Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-07 Historic PACKET HPACCommittee Agenda Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any HPACmeeting 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 the public testimony may be limited by the Chairʾ ˤ˹˽˵̃ ˾˿̄˵˴ ˶˿̂ ˵˱˳˸ ˹̄˵˽ ˱̂˵ ˱̀̀̂˿̈˹˽˱̄˵Ѕ January7,2026 AGENDA (4:00)CALLTOORDER:The meetingwill be held in person and via Zoomat: https://zoom.us/j/96529201494?pwd=zn3bb9zEfMWNYqcW1rcmLaioblM8yk.1\[MeetingID:965 2920 1494/Passcode:345918\] READINGOFLANDACKNOWLEDGEMENT I.(4:05)APPROVALOFAGENDA II.(4:10)APPROVALOFMINUTES Minutes of December 3, 2025 III.(4:15)PUBLICFORUM IV.(4:30)LIASONREPORTS CouncilLiaison-Jeff Dahle StaffLiaisonϺ˔˵̂˵˻ ˣ˵̆˵̂̃˿˾ V.(4:45)DISCUSSIONITEMS A.2026WorkPlan i.Siskiyou Boulevard item B.AdvancePlanningforPreservationWeek(orMonth!!!)2026(Katy Repp & Peter Finkle(?)) th ˠ̂˵̃˵̂̆˱̄˹˿˾ ˝˿˾̄˸ ˂ˀ˂ˆ ˳˵˼˵˲̂˱̄˵̃ ˑ˽˵̂˹˳˱Ͻ̃ ˂˅ˀ˱˾˾˹̆˵̂̃˱̂̉ ̇˹̄˸ ˱˾ Ͽˑ˼˼ ˠ˵˿̀˼˵ ˑ̂˵ ˓̂˵˱̄˵˴ ˕́̅˱˼Ѐ ̄˸˵˽˵ C.ReviewBoardAssignmentsϺ˚˱˾̅˱̂̉ ˂ˀ˂ˆ˱˾˴ ˖˵˲̂̅˱̂̉ ˂ˀ˂ˆ VI.(5:00)LANDUSEITEMS PLANNINGACTION:PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECTPROPERTY:431 North Main Street APPLICANT:RoguePlanning and Development OWNER:Rogue Holdings LLC Page 1of 2 HPACCommittee Agenda DESCRIPTION:A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each ˾˵̇ ˸˿˽˵ʼ ˱ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄ ̄˿ ̂˵˽˿̆˵ ˱ ̃˹˷˾˹˶˹˳˱˾̄ ̄̂˵˵ ˃˃Ѐ ˔˒˘ ˹˾ ̃˹̊˵ ʸˑ˹˼˱˾̄˸̅̃ ˱˼̄˹̃̃˹˽˱ʼ ˤ̂˵˵ ˿˶ Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints. COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:R-2; MAP:39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT:7300 VII.(5:30)ADJOURNMENT Page 2of 2 HPACCommittee Minutes DRAFT Note: Anyone who wishesto speak at any HPACmeeting 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 the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. Times noted for each item are approximate… December3,2025 Minutes CALLTOORDER:Chair Scharen called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Scharen, Whitford, Emery, Prest and Delaunay were presentin person. Repp and Skibby were absent. Planning Commission Chair Lisa Verner, acting as Planning Commission liaison, and Derek Severson, acting as the Community Development staff liaison and secretary, were present. READINGOFLANDACKNOWLEDGEMENT Scharen read the land acknowledgement. APPROVALOFAGENDA It was agreed that because there were guests present in person to discuss several Review Board items, these items would be discussed following “Public Forum.” APPROVALOFMINUTES Whitford/Emerym/stoapprovetheminutesofOctober8,2025,aspresented.Voicevote:AllAYES. Motionpassed. PUBLICFORUM There was no one in the audience wishing to speak. DISCUSSIONOFREVIEWBOARDITEMS Planning Commission Liaison Verner exited the meeting to avoid potential ex parte contact on items which might ultimately come before the Planning Commission. Severson made clear that these were items scheduled for the Review Board that were not included on the agenda or in the meeting packet andwere intended to be heard outside of the formal meeting. The anticipated discussion was to provide informal feedback to the applicants’ design process and was not intended to replace necessary land use or building permit reviews. 431NorthMainStreet/RoguePlanning – Amy Gunter explained the proposal to demolish the existing structure, subdivide the property, construct three SFRs and a single room occupancy (SRO) building, and noted that each building would be proposed under a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area. Severson briefly explained the MPFA rules and procedures. Gunter noted she was looking at potential discrepancies in language between the building code’s treatment of SRO’s and the land use ordinance regulations related to MPFA. Gunter discussed how the designs had been tailored to the surrounding neighborhood, and that while no off-street parking was to be Page 1 of 3 HPACCommittee Minutes DRAFT proposed for the SRO it would have ample bicycle parking and is located within walking distance of downtown and is on a bus route. Commissioners generally indicated that they did not believe there was much of the existing structure that merited saving. 