The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-02-09 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 2016 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. January 12, 2016 Regular Meeting. 2.January 26, 2016 Special Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-02287, 123 Clear Creek. A. VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02203 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street OWNER: Harriet & Steve Saturen/Linda Millemann APPLICANT: Mark Lackey DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a second story addition to an existing non-conforming cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09AA; TAX LOT: 6800. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA #2016-00041 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1465 Webster Street () on the Southern Oregon University campus APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request to modify PA #2015-00418 which granted Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the renovation of McNeal Pavilion and construction of a new Student Recreation Center on the Southern Oregon University Campus 1465 Webster Street. The previous approval included a Conditional Use Permit to allow the buildings to exceed the 40-foot height allowed in the SO zoning district, and Tree Removal Permits to remove nine trees 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 100. VIII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar issued the following announcements: 1) the City Council will hold second reading of the marijuana ordinance at their next meeting, 2) the January 26 Planning Commission meeting agenda will include two sets of findings and a discussion on the minor amendments to the Airport Overlay Zone, and 3) the Planning Commission’s February study session will be a joint meeting with the Wildfire Mitigation Committee to discuss the wildfire standards update. Commissioners Dawkins and Thompson provided an update on the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee and announced the final plan has been forwarded to the City Council for adoption. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. November 24, 2015 Study Session. 2. December 8, 2015 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Commented on global warming and encouraged the City to stop adding buildings and houses. Joseph Kauth/1 Corral, #13/Commented on weather patterns and global warming. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Revised Findings for PA-2015-01517, 209 Oak Street. No ex parte contact was reported. Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2016 Page 1 of 3 Associate Planner Derek Severson explained these findings were already adopted, however in reviewing them staff found inconsistencies regarding the metal roofing and the number of trees to be removed. The commission briefly discussed and agreed the revised findings accurately reflect the commission’s decision. Commissioners Pearce/Brown m/s to approved the revised Findings for PA-2015-01517. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02287 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 123 Clear Creek Drive APPLICANTS: John Fields/Clear Creek Investments LLC OWNERS: Clear Creek Investments LLC & Cooper Investments LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive. The request would also modify the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 05 CD; TAX LOT: #1803. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Norton, Dawkins, Pearce, Miller, and Brown declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the applicant’s proposal to divide the lot at 123 Clear Creek Drive into five lots with an open space corridor and construct five buildings. He noted Clear Creek Drive has already been improved to city standards and displayed the project’s site plan, building elevations, floor plans, tree protection plan, planning plan, utility plan, and grading plan. Mr. Severson stated the Tree Commission reviewed the application and recommended the applicant avoid pear trees and install sun protection and buck guards to ensure the longevity of the new trees. He also provided an overview of the applicant’s solar setback site plan and stated they are in compliance with the standards. Mr. Severson commented on the parking requirements and noted the original subdivision had a parking plan. He stated no new parking will be added as the applicant’s already have the 108 spaces they need to meet the demand of the site. He noted if any of the uses intensity the applicant is required to obtain staff’s approval to ensure they are still in compliance with the parking standards. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated in staff’s review the proposal is straight forward and merits approval with the conditions proposed in the staff report. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson clarified Clear Creek Drive is a commercial collector with a curb to curb width of 28 ft. and can accommodate on- street parking on one side of the street. Staff was asked to clarify the parking requirements and comment was made that the applicant’s calculations don’t seem to match up. Mr. Molnar explained two-bedroom units require 1.75 parking spaces and three-bedroom units require 2. He added the applicants can speak to their calculations when they come forward. Applicant’s Presentation John Fields and Jerome White addressed the commission and stated the two existing parking lots will serve all the square footage for the development. Mr. Fields explained the titles for each building define how much parking each will need, however this fluctuates as different businesses and uses move in and out of the space. Mr. White added the spreadsheet was created when the original subdivision was done and is a living document; as different projects come in they keep amending it to keep it up to date. Mr. Fields added they are confident they have the parking they need without using any of the on-street parking. Mr. Fields commented on the wetland area and stated these next five buildings will create some enclosure to the development. Mr. Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2016 Page 2 of 3 White displayed images of the proposed buildings and noted most have office space on the ground floor and apartment units above. He also presented an illustration of the solar shadow and explained where the shadow line will fall. Public Testimony No one came forward to speak. Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the public record at 8:05 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-2015-02287 with the conditions recommended by staff. DISCUSSION: Brown commented that it is a good application and conforms with all the requirements. Dawkins agreed and stated he is looking forward to the continuation of this development. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Norton, Pearce, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2016 Page 3 of 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin Derek Severson, Associate Planner Haywood Norton April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Greg Lemhouse, absent Debbie Miller ANNOUNCEMENTS/AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Dawkins provided an update on the new entry signs and stated the proposed signs will be available for viewing on Friday, February 5 at the Ashland Art Center. Planning Manager Maria Harris announced the City Council approved the marijuana ordinance with two modifications: 1) to allow up to six outdoor plants for medical marijuana patients, and 2) to require a 1,000 ft. separate between wholesale and production facilities. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-01856, 229 W Hersey Street. B.Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-02038, 85 Winburn Way No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-01856 and PA-2015-02038. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Airport Overlay Code Updates. Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on the proposed changes to the Airport Overlay. He explained the changes would streamline the review process and would: Adopt the most recent Master Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Provide a ministerial review process for permitting conventional hangars. Add a parking ratio for conventional hangars. Change the height limitations from the current 20 ft. maximum. Allow tree trimming or removal for safety reasons as mandated by the F.A.A. without requiring permits. Ashland Planning Commission January 26, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Mr. Severson noted the commission held a prior study session on this item but staff wanted to bring the final ordinance before the group before this comes back for the formal public hearing. Questions of Staff Staff was asked if there are plans to significantly develop the airport over time. Mr. Severson noted the layout plan shows where development will occur, but he is not aware of anything currently being pursued. He noted people have been hesitant to construct new hangars due to the complexity of the current standards and this modification will free up this option. He added a new airport master plan is also in the works and will be adopted in the next year or two. Commissioner Pearce commented on FAA Part 77 surfaces and stated he does not believe any of these will be a problem but suggested this be addressed in the new master plan. No other questions or issues were raised. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission January 26, 2016 Page 2 of 2 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2015-02203 868 A Street ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT February 9, 2016 PLANNING ACTION: #2015-02203 OWNERS: Harriet & Steve Saturen/Linda Millemann APPLICANTS: Mark Lackey LOCATION: 868 A Street ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 24, 2015 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 23, 2016 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ( seehttp://www.ashland.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use ordinance on-line) 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permit REQUEST: A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to allow for the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming residential unit located at the rear of the property for the property located at 868 A Street. The proposal also includes expanding the first floor of the nonconforming structure and adding a second story. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application Planning Action #2015-02203 Planning staff deemed (the current request) complete and sent a Type I Notice of Applicationon November 24, 2015. Subsequent to the mailing of the notice of application and during a regular meeting of the Ashland Historic Commission on December 2, 2015, several neighbors who had received notice of the application spoke in opposition to the proposed development. During the public hearing neighbors expressed concern about several aspects of the development proposal including the height and setback of the proposed structure and existing parking issues in the neighborhood. The Historic Commission recommended continuing the application because of concerns about meeting the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and Historic District Design Standards and to give the applicant an opportunity to re-examine the design Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 1 of 16 given the concerns raised at the meeting. The Staff Advisor referred the application to the Planning Commission because of staff concerns about the application meeting the applicable approval criteria and design standards, and given concerns raised by the Historic Commission and surrounding residents. AMC 18.5.1.050.C.2 allows the Staff Advisor to refer a Type I application to the Planning Commission for a decision and requires the use of the Type II procedure with a public hearing. The applicant submitted new written findings and drawings after the Historic Commission meeting. The Historic Commission is scheduled to review the application a second time at the February 3, 2016 meeting. However, the meeting had not occurred at the time of writing and therefore the Historic Commission’s recommendation is not included in the packet. Staff will distribute the Historic Commission recommendation prior to the Planning Commission meeting. B. Planning Action History Planning Action #2015-01163 In August of 2015, was administratively approved granting Site Design Review approval to allow the addition of a covered front porch to the existing primary residence located at 868 A Street. Planning Action #98-065 In August of 1998, was administratively approved granting a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of