Of W _..._.—.._ _ 12 W Tap of BIKE N n ----__.� _ ...__......-__..._.. __-_.COVERC'LATE -0"xi'-0•f7cP. 4'-0-x l'-G'F%6. a'�%i•-0•FFa. z ----- .._......... W Q 30,_0„ ......_._....._......_ L7 __— _,_.FIN_FLR. UPPER FLOOR PLAN �� — _ _.. _ ...._. - ........ SCALE: 114" - 1'-0" h• tY O U C7 vii NORTH ELEVATION o SCALE: 114'm 1'-0" K ILL RLL. .__ru� ,{'.aV1=RE��,-2^$_3D1N{NG NGZ9,_5„K�T��"'�ENnaovElv.'�.a.PA KINz<8'CEILING11'0"x 1D'-9=�oCEILING , W in AIR- � - xaNDLea � N oI 1 8' CEILING _ _ _ _- --- - -- LIVING - - -_---- 19`-2" X 14'-3" `r] CL ❑ AGA9 = WR- ® o HANDLER 0 � BATFf _ 8' CEILING = BEDROOM #1 Ev 11'-6"x 12'-A" AIR_ 8'CEILWG HANDLER G.J m \ � IED ROOM #2 9'-2"x 1 D'-5" B' CEILING - DN. 3'- 0'/:"Y�z �� NU 3'-0"FIALIITE ��� [aI a'A-x SA•S.RWf Wf ]'-0'xt'E'TRPliS PVE a•.ry• 1'-O'TFANS OVE C VEF2E o OhCH = WR- ® o HANDLER 0 � BATFf _ 8' CEILING = BEDROOM #1 Ev 11'-6"x 12'-A" AIR_ 8'CEILWG HANDLER G.J m \ � IED ROOM #2 9'-2"x 1 D'-5" B' CEILING - DN. TOP OF EA% NAT. GRADE SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"m P-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 114"= 1'-0" 'OP OF ROOF _ TOP F SAVE_ Y o � NA7 GRADE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4'= l' -G" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 114'= 1'-6" SSB CALLS m NATURAL GRADE= 10' SLOPE =--OB 14-6=4 ,445 + (-.06) _ -365 41365 =10.9S TBACK PROVIDED = 11.6' _ - TOP OF PLAT FIN. FL -------------------------------- NATURAL GRADE LINE GRADE LINE SCALE: 114"= 1'-6" z 0 W J W z X rlrl GKl K 0 W U U N O Q o U N H � m n r m 0 N z W � ¢�W 0 ccx a U CA V) Z a a LLI7 J Z J CL w 0 LL Lo az .q .n W XC' N vm O0pm u , mC3 c O o o m �U:Llco 3 w � ID LLI Q W 2 Col Q ¢� Z F 2 W W QU O C7 w w O m tLl F Y Z 0'_ w L U ci z C=r o U[7 0 Lu ry 4 ry 0. axs N .c ET60. ETEkd 5 -Topp T PANEL F-1 s'AX gA•5.G.0. 5'-0's 4'-0' PEGAWNG. I{--{ L_I-__-__-_--- 00 POORCHb __� — _ MiNI- io.)HENS'-T `❑ 5PL1T r12 7aNN ss ----------- REF.GREAT ROOM --r 15'-6"x 17' -?- AR PAiVTR lUWGLER 0 GAS TAC S-0'OPNG. -------- ------ O sA•8o-FULD - 81 17S 4-D' BFPAss 7'-10'/" - 8 a BATH 0D, = BEbROOM X1`9s'-O"x 10'-3 BEDROOM #2 101-O"x 11'-9" z ww QMR MRS ❑U' CT u W Z 61iGHT — W y W H N U N U MR H lV1Nrn [a i� ; \N WR. 6 4 T -9'x5-0' CsnsY i'-0' x2-0' %O 3'.d' a 5'M CsdiT UNIT 5 LFLOORLIVING S.F.:OVERED PORCH S -F: SCALE: 114"= 1'-6" z 0 W J W z X rlrl GKl K 0 W U U N O Q o U N H � m n r m 0 N z W � ¢�W 0 ccx a U CA V) Z a a LLI7 J Z J CL w 0 LL Lo az .q .n W XC' N vm O0pm u , mC3 c O o o m �U:Llco 3 w � ID LLI Q W 2 Col Q ¢� Z F 2 W W QU O C7 w w O m tLl F Y Z 0'_ w L U ci z C=r o U[7 0 Lu ry 4 ry 0.