581EastMainStreet/DezinFineHomes – Rick Anderson of Dezin Fine Homes explained the proposal, noting that the intent is ultimately to have three rentals in the building. Committee members generally indicated that their preference would be to retain the home’s existing front porch/façade and thus its existing historic character, however there was recognition of the practical reasoning behind the proposal. Committee members indicated that if the proposal were ultimately to be approved, it was crucial that trim, siding and windows, and overall proportions be carefully selected to maintain the historic character, and that new landscaping be incorporated to soften the proposed exterior changes. 161BStreet/DezinFineHomes – Cassandra del Nero of Dezin Fine Homes discussed proposed changes to 161B Street, noting the street-facing façade was proposed to be retained but that there would be substantial interior changes to both buildings. Building 1’s footprint would remain unchanged, and Building 2 would add external stairs and reconfigure the interior to include upper-levelloft storage space to be accessed via a ship’s ladder. This loft is not proposed to be conditioned habitable space. Committee members urged that historic proportions be retained through the proposed replacement windows and lap siding, suggesting a five-inch exposure was appropriate. Del Nero noted that they would replace existing double-pane aluminum slider windows with similarly sized replacements as well as new windows selected for energy efficiency. She concluded that the building needed improvement, especially as it presented to B Street. LIASONREPORTS CouncilLiaisonJeff Dahlewas absentdue to a conflicting meeting and so no report was given. CommunityDevelopmentStaffLiaisonDerek Seversonprovided a brief staff update, noting that while it was not in one of the historic districts, an application had been submitted to create a new subdistrict ordinance regulating the former Croman Mill site and to subdivide the property once environmental clean-up has occurred. ReviewBoardAssignments – Members volunteered for Review Board assignments in December and January. WorkplanDiscussion–Severson provided a brief summary to introduce this item. There was discussion of concerns that the adoption and implementation of state laws in support of housing seem to be devaluing preservation and lessening the relevance of preservation commissions. There was also discussion of the need to explore options to raise awareness of individual historic properties and historic districts which could include plaques, signage, specific streetlightstandards for each district, and the creation of maps, GIS story maps and brochures. Chair Scharen indicated that she would be th present at the Council even on December 15, as did Severson. Emery and DeLaunay indicated that Page 2 of 3 HPACCommittee Minutes DRAFT they would try to attend but were uncertain, and Prest noted that he had conflicts. DeLaunaynoted that she would be out of town in January but would try to attend via Zoom. She exited the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:30p.m. Page 3 of 3 Memo DATE:January7, 2026 TO:Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) FROM: AaronAnderson, Senior Planner RE:Historic Commemorative Marker for Siskiyou Blvd. Background th On Monday, Decemberthe 15, 2025 the City Council conducted a “Workplan Update” for all City Commissionsand Committees.While discussing the 2026 workplan the mayor explained that she and council had received multiple requestsfrom a community member who suggested that the history of the land that was donated for Siskiyou Blvd. is deserving of recognition. The Mayor asked if the Historic Commission was willing to add thistaskto their workplan, perhaps in collaboration with Public Arts, to begin a conversation on how best to do so. Shelby Scharen, representing the HPAC stated that they were absolutely interested in undertaking such a project and that working with the Public Art Commission would be ideal. The Mayor asked if there was interest from the Council and unanimous consent was indicated. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 1.800.735.2900 January2026 HPACReviewBoard Meetat3:00pm-LithiaRoom Everyotherweek **Stafftoemailifthereisanythingtoreviewontheoffweeks** DATECOMMITTEEMEMBERSATTENDING Jan8th ScharenWhitfordPrest Jan22nd ScharenEmeryPrest *Call541-488-5305toverifythereareitemsontheagendatoreview February2026 HPACReviewBoard Meetat3:00pm-LithiaRoom Everyotherweek **Stafftoemailifthereisanythingtoreviewontheoffweeks** DATECOMMITTEEMEMBERSATTENDING Feb5th Feb19th *Call541-488-5305toverifythereareitemsontheagendatoreview Memo DATE:January 7, 2026 TO:Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Supervisor RE: 431 North Main Street Requests to Exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) Background More than