a motel from two to three units for the subject property located at 868 A Street. According to the staff report, the previously approved hair salon, approximately 400 square feet in size and located at the front of the main house, was removed as part of the approval to make room for the additional motel unit. The previously approved parking configuration was approved with three-off-street parking spaces and one on-street parking credit for a total of four parking spaces. The off-street parking spaces were located at rear of the property and accessed by the alley with two off-street spaces located on the property at 868 A Street and one off-street parking space shown on the neighboring property at 864 A St. Planning Action #96-044 In April of 1996, was administratively approved granting a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a motel from one to two units. The application included a 170 square foot addition to the primary residence to be used in conjunction with existing square footage as a motel unit. The proposed configuration was that the primary residence would include the existing beauty salon, the owner’s residence, and the new second motel unit. The cottage located in the southwest corner of the property was used as the exiting motel unit. The approval included three off-street parking spaces at the rear of the site and one on-street parking credit. Again, the previously approved off-street parking configuration at the rear of the property and accessed by the alley was carried forward with two off-street spaces located on the property at 868 A Street and one off-street parking space shown on the neighboring property to the west, 864 A St. Planning Action #94-034 In March of 1994, was administratively approved granting a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing guest cottage located at the rear of the subject property to be used as a one-unit motel during the summer months. The approval Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 2 of 16 included three off-street parking spaces at the rear of the property with two off-street spaces located on the property at 868 A Street and one off-street parking space shown on the neighboring property to the west, 864 A St. Planning Action #91-123 In September of 1991, was administratively approved granting a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing garage located at the rear of the property to a studio apartment for the property located at 868 A Street. Planning Action #89-146 In August of 1989, was administratively approved granting a request for a Site Design Review for a three-station beauty salon and Parking Variance from the required four spaces to three spaces for the property located at 868 A Street. Parking was provided off the alley with two spaces located on the lot of 868 A Street and one space located on the neighboring lot of 864 A St. Planning Action #89-103 In June of 1989, was administratively approved granting a request for a two lot partition for the property located at 864 and 868 A Street. The partition was the same land division as approved in November of 1982. However, the applicant did not complete the process by preparing and recording a survey to create the two lots. As a result, the partition process had to be completed a second time. Planning Action #82-84 In November of 1982, was administratively approved granting a Minor Land Partition and Site Design Review for a Cabinet Shop for the properties located at 864 and 868 A Street. The proposed lots were approximately 5,368 square feet and 6,832 square feet in size. Parking was provided on the rear of the two lots with access via the alley off of Eighth Street. C. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The Site The subject property is located at 868 A Street, within the Historic District overlay and is zoned Employment (E-1). The property is bounded by an alley to the South, employment- zoned properties to the East and West, and A Street to the North. The area across the alley to the South is zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The alley abutting the rear of the subject property is a 16-foot wide right-of-way and the driving surface appears to be approximately 13-feet in width. The subject property is 6,534 square feet in size. The property is moderately sloped and contains two large stature evergreen trees in the northeast corner of the property. Though the application does not address the trees, the trees are located some distance away from the proposed construction. The primary residence was constructed in 1906 and is listed as a “historic contributing” structure on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The existing historic residence was constructed as a one-story, bungalow style wood frame cottage. The primary residence includes approximately 2,499 square feet of living area according to the August 2015 building permit for the porch addition to the home. The house has a full basement of which approximately two-thirds is heated living space. Again according to the August 2015 building permit, the primary residence meets the required setbacks and is located Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 3 of 16 36 feet from the rear property line. The application and the past building permits do not specify the height of the primary residence. A second detached residential unit is located at the rear of the property. This structure is a garage that was converted into a residential unit after receiving a Conditional Use Permit approval in 1991. The square footage of this unit is approximately 538 square feet according to the application. According to the plans on file from the 1991 approval, the existing structure is 12 in height from grade to the peak of the roof. With the approved conversion of the garage to a residential unit, two off-street parking spaces were required for the existing dwelling and one additional parking space was required for the second unit for a total of three vehicle parking spaces. The planning approval at that time noted that the three parking spaces were to be provided off of the rear alley. The approved site plan shows two off-street spaces located on the property at 868 A Street and one off-street parking space on the neighboring property at 864 A St. The current application and site plan indicate there are two off-street parking spaces located at the rear of the subject property. While not addressed in the application materials, the applicants’ representative has indicated that the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A St., which in previous approvals was identified as serving the subject property, was not secured by an easement or any other similar instrument. The Proposal The current application proposes to reconstruct an existing one-story nonconforming residential unit located at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street. The application indicates the structure will require a new foundation. The installation of a new foundation indicates that the existing structure will be demolished. In addition, the proposal is to add a 120 square feet to the first floor and a second story of 528 square feet. The first floor addition would be to the north side of the unit and towards the interior of the property. As proposed, the unit would be slightly more than twice the current size, with a total size of 1,176 square feet. The reconstructed structure would be located four feet from the rear property line. The proposed structure will have a peak height of 22 feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as measured along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure would have a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch. The existing structures ridge runs East / West, parallel to the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a North / South direction, consistent with the existing historic contributing structure on the subject property. A second story deck is proposed to be added above the new first story addition. The application and the past building permits do not specify the height of the primary residence. It appears that the proposed structure will be taller than the existing residence. As a result of the height and placement of the proposed two-story residence, staff believes the new structure will be visible from A St. The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primary dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar revel, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band, corner boards, and “cottage” style double hung windows. The application Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 4 of 16 indicates the structure will require a new foundation and an eight-inch revel. The installation of a new foundation indicates that the existing structure will be demolished. The application proposes to provide two off-street parking spaces in the Southwest corner of the property and to use two on-street parking spaces adjacent to the property frontage on A St. II. Project Impact The alteration of a nonconforming structure requires a Conditional Use Permit (AMC 18.1.4.030.B). The project is subject to the Historic District Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 because the project is located in the Historic District overlay (AMC 18.3.12.050) and because any project involving two or more residential units requires Site Design Review approval (AMC 18.5.2.020.B.1). A Conditional Use Permit application involving three or fewer residential units may be processed through an administrative Type I process. As explained above, the application was referred to the Planning Commission and scheduled for a public hearing because of staff concerns about the application meeting the applicable approval criteria and design standards. In addition, the Historic Commission and residents that testified at the December 2, 2015 Historic Commission meeting raised concerns regarding the application meeting the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and the Historic District Design Standards. AMC 18.5.1.050.C.2 allows the Staff Advisor to refer a Type I application to the Planning Commission for a decision and requires the use of the Type II procedure with a public hearing. Several neighbors of the proposed development testified at the regular meeting of the Ashland Historic Commission on December 2, 2015 and raised concerns including the height and setback of the proposed structure and existing parking issues in the neighborhood. The Historic Commission recommended continuing the application because of concerns about meeting the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and Historic District Design Standards and to give the applicant an opportunity to re-examine the design given the concerns raised at the meeting. The applicant submitted new written findings and drawings on December 22, 2015. The location and design of the proposed additions to the second residential unit appear to be relatively unchanged except for a few items such as the lowering of the height to the peak of the roof by approximately one foot (from 24 feet to 22 feet 10 inches), the removal of the roof covering over the second-story deck, and the removal of attic vents. The Historic Commission is scheduled to review the application a second time at the February 3, 2016 meeting. However, the meeting had not occurred at the time of writing and therefore the Historic Commission’s’ recommendation is not included in the packet. Staff will distribute the Historic Commission recommendation prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 5 of 16 A.Nonconforming Structure and Use The existing second dwelling unit is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not comply with the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone. The existing structure is located approximately four feet from the rear property line. A new structure in the E-1 zone requires a rear yard of ten-foot setback per story where the site abuts a residential zone. The subject property is located in the E-1 zone and the opposite side of the alley is in the R-2 zone. As a result, a new two story structure on the subject site would have to locate the first story at least ten feet from the rear property line and the second story at least 20 feet from the rear property line. The use of the property for two residential units is a nonconforming use. If the property were being newly developed under current regulations, only 50 percent of the lot could be dedicated to residential purposes when there are multiple buildings (AMC 18.3.13.010.C.1). The primary residence has been use as a residential unit throughout the planning approval history but in the early 1990’s a portion of the house was used for a beauty salon. Later the house and second unit were approved as a motel but the owner continued to live on site in the primary residence. It is unclear when the motel operation ceased and the structures reverted back to being used entirely for residential uses. Clearly, the primary residence was built as a residential structure. B. Conditional Use Permit Staff’s primary concern regarding the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit is the similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage and architectural compatibility of the proposed two- story residence. Specifically, the third approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit require that the proposal be compared with the target use and that the proposed use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area. In addition, the Site Design Review approval criteria require compliance with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards in 18.4. Since the subject property is in the Historic District overlay, the Historic District Design Standards in 18.4.2.050.B apply to the project. Here again, the standards speak to similarity in height, scale, and form with historic buildings in the vicinity. Additionally, the standards require small, varied masses that break up the form of the building. The target use of the property is 3,267 square foot office building. The combined square footage of the primary residence and the proposed two-story residence is 4,207 square feet. Since the subject property is zoned E-1, the allowed building height is 40 feet which is typically the equivalent of a three-story building. Minimum yard areas are not required in the E-1 zone except where the subject site abuts a residential zone, in which case a side yard of not less than ten feet and a rear yard of not less than ten feet per story is required AMC Table 18.2.6.030). The subject property abuts a residential zone at the rear because the properties on the South side of the alley are zoned R-2. In contrast, the residential properties on the South side of the alley are required to have a minimum of six feet for side yards, and ten feet per story and five feet for half story for rear yards (AMC Table 18.2.5.030.A). There is also an allowance for accessory buildings Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 6 of 16 and accessory residential units that are not attached to any other building and not more than 15 feet in height to reduce the side yard abutting an alley to three feet and the rear yard to four feet (AMC 18.2.5.060.B.1). As stated in the application, the area contains a mix of historic and more modern structures in a variety of architectural styles. The lots on A St. from Seventh St. to Eight St. include historic residences as well as more contemporary structures such as the cabinet shop. South of the alley in the R-2 zone the structures are clearly residential. The interface of the structures with the alley is also varied. However, all but one of the structures abutting the alley is a one or one-and-a-half volume. In several cases, a small one-story structure abuts the alley and is attached to what appears to be a one-and-a-half or two story structure setback further from the rear property line. There are also several parking areas that break up the building mass along the alley. The exception is the residence at 267 Eight Street which is on the opposite side of the alley from the subject property. In this case, the alley side of 267 Eight St. is the side yard and therefore required to have a six-foot setback from the property line abutting the alley. Staff believes some flexibility in setbacks for the re-construction the nonconforming residential unit on the subject property could be justified. The 16-foot wide alley right-of- way provides an additional buffer between properties in the employment and residential zones. The extra buffer area provided by alleys was the basis for the earlier referenced provision in the land use ordinance that allows residential properties to build accessory buildings and accessory residential buildings three to four feet from property lines abutting an alley. However, these buildings can be a maximum of 15 feet in height. In addition, despite the employment zoning of the current times, the property was developed historically as a residential property. Furthermore, the primary residence is designated as a historic contributing structure. The historic status means that it is important to the integrity of the nationally-listed Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District that the historic integrity of the primary residence is preserved. In the past, the community has been somewhat flexible in allowing historic nonconforming residential properties to adapt the use and structures on the property in a way that balances the requirements of the underlying zoning and preservation of historic structures and development patterns. Staff’s primary concern is the height of the proposed two-story residence and the lack of architectural detail or breaks in the massing given the proximity to the rear property line and considering the height of the other structures abutting the alley in the impact area. The application does not address for example the reason that a half-story building could not be used or that the second story could not be stepped back from the first floor to create greater distance from the rear property line and break up the mass. The application does not address whether expanding to the north, further into the subject property, was explored. According to plans on file, the distance between the primary residence and the eastern property line is 22 feet, which appears to be adequate width for a portion of the proposed second unit. It is important to note that the application seems to suggest that the proposal is not an addition to the existing nonconforming one-story structure at the rear of the property but rather is a reconstruction of the second unit. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 7 of 16 Staff’s primary concern is the height of the proposed two-story residence and the lack of architectural detail or breaks in the massing given the proximity to the rear property line and considering the height of the other structures abutting the alley in the impact area. The application does not address for example the reason that a half-story building could not be used or that the second story could not be stepped back from the first floor to break up the mass and create greater distance from the rear property line. The application does not address whether expanding to the north, further into the subject property, was explored. The Conditional Use Permit chapter gives the Planning Commission the ability to impose conditions that are found necessary to ensure that the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the negative impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized including items such as the following (AMC18.5.4.050.B). Requiring site or architectural design features that minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, exhaust/emissions, light, glare, erosion, odor and/or dust, in addition to the requirements of part 18.4 Site Development and Design Standards. Requiring larger setback areas, and/or building separation. Requiring architectural design features such as building materials, textures, colors, and architectural features that address architectural compatibility with the impact area. Regulation of building materials, textures, colors, and architectural features. In staff’s opinion, the proposal meets the first and third approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. The first of these criteria is, “That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.” Outside of the nonconforming aspects of the structure at the rear of the property and of the residential uses discussed above, the subject site meets the requirements of the E-1 district. The second criterion is, “That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” A Minor Land Partition and Site Design Review approved in 1982 required that the applicant agree to provide the primary vehicular access to the property via the rear alley and required to be paved by the applicant along the entire property’s alley frontage in order to provide adequate access for vehicles and fire apparatus. In 1989, the Site Design Review and Parking Variance allowing for a beauty salon on the subject property required, as part of the conditions of the approval, that the parking area at the rear of the subject property be cleaned, improved, and striped prior to the commencement of the use. As part of the Conditional Use Permit approving the second dwelling unit in 1991, it was noted that adequate water, sewer, storm Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 8 of 16 drain and electric facilities were required to serve the second dwelling unit. In 1998 the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a traveler’s accommodation from two units to three units required as conditions of approval that A Street should be fully improved and that curb cuts be reframed and filled with concrete. In staff’s assessment, these findings remain applicable to the current request. The third criterion is, “That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) architectural compatibility with the impact area; d) air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e) generation of noise, light, and glare; f) the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g) other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.” Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage and architectural compatibility with impact area are discussed above. In terms of traffic, the City does not compile Ashland-specific trip generation numbers for specific uses, and the typical reference in considering average daily trips by use in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. ITE numbers typically assume approximately 9.55 daily trips for a typical single family residence and 6.47 daily trips for a multi-family residential unit. This would put the likely daily trips for two dwelling units here at 13-20 daily trips. In comparison, the target use of a 3,267 square foot office would generate an average of 36 trips a day. With regard to air quality, noise, light and glare, the applicants note that they expect the impacts related to the two residential units would be less than or equal to what could be expected from long-term commercial or employment use of the property. For staff, it is difficult to make a determination that there is a demonstrable difference in the likely noise, light or glare that would be generated by two residential units compared to a general office building. The fourth criterion is that, “A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance.” In this instance, the proposed use is explicitly designated as a Conditional Use, and a Conditional Use Permit has been requested as part of the current application. C.Site Design Review Proposal Staff’s primary concern in regards to the approval criteria for Site Design Review involves the provision of off-street parking. The approval criteria for Site Design Review require compliance with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards in 18.4. The Site Development and Design Standards include the standards for the number of required off- street parking spaces and the location and design of parking areas in Chapter 18.4.3. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 9 of 16 The development requires a total of four off-street parking spaces with two spaces required for the primary dwelling and two spaces required for the proposed unit at the rear of the property (AMC 18.4.3.040). The application proposes to provide two parking spaces at the rear of the property and accessed by the alley, and to use the two on-street spaces on the on the property’s A St. frontage. The property as it exists today requires three off-street parking spaces with two required for the primary dwelling and one space required for the unit at the rear of the property. The proposed increase in the size of the unit at the rear of the property increases the off-street parking requirement by one space. The 1998 planning application for a three-unit motel was required to have four off-street parking spaces and the approved configuration was three parking spaces adjacent to the alley and one on-street credit. After reviewing the planning files, staff determined that one of the three off-street parking spaces that has been historically shown as serving the subject property is physically located on the adjacent property to the west (cabinet shop at 864 A St.). The applicants’ representative has indicated that the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A St., which in previous approvals was identified as serving the subject property, was not secured by an easement or any other similar instrument. As a result, this third parking spaces is not available for the current proposal. In addition, in staff’s review of the previous planning approvals it appears that the most westerly space on the subject property may cross the property line. Should the Planning Commission approve the application, a condition is suggested that the west property line is surveyed and the available width for two off-street parking spaces is verified. Off-street parking may be reduced by the use of on-street parking spaces (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). One on-street parking space may be used in place of one off-street parking spaces. The required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50 percent. The use of on- street parking spaces to meet the required off-street parking requirement is not an automatic credit, but rather a discretionary decision that the Planning Commission. Staff’s second concern involving parking is the use of on-street credits given future development potential of the surrounding area. The lots that front on A St. are zoned E-1 and could potentially be redeveloped into more intense mixes of commercial, light industrial, and or residential uses. As a result, the long term redevelopment of the lots in the impact area that are abutting A St. could be more intense uses that require more parking. Given the future development potential of the area, staff believes it may not be prudent to allow 50 percent of the required parking, or two spaces, to use public on-street parking. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 10 of 16 Staff’s concerns with parking involve two issues – whether one of the two spots located at the rear of the property crosses the property line and the use of on-street credits given future development potential. 1.A small portion of the most westerly space adjacent to the alley is shown on previous planning action site plans as crossing the west property line. 2.The long term development of the lots in the impact area that are abutting A St. could be redeveloped into more intense uses that require more parking. Given the future development potential of the area, it may not be prudent to allow 50 percent of the required parking, or two spaces, to use public on- street parking. As discussed above in section II.B Conditional Use Permit, staff believes the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the residential unit at the rear of the property may have difficulty meeting the Historic District Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050.B regarding height, scale, massing, and form. Staff believes the proposal can be found to meet the remaining approval criteria for Site Design Review. The requirements of the underlying zone, E-1, and public facilities needs are discussed above in section II.B Conditional Use Permits. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are detailed in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows: AConditionalUsePermitshallbegrantediftheapprovalauthorityfindsthattheapplicationmeetsallof thefollowingcriteria,orcanbemadetoconformthroughtheimpositionofconditions. 1.Thattheusewouldbeinconformancewithallstandardswithinthezoningdistrictinwhichthe useisproposedtobelocated,andinconformancewithrelevantComprehensiveplanpoliciesthat arenotimplementedbyanyCity,State,orFederallaworprogram. 2.ThatadequatecapacityofCityfacilitiesforwater,sewer,electricity,urbanstormdrainage,paved accesstoandthroughoutthedevelopment,andadequatetransportationcanandwillbeprovided tothesubjectproperty. 3.Thattheconditionalusewillhavenogreateradversematerialeffectonthelivabilityoftheimpact areawhencomparedtothedevelopmentofthesubjectlotwiththetargetuseofthezone, pursuantwithsubsection18.5.4.050.A.5,below.Whenevaluatingtheeffectoftheproposeduse ontheimpactarea,thefollowingfactorsoflivabilityoftheimpactareashallbeconsideredin relationtothetargetuseofthezone. a.Similarityinscale,bulk,andcoverage. b.Generationoftrafficandeffectsonsurroundingstreets.Increasesinpedestrian,bicycle, Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 11 of 16 andmasstransituseareconsideredbeneficialregardlessofcapacityoffacilities. c.Architecturalcompatibilitywiththeimpactarea. d.Airquality,includingthegenerationofdust,odors,orotherenvironmentalpollutants. e.Generationofnoise,light,andglare. f.ThedevelopmentofadjacentpropertiesasenvisionedintheComprehensivePlan. g.Otherfactorsfoundtoberelevantbytheapprovalauthorityforreviewoftheproposed use. 4.Aconditionalusepermitshallnotallowausethatisprohibitedoronethatisnotpermitted pursuanttothisordinance. 5.Forthepurposesofreviewingconditionalusepermitapplicationsforconformitywiththeapproval criteriaofthissubsection,thetargetusesofeachzoneareasfollows. a.WRandRR.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements,developedatthe densitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidentialZones. b.R1.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements,developedatthedensity permittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidentialZones. c.R2andR3.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements,developedatthe densitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidentialZones. d.C1.Thegeneralretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesandAllowed Uses,developedatanintensityof0.35floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinance requirements;andwithintheDetailedSiteReviewoverlay,atanintensityof0.50floorto arearatio,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. e.C1D.Thegeneralretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesandAllowed Uses,developedatanintensityof1.00grossfloortoarearatio,complyingwithall ordinancerequirements. f.E1.Thegeneralofficeuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesandAllowedUses, developedatanintensityof0.35floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinance requirements;andwithintheDetailedSiteReviewoverlay,atanintensityof0.50floorto arearatio,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. g.M1.Thegenerallightindustrialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesandAllowed Uses,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. h.CMC1.Thegenerallightindustrialuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMillDistrict, developedatanintensityof0.50grossfloortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinance requirements. i.CMOEandCMMU.Thegeneralofficeuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMillDistrict, developedatanintensityof0.60grossfloortoarea,complyingwithallordinance requirements. k.CMNC.Theretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMillDistrict,developed atanintensityof0.60grossfloortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. l.HC,NM,andSOU.Thepermitteduseslistedinchapters18.3.3HealthCareServices,18.3.5 NorthMountainNeighborhood,and18.3.6SouthernOregonUniversityDistrict, respectively,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. The approval criteria for Site Design Review are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: AnapplicationforSiteDesignReviewshallbeapprovediftheproposalmeetsthecriteriainsubsectionsA, B,C,andDbelow.Theapprovalauthoritymay,inapprovingtheapplication,imposeconditionsof approval,consistentwiththeapplicablecriteria. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 12 of 16 A.UnderlyingZone. Theproposalcomplieswithalloftheapplicableprovisionsoftheunderlying zone(part18.2),includingbutnotlimitedto:buildingandyardsetbacks,lotareaanddimensions, densityandfloorarea,lotcoverage,buildingheight,buildingorientation,architecture,andother applicablestandards. B.OverlayZones. Theproposalcomplieswithapplicableoverlayzonerequirements(part18.3). C.SiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards. TheproposalcomplieswiththeapplicableSite DevelopmentandDesignStandardsofpart18.4,exceptasprovidedbysubsectionE,below. D.CityFacilities.Theproposalcomplieswiththeapplicablestandardsinsection18.4.6Public Facilities,andthatadequatecapacityofCityfacilitiesforwater,sewer,electricity,urbanstorm drainage,pavedaccesstoandthroughouttheproperty,andadequatetransportationcanandwill beprovidedtothesubjectproperty. E.ExceptiontotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards. Theapprovalauthoritymay approveexceptionstotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandardsofpart18.4ifthe circumstancesineithersubsection1or2,below,arefoundtoexist. 1.ThereisademonstrabledifficultymeetingthespecificrequirementsoftheSite DevelopmentandDesignStandardsduetoauniqueorunusualaspectofanexisting structureortheproposeduseofasite;andapprovaloftheexceptionwillnotsubstantially negativelyimpactadjacentproperties;andapprovaloftheexceptionisconsistentwith thestatedpurposeoftheSiteDevelopmentandDesign;andtheexceptionrequestedis theminimumwhichwouldalleviatethedifficulty.;or 2.Thereisnodemonstrabledifficultyinmeetingthespecificrequirements,butgrantingthe exceptionwillresultinadesignthatequallyorbetterachievesthestatedpurposeofthe SiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff does not recommend approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review request at this time because the building design does not appear to mitigate the negative impacts of a reduced setback on the impact area and because half of the proposed required off-street parking spaces are proposed on A St. In terms of building design, staff’s primary concern is the height of the proposed two-story residence and the lack of architectural detail or breaks in the massing given the proximity to the rear property line and considering the height of the other structures abutting the alley in the impact area. The application does not address for example the reason that a half-story building could not be used or that the second story could not be stepped back from the first floor to break up the mass and create greater distance from the rear property line. The application does not address whether expanding to the north, further into the subject property, was explored. It is important to note that the application seems to suggest that the proposed unit is not an addition to the existing nonconforming one-story structure at the rear of the property but rather is an entirely new building. Staff’s concerns with parking involve two issues – whether one of the two spots located at the rear of the property crosses the property line and the use of on-street credits given future development potential. A small portion of the most westerly space adjacent to the alley is shown Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 13 of 16 on previous planning action site plans as crossing the west property line. Second, the long term development of the lots in the impact area that are abutting A St. could be redeveloped into more intense uses that require more parking. Given the future development potential of the area, it may not be prudent to allow 50 percent of the required parking, or two spaces, to use public on-street parking. Under state law, the City has 120 days from when the application was deemed complete to make a decision. The deadline for the decision on this application is March 23, 2016. The Planning Commission must make a decision at the February 9, 2016 meeting and adopt findings on the same evening. A decision and adoption of findings by the Planning Commission on February 9 allows enough time to meet the noticing requirements and procedures for a public hearing at the City Council should the Planning Commission decision be appealed. An alternative would be if the applicant provides the City an extension to the 120-day deadline. Should the Commission approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review, staff would recommends the following conditions be attached to the approval. 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That the approval shall be valid only if a property line determination by an Oregon- licensed surveyor is provided illustrating that the most westerly parking space located at the rear of the property can be provided entirely on the applicants’ property or that an easement shall be granted for any part of the parking space on the adjacent property. Should a site plan based on an Oregon-licensed surveyor’s property line determination demonstrate that an eight-foot by 16-foot compact parking space with a 22-foot back-up area can be provided entirely on the applicants’ property the reconstruction of the residential unit at the rear of the property is approved. 3)That the application shall apply for and obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing second unit at the rear of the property in accordance with 15.04.210. 