twenty years ago, community concerns were raised that he construction of large homes in Ashland’s National Register of Historic Places-listed historic districtsdid not necessarily reflect the scale and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. The city responded by adopting a Maximum Permitted Floor Area(MPFA) Ordinance which setsa limit on the permitted floor area for residential properties in the historicdistricts based on lot size and the number of units proposed. The ordinance as adopted includes a provision that an applicant may requesta Conditional UsePermit (CUP) in order to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent. CUP review provides a mechanismto consider the adverse impacts of a proposalon the impact area and address them through the imposition of conditions. AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.bprovides that, “If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker.” The CUP process provides a mechanism for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee to review an application inlight of the Historic District Development Standards found in AMC 18.4.2.050 and make specific recommendations to the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission. This is an instance where HPAC recommendations can be required as conditions of approval even for single family residential applications. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 1.800.735.2900 Current Application The current application is a request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan subdivision approval through the Performance Standards Option (PSO) Chapter (AMC 18.3.9). The parent property at 431 North Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots. The subject property contains the James-Dodson House, ahistoric contributing resource in the Skidmore Academy District, which was constructed in about 1895. The property remained in the original family ownership for around 100 years, during which time it was substantially modified through a series of rear additionsresulting in the site’s conversion to multi-family residential use. In 1948, The original owner resided in one of the six apartments that had been created, and in 1964 the property was referred to as the “North Main Apartments.” The historic districtsurvey documentsuggests that while the property has clearly been modified from its original design, the main volume remains essentially intact, creating the dominant façadeof the structure. The multiple rear additions also appear to have been constructed largely during the historic period, and when the survey description was written, the James-Dodson house was considered to effectively relate the changing residential patterns of the district during the latter portion of the period of significance. The building appears to have received little or no maintenance in the intervening yearssince the survey document was prepared, and the existing structureon the property is proposed for demolition in conjunction with the subdivision. The current proposal was briefly discussed by the HPAC Review Board at its December 3, 2025 meeting, at which time Review Board members indicated that they did not believe there was much of the existing structure that merited saving. The application now under review includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District for proposed buildings on each of the four new lots. The application also includes a request to remove a significant tree, a 33-inch diameter-at-breast-height Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and a request for an Exception to the Street Design Standards to not installcity standard street improvements along the property’s frontage due to the existing sidewalks and site constraints. Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Review HPAC members are asked to consider the application in light of the Historic District Development Standardsin AMC 18.4.2.050 and makerecommendations to the Planning th Commission, which will hear theitem at a January 13public hearing. Some items to consider: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 1.800.735.2900 #1)Ashland no longer has a requirement that off-street parking be provided, and as such parking cannot be apoint of consideration in any land use decision. #2)The impact area generallyconsidered for Conditional Use Permits extends 200 feet from the property perimeter in all directions, and the design standards in AMC 18.4.2.050.Bgenerally seek compatible height, scale, massing, setbacks, roofs, rhythms of openings, entrances, sense of base or platform, and overall form while avoiding the repetition of historic features. 