4)That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5)That building permit submittals shall include: a)The identification of all easements, including but not limited to any required public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b)The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Materials shall be consistent with those described in the application. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 14 of 16 c)Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d)Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes four covered bicycle parking spaces. Inverted u-racks shall be used for bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. e)Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and other coverage areas. f)That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 4) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including excavation, or the storage of materials: a) That tree protection measures shall be installed for all trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height on the subject property, including the two large evergreens in the northeast corner of the property, according to the AMC 18.4.5.030.C. The application shall obtain a Tree Verification Permit to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be protected on the site. b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for previously demolished structures) shall be paid. 5) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. b)All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 15 of 16 c)All required parking shall be in place, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to obtaining a business license or operation of the Travelers’ Accommodation. The parking spaces shall be painted/striped to clearly delineate the boundaries and shall be designated for regular and compact car parking accordingly. Planning Action PA #2015-02203 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report MMS Applicant: Lackey Page 16 of 16 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review February 3, 2016 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02203 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street APPLICANT: Mark Lackey OWNER: Linda Millemann, Steven and Harriet Saturen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a second story addition to the existing cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING: Employment; E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP:TAX LOTS: 39 1E 09AA; 6800 Recommendation: The Historic Commission recommends approving the application as submitted. The Historic Commission believes that the applicants have made changes to architectural details of the structure that make the building more historically accurate. In addition, the height, bulk, and scale of the structure is appropriate for the historic district. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 9, 2016 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-02203, A REQUEST FOR A ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR ) THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL ) FINDINGS, UNIT LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPERTY ) CONCLUSIONS, LOCATED AT 868 A STREET. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES EXPANDING ) & ORDERS THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE NONCONFOMRING STRUCTURE AND ADDING ) A SECOND STORY. ) ) ) APPLICANTS: Mark Lackey ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #6800 of Map 39 1E 09 AA is located at 868 A Street and is zoned E-1, Employment. 2) The hearing before the Planning Commission involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to reconstruct an existing nonconforming residential unit and enlarge the first floor by approximately 120 square feet and add a second floor approximately 528 square feet. The proposal is outlined in the plans on file in the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 3) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in as follows: 1.Thattheusewouldbeinconformancewithallstandardswithinthezoningdistrictin whichtheuseisproposedtobelocated,andinconformancewithrelevant ComprehensiveplanpoliciesthatarenotimplementedbyanyCity,State,orFederallaw orprogram. 2.ThatadequatecapacityofCityfacilitiesforwater,sewer,electricity,urbanstorm drainage,pavedaccesstoandthroughoutthedevelopment,andadequate transportationcanandwillbeprovidedtothesubjectproperty. 3.Thattheconditionalusewillhavenogreateradversematerialeffectonthelivabilityof theimpactareawhencomparedtothedevelopmentofthesubjectlotwiththetarget useofthezone,pursuantwithsubsection18.5.4.050.A.5,below.Whenevaluatingthe effectoftheproposeduseontheimpactarea,thefollowingfactorsoflivabilityofthe impactareashallbeconsideredinrelationtothetargetuseofthezone. a.Similarityinscale,bulk,andcoverage. b.Generationoftrafficandeffectsonsurroundingstreets.Increasesinpedestrian, bicycle,andmasstransituseareconsideredbeneficialregardlessofcapacityof PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 1 facilities. c.Architecturalcompatibilitywiththeimpactarea. d.Airquality,includingthegenerationofdust,odors,orotherenvironmental pollutants. e.Generationofnoise,light,andglare. f.ThedevelopmentofadjacentpropertiesasenvisionedintheComprehensive Plan. forreviewofthe g.Otherfactorsfoundtoberelevantbytheapprovalauthority proposeduse. 4.Aconditionalusepermitshallnotallowausethatisprohibitedoronethatisnot permittedpursuanttothisordinance. 5.Forthepurposesofreviewingconditionalusepermitapplicationsforconformitywiththe approvalcriteriaofthissubsection,thetargetusesofeachzoneareasfollows. a.WRandRR.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements, developedatthedensitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidential Zones. b.R1.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements,developedatthe densitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidentialZones. c.R2andR3.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements, developedatthedensitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidential Zones. d.C1.Thegeneralretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesand AllowedUses,developedatanintensityof0.35floortoarearatio,complying withallordinancerequirements;andwithintheDetailedSiteReviewoverlay,at anintensityof0.50floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinance requirements. e.C1D.Thegeneralretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesand AllowedUses,developedatanintensityof1.00grossfloortoarearatio, complyingwithallordinancerequirements. f.E1.Thegeneralofficeuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesandAllowedUses, developedatanintensityof0.35floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinance requirements;andwithintheDetailedSiteReviewoverlay,atanintensityof0.50 floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. g.M1.Thegenerallightindustrialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesand AllowedUses,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. h.CMC1.Thegenerallightindustrialuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMill District,developedatanintensityof0.50grossfloortoarearatio,complying withallordinancerequirements. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 2 i.CMOEandCMMU.Thegeneralofficeuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMill District,developedatanintensityof0.60grossfloortoarea,complyingwithall ordinancerequirements. k.CMNC.Theretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMillDistrict, developedatanintensityof0.60grossfloortoarearatio,complyingwithall ordinancerequirements. l.HC,NM,andSOU.Thepermitteduseslistedinchapters18.3.3HealthCare Services,18.3.5NorthMountainNeighborhood,and18.3.6SouthernOregon UniversityDistrict,respectively,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. AMC 18.5.2.050 4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in as follows: A.UnderlyingZone:Theproposalcomplieswithalloftheapplicableprovisionsofthe underlyingzone(part18.2),includingbutnotlimitedto:buildingandyardsetbacks,lot areaanddimensions,densityandfloorarea,lotcoverage,buildingheight,building orientation,architecture,andotherapplicablestandards. B.OverlayZones:Theproposalcomplieswithapplicableoverlayzonerequirements(part 18.3). C.SiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards:TheproposalcomplieswiththeapplicableSite DevelopmentandDesignStandardsofpart18.4,exceptasprovidedbysubsectionE, below. D.CityFacilities:Theproposalcomplieswiththeapplicablestandardsinsection18.4.6 Cityfacilitiesforwater,sewer,electricity, PublicFacilitiesandthatadequatecapacityof urbanstormdrainage,pavedaccesstoandthroughoutthepropertyandadequate transportationcanandwillbeprovidedtothesubjectproperty. E.ExceptiontotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards.Theapprovalauthoritymay approveexceptionstotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandardsofpart18.4ifthe circumstancesineithersubsection1or2,below,arefoundtoexist. 1.ThereisademonstrabledifficultymeetingthespecificrequirementsoftheSite DevelopmentandDesignStandardsduetoauniqueorunusualaspectofan existingstructureortheproposeduseofasite;andapprovaloftheexceptionwill notsubstantiallynegativelyimpactadjacentproperties;andapprovalofthe exceptionisconsistentwiththestatedpurposeoftheSiteDevelopmentand Design;andtheexceptionrequestedistheminimumwhichwouldalleviatethe difficulty.;or 2.Thereisnodemonstrabledifficultyinmeetingthespecificrequirements,but grantingtheexceptionwillresultinadesignthatequallyorbetterachievesthe statedpurposeoftheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 3 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 9, 2016 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review meets all applicable criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval described in AMC 18.5.4.050 and Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to reconstruct a nonconforming residential unit located at the rear of the property and to expand the first floor by approximately 120 square feet and add a second floor approximately 528 square feet for the property located at 868 A St. As proposed, the unit would be slightly more than twice the current size, with a total size of 1,176 square feet. The reconstructed structure would be located four feet from the rear property line. The subject property is located at 868 A Street, within the Historic District overlay and is zoned Employment (E-1). The property is bounded by an alley to the South, employment-zoned properties to the East and West, and A Street to the North. The area across the alley to the South is zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The alley abutting the rear of the subject property is a 16-foot wide right-of-way and the driving surface appears to be approximately 13-feet in width. The subject property is 6,534 square feet in size. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 4 The primary residence was constructed in 1906 and is listed as a “historic contributing” structure on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The existing historic residence was constructed as a one-story wood frame cottage in a bungalow style. The primary residence includes approximately 2,499 square feet of living area according to the August 2015 building permit for the porch addition to the home. The house has a full basement of which approximately two-thirds is heated living space. Again according to the August 2015 building permit, the primary residence meets the required setbacks and is located 36 feet from the rear property line. A second detached residential unit is located at the rear of the property. This structure is a garage that was converted into a residential unit after receiving a Conditional Use Permit approval in 1991 (PA 91-123). The square footage of this unit is approximately 538 square feet according to the application. According to the plans on file from the 1991 approval, the existing structure is a one-story building with that is 12 feet in height from grade to the peak of the roof. With the approved conversion of the garage to a residential unit, two off-street parking spaces were required for the existing dwelling and one additional parking space was required for the second unit for a total of three vehicle parking spaces. The planning approval at that time noted that the three parking spaces were to be provided off of the rear alley. The approved site plan shows two off-street spaces located on the property at 868 A Street and one off-street parking space on the neighboring property at 864 A St. The current application and site plan indicate there are two off-street parking spaces located at the rear of the subject property. While not addressed in the application materials, the applicants’ representative indicated that the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A St., which in previous approvals was identified as serving the subject property, was not secured by an easement or any other similar instrument. The proposed structure will have a peak height of 22 feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as measured along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure would have a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch. The existing structures ridge runs East / West, parallel to the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a North / South direction, consistent with the existing historic contributing structure on the subject property. A second story deck is proposed to be added above the new first story addition. The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primary dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar revel, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band, corner boards, and “cottage” style double hung windows. The application indicates the structure will require a new foundation and an eight-inch revel. The installation of a new foundation indicates that the existing structure will be demolished. The application proposes to provide two off-street parking spaces in the Southwest corner of the property and to use two on-street parking spaces adjacent to the property frontage on A St. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that a Conditional Use Permit may be granted if the approval PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 5 authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. The first of these criteria is, “ That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.” Outside of the nonconforming aspects of the structure at the rear of the property and of the residential uses discussed below, the subject site meets the requirements of the E-1 district. According to the August 2015 building permit submittals, the primary residence meets the required setbacks and is located 36 feet from the rear property line. The existing and proposed buildings are below the maximum height of 40 feet that is allowed in the E-1 zone. The existing second dwelling unit is a nonconforming structure because the structure does not comply with the rear yard requirements of the E-1 zone. The existing structure is located approximately four feet from the rear property line. A new structure in the E-1 zone requires a rear yard of ten-foot setback per story where the site abuts a residential zone. The subject property is located in the E-1 zone and the opposite side of the alley is in the R-2 zone. As a result, a new two story structure on the subject site would have to locate the first story at least ten feet from the rear property line and the second story at least 20 feet from the rear property line. The use of the property for two residential units is a nonconforming use. If the property were being newly developed under current regulations, only 50 percent of the lot could be dedicated to residential purposes when there are multiple buildings (AMC 18.3.13.010.C.1). The primary residence has been use as a residential unit throughout the planning approval history but in the early 1990’s a portion of the house was used for a beauty salon. Later the house and second unit were approved as a motel but the owner continued to live on site in the primary residence. The second criterion is, “That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” A Minor Land Partition and Site Design Review approved in 1982 required that the applicant agree to provide the primary vehicular access to the property via the rear alley and required to be paved by the applicant along the entire property’s alley frontage in order to provide adequate access for vehicles and fire apparatus (PA 82-84). In 1989, the Site Design Review and Parking Variance allowing for a beauty salon on the subject property required, as part of the conditions of the approval, that the parking area at the rear of the subject property be cleaned, improved, and striped prior to the commencement of the use (89-146). As part of the Conditional Use Permit approving the second dwelling unit in 1991, it was noted that adequate water, sewer, storm drain and electric facilities were required to serve the second dwelling unit. In 1998 the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a traveler’s accommodation from two units to three units required as conditions of approval that A Street should be fully improved and that curb cuts be reframed and filled with concrete (PA 98-065). A sidewalk is in place in the A St. right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that these findings remain applicable for the current request. The third criterion is, “That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 6 livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) architectural compatibility with the impact area; d) air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e) generation of noise, light, and glare; f) the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g) other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.” In this case, the lot size is 6,534 square feet and the target use of the property is a 3,267 square foot general office building. The combined square footage of the primary residence and the proposed two-story residence is 4,207 square feet. An office building of target use size would require seven off-street parking spaces whereas the current proposal requires four off-street parking spaces. A new general office building in the E-1 zone requires a rear yard of ten-foot setback per story where the site abuts a residential zone. The subject property is located in the E-1 zone and the opposite side of the alley is in the R-2 zone. As a result, a new structure on the subject site would have to locate the first story at least ten feet from the rear property line, the second story at least 20 feet from the rear property line, and the third story at least 30 feet from the rear property line. The same setbacks would apply if the existing home were converted and added on to create a general office building.The allowed building height in the E-1 zone is 40 feet, which is typically the equivalent of a three-story building. In terms of the target use comparison, the question is whether a greater adverse material effect on the surrounding neighborhood or impact area would result from the proposal to reconstruct and expand the residential unit within four feet of the alley compared to a new general office building or the existing home converted to an office building that meets the rear yard requirements of ten feet per story. In terms of similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, the proposed structure will have a peak height of 22 feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as measured along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure would have a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch which is the same as the primary residence. The existing structures ridge runs East / West, parallel to the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a North / South direction, consistent with the existing historic contributing structure on the subject property. The surrounding area contains a mix of historic and more modern structures in a variety of architectural styles. The lots on A St. from Seventh St. to Eight St. include historic residences as well as more contemporary structures such as a cabinet shop. The properties on the South side of the alley are in the R-2 zone and the structures are clearly residential. The interface of the structures with the alley is also varied. On the north side of the alley, there five properties. The majority of the alley frontage is comprised of parking areas or yard areas. There are two PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 7 properties that have structures directly abutting the alley with little or no setback located at 864 and 842 A St. Both of the aforementioned properties have a smaller volume portion of the building abutting the alley with to a larger building attached approximately 10 to 20 feet into the property. The two properties on the south side of the alley are residential buildings and have side yards facing the alley. These structure are between six to ten feet from the property line abutting the alley with one of the two being a one-story building and the other being a two-story building. The height of the proposed reconstructed second unit is similar to, if not smaller than, the residential structure on the opposite side of the alley located at 267 Eighth St. In addition, the 16-foot wide alley right-of-way provides an additional buffer between properties in the employment and residential zones which mitigates the impact of the height of the proposed reconstructed second unit. In terms of scale, the proposed reconstructed second unit is relatively narrow at 24 feet in width when measured parallel to the alley and the scale is considerable smaller or narrower than the structure located at 842 A St. or the residential structures on the South side of the alley. The coverage of the property with the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the second residential unit is proposed to be at 50% which again is similar to the residential structures to the south of the alley and to the residence to the east located at 886 A St. The Planning Commission finds the historic development pattern of the E-1 zone properties on the north side of the alley includes structures that are located at or within a few feet of the property line adjacent to the alley and therefore do not meet current requirements for a ten-foot setback per story. Despite the employment zoning of the current times, the property was developed historically as a residential property. The primary residence is designated as a historic contributing structure on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The historic status means that it is important to the integrity of the nationally-listed Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District that the historic integrity of the primary residence is preserved. According to the applicant’s testimony at the Historic Commission meeting on February 3, 2016, the alternative to the proposed detached two-story structure is to add a second story to the historic contributing structure. The Historic Commission felt that a second story addition to the primary residence would likely be less architecturally compatible with the impact area than the proposed detached residential unit at the rear of the property. The Historic Commission felt the flexibility in the rear yard setback allows the property to evolve in a way that is architecturally compatible with the impact area, consistent with the development pattern of the impact area, and will at the same time preserve the historic home.The Planning Commission agrees with the Historic Commission and finds that the reconstructed and enlarged second unit at the rear of the property is similar in scale, bulk, and coverage to the surrounding structures in the impact area. The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primary dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar revel, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band, corner boards, and “cottage” style double hung windows. The application indicates the structure will require a new foundation and an eight-inch reveal. The Planning Commission finds the exterior materials are architecturally compatible with the existing historic structure and surrounding area. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual assume approximately 9.55 daily trips for a typical single family residence and 6.47 daily trips for a multi-family residential unit. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 8 This would put the likely daily trips for two dwelling units here at 13-20 daily trips. In comparison, the target use of a 3,267 square foot office would generate an average of 36 trips a day.Therefore, the two residential units will generate fewer trips and impacts on surrounding streets than the target use of the property of a 3,267 square foot office building. In addition, it is difficult to make a determination that there is a demonstrable difference in the likely noise, light and glare or generation of dust and odors that would be generated by two residential units compared to a general office building. The Planning Commission finds that adjacent properties are largely developed according to the Comprehensive Plan’s vision, and that the reconstruction of the second dwelling unit at the rear of the property will not adversely impact further development. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to reconstruct and expand the residential unit within four feet of the rear property line will not create a greater adverse material effect on the impact area compared to a general office use of approximately 3, 200 square feet in size. Whether the general office use was accommodated in a new general office building or the existing home converted to an office building, the use could be accommodated and meet the rear yard requirements of ten feet per story. However, the building could be multi-story. A typical two-story office building in Ashland is approximately 30 feet in height and would be taller than the proposed reconstructed and enlarged second unit at just under 22 feet to the peak of the roof. Additionally, a general office building would typically be a wider structure that is larger in scale and size than the proposed 24-foot wide residential unit. Finally, according to ITE estimates the target use would generate approximately 16 to 23 additional automobile trips per day than the proposed development consisting of two residential units. The fourth criterion is that, “A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance.” In this instance, the proposed reconstruction and enlargement of a nonconforming structure is permitted through the Conditional Use Permit process in accordance with AMC 18.1.4.030.B. The fifth criterion provides that, “For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of \[the\]… E-1 … \[zones are as follows\]: The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.”In this case, the lot size is 6,534 square feet and the target use of the property is a 3,267 square foot office building. 2.5 The project requires Site Design Review because any project involving two or more residential units requires Site Design Review approval (AMC 18.5.2.020.B.1) and is subject to the Historic District Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 because the project is located in the Historic District overlay (AMC 18.3.12.050). The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 9 orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.” Outside of the nonconforming aspects of the structure at the rear of the property and of the residential uses discussed below, the subject site meets the requirements of the E-1 district. According to the August 2015 building permit submittals, the primary residence meets the required setbacks and is located 36 feet from the rear property line. The existing and proposed buildings are below the maximum height of 40 feet that is allowed in the E-1 zone. The landscaped area is approximately 50 percent of the lot area which exceeds the 15 percent requirement. The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” The project is subject to the Historic District Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050 because the project is located in the Historic District overlay (AMC 18.3.12.050). The proposed reconstruction and enlargement of the residential unit at the rear of the property is within the range of heights of the buildings on and across the alley, is of a similar scale (i.e., height, width, and massing) of buildings in the vicinity, is consistent with setback lines of adjacent historic buildings, and has a similar roof pitch with historic residential buildings in the vicinity. The form of buildings (i.e., vertical versus horizontal building) is varied in the surrounding area and does not consist of a predominant orientation. The Planning Commission finds the application meets the Historic District Standards. The third approval criterion is that, “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.” The Planning Commission finds that generally, these standards seek to improve each project’s appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties’ frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. The orientation of the primary residence to the street is not impacted by the proposal and the property continues to satisfy these requirements. The development requires a total of four off-street parking spaces with two spaces required for the primary dwelling and two spaces required for the proposed unit at the rear of the property (AMC 18.4.3.040). The application proposes to provide two parking spaces at the rear of the property and accessed by the alley, and to use the two on-street spaces on the on the property’s A St. frontage. The property as it exists today requires three off-street parking spaces with two required for the primary dwelling and one space required for the unit at the rear of the property. The proposed increase in the size of the unit at the rear of the property increases the off-street parking requirement by one space. The 1998 planning application for a three-unit motel was required to have four off-street parking spaces and the approved configuration was three parking spaces adjacent to the alley and one on-street credit (PA 98-065). After reviewing the planning files, staff determined that one of the three off-street parking spaces that has been historically shown as serving the subject property is physically located on the adjacent property to the west (cabinet shop at 864 A St.). The applicants’ representative indicated that the third off-street parking space located on the neighboring property at 864 A St., which in previous PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 10 approvals was identified as serving the subject property, was not secured by an easement or any other similar instrument. As a result, this third parking spaces is not available for the current proposal. In addition, according to the previous planning approvals it appears that the most westerly space on the subject property may cross the property line. A condition of approval is added that requires that the west property line is surveyed and the available width for two off-street parking spaces is verified or that a parking easement be obtained. Off-street parking may be reduced by the use of on-street parking spaces (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). One on- street parking space may be used in place of one off-street parking space. The required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50 percent through an on-street parking credit. The use of on-street parking spaces to meet the required off-street parking requirement is not an automatic credit, but rather a discretionary decision that the Planning Commission. The lots that front on A St. are zoned E-1 and could potentially be redeveloped into more intense mixes of commercial, light industrial, and or residential uses. The Planning Commission finds that the long term redevelopment of many or all of the lots in the impact area that are abutting A St. is unlikely given the historic development pattern, lot sizes, and recent investment in several of the properties. The on- street parking on the south side of A St. is currently underutilized and the Planning Commission finds that the use of on-street parking credits on the property’s A St. frontage will not significantly impact the availability of on-street parking now or in the future. The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review 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.” A Minor Land Partition and Site Design Review approved in 1982 required that the applicant agree to provide the primary vehicular access to the property via the rear alley and required to be paved by the applicant along the entire property’s alley frontage in order to provide adequate access for vehicles and fire apparatus (PA 82-84). In 1989, the Site Design Review and Parking Variance allowing for a beauty salon on the subject property required, as part of the conditions of the approval, that the parking area at the rear of the subject property be cleaned, improved, and striped prior to the commencement of the use (PA 89-146). As part of the Conditional Use Permit approving the second dwelling unit in 1991, it was noted that adequate water, sewer, storm drain and electric facilities were required to serve the second dwelling unit (PA 91- 123). In 1998 the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the expansion of a traveler’s accommodation from two units to three units required as conditions of approval that A Street should be fully improved and that curb cuts be reframed and filled with concrete (PA 98-065). A sidewalk is in place in the A St. right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that these findings remain applicable for the current request. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to reconstruct an existing nonconforming PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 11 residential unit and enlarge the first floor by approximately 120 square feet and add a second floor of approximately 528 square feet for the property located at 868 A St. is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2015-02203. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-02203 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That the approval shall be valid only if a property line determination by an Oregon-licensed surveyor is provided illustrating that the most westerly parking space located at the rear of the property can be provided entirely on the applicants’ property or that an easement shall be granted for any part of the parking space on the adjacent property. Should a site plan based on an Oregon- licensed surveyor’s property line determination demonstrate that an eight-foot by 16-foot compact parking space with a 22-foot back-up area can be provided entirely on the applicants’ property the reconstruction of the residential unit at the rear of the property is approved. 3) That the application shall apply for and obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing second unit at the rear of the property in accordance with 15.04.210. 4) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5) That building permit submittals shall include: a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to any required public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Materials shall be consistent with those described in the application. c) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes four covered bicycle parking spaces. Inverted u-racks shall be used for bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 12 parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and other coverage areas. f) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 6) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including excavation, or the storage of materials: a) That tree protection measures shall be installed for all trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height on the subject property, including the two large evergreens in the northeast corner of the property, according to the AMC 18.4.5.030.C. The application shall obtain a Tree Verification Permit to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be protected on the site. b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for previously demolished structures) shall be paid. 7) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. b) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. c) All required parking shall be in place, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to obtaining a business license or operation of the Travelers’ Accommodation. The parking spaces shall be painted/striped to clearly delineate the boundaries and shall be designated for regular and compact car parking accordingly. February 9, 2016 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 13 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-02203, A REQUEST FOR A ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR ) THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL ) FINDINGS, UNIT LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPERTY ) CONCLUSIONS, LOCATED AT 868 A STREET. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES EXPANDING ) & ORDERS THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE NONCONFOMRING STRUCTURE AND ADDING ) A SECOND STORY. ) ) ) APPLICANTS: Mark Lackey ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #6800 of Map 39 1E 09 AA is located at 868 A Street and is zoned E-1, Employment. 2) The hearing before the Planning Commission involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to reconstruct an existing nonconforming residential unit and enlarge the first floor by approximately 120 square feet and add a second floor approximately 528 square feet. The proposal is outlined in the plans on file in the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 3) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in as follows: 1.Thattheusewouldbeinconformancewithallstandardswithinthezoningdistrictin whichtheuseisproposedtobelocated,andinconformancewithrelevant ComprehensiveplanpoliciesthatarenotimplementedbyanyCity,State,orFederallaw orprogram. 2.ThatadequatecapacityofCityfacilitiesforwater,sewer,electricity,urbanstorm drainage,pavedaccesstoandthroughoutthedevelopment,andadequate transportationcanandwillbeprovidedtothesubjectproperty. 3.Thattheconditionalusewillhavenogreateradversematerialeffectonthelivabilityof theimpactareawhencomparedtothedevelopmentofthesubjectlotwiththetarget useofthezone,pursuantwithsubsection18.5.4.050.A.5,below.Whenevaluatingthe effectoftheproposeduseontheimpactarea,thefollowingfactorsoflivabilityofthe impactareashallbeconsideredinrelationtothetargetuseofthezone. a.Similarityinscale,bulk,andcoverage. b.Generationoftrafficandeffectsonsurroundingstreets.Increasesinpedestrian, bicycle,andmasstransituseareconsideredbeneficialregardlessofcapacityof facilities. c.Architecturalcompatibilitywiththeimpactarea. d.Airquality,includingthegenerationofdust,odors,orotherenvironmental PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 1 pollutants. e.Generationofnoise,light,andglare. f.ThedevelopmentofadjacentpropertiesasenvisionedintheComprehensive Plan. g.Otherfactorsfoundtoberelevantbytheapprovalauthorityforreviewofthe proposeduse. 4.Aconditionalusepermitshallnotallowausethatisprohibitedoronethatisnot permittedpursuanttothisordinance. 5.Forthepurposesofreviewingconditionalusepermitapplicationsforconformitywiththe approvalcriteriaofthissubsection,thetargetusesofeachzoneareasfollows. a.WRandRR.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements, developedatthedensitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidential Zones. b.R1.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements,developedatthe densitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidentialZones. c.R2andR3.Residentialusecomplyingwithallordinancerequirements, developedatthedensitypermittedbychapter18.2.5StandardsforResidential Zones. d.C1.Thegeneralretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesand AllowedUses,developedatanintensityof0.35floortoarearatio,complying withallordinancerequirements;andwithintheDetailedSiteReviewoverlay,at anintensityof0.50floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinance requirements. e.C1D.Thegeneralretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesand AllowedUses,developedatanintensityof1.00grossfloortoarearatio, complyingwithallordinancerequirements. f.E1.Thegeneralofficeuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesandAllowedUses, developedatanintensityof0.35floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinance requirements;andwithintheDetailedSiteReviewoverlay,atanintensityof0.50 floortoarearatio,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. g.M1.Thegenerallightindustrialuseslistedinchapter18.2.2BaseZonesand AllowedUses,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. h.CMC1.Thegenerallightindustrialuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMill District,developedatanintensityof0.50grossfloortoarearatio,complying withallordinancerequirements. i.CMOEandCMMU.Thegeneralofficeuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMill District,developedatanintensityof0.60grossfloortoarea,complyingwithall ordinancerequirements. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 2 k.CMNC.Theretailcommercialuseslistedinchapter18.3.2CromanMillDistrict, developedatanintensityof0.60grossfloortoarearatio,complyingwithall ordinancerequirements. l.HC,NM,andSOU.Thepermitteduseslistedinchapters18.3.3HealthCare Services,18.3.5NorthMountainNeighborhood,and18.3.6SouthernOregon UniversityDistrict,respectively,complyingwithallordinancerequirements. AMC 18.5.2.050 4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in as follows: A.UnderlyingZone:Theproposalcomplieswithalloftheapplicableprovisionsofthe underlyingzone(part18.2),includingbutnotlimitedto:buildingandyardsetbacks,lot areaanddimensions,densityandfloorarea,lotcoverage,buildingheight,building orientation,architecture,andotherapplicablestandards. B.OverlayZones:Theproposalcomplieswithapplicableoverlayzonerequirements(part 18.3). C.SiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards:TheproposalcomplieswiththeapplicableSite DevelopmentandDesignStandardsofpart18.4,exceptasprovidedbysubsectionE, below. D.CityFacilities:Theproposalcomplieswiththeapplicablestandardsinsection18.4.6 PublicFacilitiesandthatadequatecapacityofCityfacilitiesforwater,sewer,electricity, urbanstormdrainage,pavedaccesstoandthroughoutthepropertyandadequate transportationcanandwillbeprovidedtothesubjectproperty. E.ExceptiontotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards.Theapprovalauthoritymay approveexceptionstotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandardsofpart18.4ifthe circumstancesineithersubsection1or2,below,arefoundtoexist. 1.ThereisademonstrabledifficultymeetingthespecificrequirementsoftheSite DevelopmentandDesignStandardsduetoauniqueorunusualaspectofan existingstructureortheproposeduseofasite;andapprovaloftheexceptionwill notsubstantiallynegativelyimpactadjacentproperties;andapprovalofthe exceptionisconsistentwiththestatedpurposeoftheSiteDevelopmentand Design;andtheexceptionrequestedistheminimumwhichwouldalleviatethe difficulty.;or 2.Thereisnodemonstrabledifficultyinmeetingthespecificrequirements,but grantingtheexceptionwillresultinadesignthatequallyorbetterachievesthe statedpurposeoftheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 9, 2016 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 3 Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review fails to meet all of the applicable criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review as described in AMC 18.5.4.050.Aand AMC 18.5.2.050. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to reconstruct a nonconforming residential unit located at the rear of the property and to expand the first floor by approximately 120 square feet and add a second floor approximately 528 square feet for the property located at 868 A St.As proposed, the unit would be slightly more than twice the current size, with a total size of 1,176 square feet. The reconstructed structure would be located four feet from the rear property line. The subject property is located at 868 A Street, within the Historic District overlay and is zoned Employment (E-1). The property is bounded by an alley to the South, employment-zoned properties to the East and West, and A Street to the North. The area across the alley to the South is zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The alley abutting the rear of the subject property is a 16-foot wide right-of-way and the driving surface appears to be approximately 13-feet in width. The subject property is 6,534 square feet in size. The primary residence was constructed in 1906 and is listed as a “historic contributing” structure on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District. The existing historic residence was constructed as a one-story wood frame cottage in a bungalow style. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 4 The primary residence includes approximately 2,499 square feet of living area according to the August 2015 building permit for the porch addition to the home. The house has a full basement of which approximately two-thirds is heated living space. Again according to the August 2015 building permit, the primary residence meets the required setbacks and is located 36 feet from the rear property line. A second detached residential unit is located at the rear of the property. This structure is a garage that was converted into a residential unit after receiving a Conditional Use Permit approval in 1991 (PA 91-123). The square footage of this unit is approximately 538 square feet according to the application. According to the plans on file from the 1991 approval, the existing structure is a one-story building with that is 12 feet in height from grade to the peak of the roof. The proposed structure will have a peak height of 22 feet 10 inches with an average height of 18.4 feet. The existing structure is 24 feet wide as measured along the rear property line and no change to the width is proposed. The proposed structure would have a single gable roof with a 6:12 pitch. The existing structures ridge runs East / West, parallel to the alley. The proposed gable ridge would be turned to orient in a North / South direction, consistent with the existing historic contributing structure on the subject property. A second story deck is proposed to be added above the new first story addition. The exterior materials proposed for the structure are consistent with the recently restored primary dwelling. Horizontal wood siding with similar revel, 2 x 8 fascia boards, corbels, 2 x 8 belly band, corner boards, and “cottage” style double hung windows. The application indicates the structure will require a new foundation and an eight-inch revel. The installation of a new foundation indicates that the existing structure will be demolished. The application proposes to provide two off-street parking spaces in the Southwest corner of the property and to use two on-street parking spaces adjacent to the property frontage on A St. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal fails to meet all applicable approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. Specifically, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed reconstructed and enlarged two-story residential structure at the rear of the subject property located four feet from the rear property line will make less of an adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area compared to the target use of 3,200 square foot general office that meets the required rear yard setback of ten feet per story. Specifically, the application does not demonstrate that the scale, bulk, and coverage of the proposed structure creates lesser impacts than the target use housed in a structure meeting the ten feet per story requirement or that design alternatives to mitigate the impacts of two stories within four feet of the rear property line have been examined or considered. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the Site Design Review criteria have not been met to approve the proposed development. The approval criteria for Site Design Review require compliance with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards in AMC 18.4. The Site Development and Design Standards include the standards for the number of required off-street parking spaces and the location and design of parking areas in AMC 18.4.3. PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 5 The development requires a total of four off-street parking spaces with two spaces required for the primary dwelling and two spaces required for the proposed unit at the rear of the property (AMC 18.4.3.040). The application proposes to provide two parking spaces at the rear of the property and accessed by the alley, and to use the two on-street spaces on the on the property’s A St. frontage. The property as it exists today requires three off-street parking spaces with two required for the primary dwelling and one space required for the unit at the rear of the property. The proposed increase in the size of the unit at the rear of the property increases the off-street parking requirement by one space. Off-street parking may be reduced by the use of on-street parking spaces (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). One on- street parking space may be used in place of one off-street parking space. The required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50 percent through an on-street parking credit. The use of on-street parking spaces to meet the required off-street parking requirement is not an automatic credit, but rather a discretionary decision that the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission finds that the request to use an on-street parking credit for two of the four required off-street parking spaces is not justified by the application. The lots that front on A St. are zoned E-1 and could potentially be redeveloped into more intense mixes of commercial, light industrial, and or residential uses. As a result, the future redevelopment of the lots in the impact area that are abutting A St. could be more intense uses that require more parking. Given the future development potential of the area, the application does not demonstrate the manner in which a 50 percent reduction of the required off-street parking will impact the surrounding neighborhood now and in the future. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review to allow for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing nonconforming residential unit located at the rear of the lot for the property located at 868 A St. is not supported by the evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action #2015-02203. February 9, 2016 Planning Commission Denial Date PA #2015-02203 February 9, 2016 Page 6 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2016-00041 1465 Webster Street