431 North Main Street. Impact Area for CUP Review Staffand the applicant will provide presentations at the January HPAC meeting discussing the proposal in light of theapplicable standards and criteria. It would be advisable for HPAC members toreview the application materials and make a site visit prior to the meeting to familiarize themselves withthe character of the impact area. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 1.800.735.2900 #3) The immediate impact areaalong Nursery Streetand North Main Street includes: 70-92 Nursery Street:The immediately adjacent properties to the west along Nursery Street include six 1½-story infill condominiums constructed in about 1987. These are Non-Historic/Non-Contributing resources within the district, and are largely identical with front-facing garages. 100 Nursery Street: The Emmett & Helen Whitham House, a Historic Contributing resource built in about 1946. This house is a small, single-story gable volume with a gable projection that may have originally been an open porch. The Whitham House has large picture windows, wood shingle siding and an absence of eaves. 111 Nursery Street: The C.S. Davis House was built in about 1905 and is considered to be Historic Non-Contributing. The Davis House has a large 1 ½-story gable volume with a broad shed-dormer facing to the east. A full-width front porch was modified by being partially enclosed to create a recessed central entryway, and extended beyond the original footprint to the north. Although re-sided with shingles and modified to the front, the Davis House retained essential integrity prior to the installation of vinyl exterior siding which substantially diminished its integrity as a historic resource. 91 NurseryStreet:The CharlesMillsap II House at 91 Nursery Street was constructed in about 1890 and is considered to be a Historic Contributing resource. A single-story hipped volume with bellcast eaves, the Millsap House has a wrap around porch, exposed rafter ails and other decorative details that indicate it may have been th remodeled sometime in the early 20century. The house has its original siding and retains substantial integrity. 75 Nursery Street: The Albert Anderson House, with its 1½-story gable volume was constructed in about 1938, is a Historic Contributing resource. The house has a simple rectilinear form with a small projecting porch, narrowsiding and cottage type windows give it a modest, bungalow-inspired style. A large gable barn is located to the rear of the main volume. The Anderson House retains sufficient integrity to relate its period of construction. 451 North Main Street: The Breeden-Hersey House at 451 North Main Street was constructed in about 1904 and is considered to be a Historic Contributing resource. The homewas substantially renovated and augmented in the late 1980’s and used as a Bed and Breakfast under the name “The Hersey House” for more than a decade. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 1.800.735.2900 Homes currently proposed for 431 North Main Street. The existing Nursery Street streetscape to the west. Some specific considerations: The historic district design standards call for placing a garage behind a historic building, and to avoid placing it in front of or beside a historic building. The six existing non-historic duplex units immediately to the west all have near identical front-facing garages. Do the three front-facing garages proposed here detract from the character of the streetscape, particularly in combination with the garages to the west? The six duplex/condo units immediately to the west all have nearly identical designs. Does the placement of three buildings which are very similarto one another (same general massing and treatment of the buildings with some distinguishing details) pose a concern in terms of an impact to the historic neighborhood character. Would HPAC members prefer more varied designs to better relate to the historic character of the neighborhood that developed over time? Any recommendations that the Historic Preservation Advisory Committeecan provide to inform the Planning Commission’s considerationof the application would be much appreciated. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax: 541.552.2050 ashlandoregon.gov TTY: 1.800.735.2900 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2025-00065 SUBJECT PROPERTY:431 N Main Street APPLICANT:Rogue Planning and Development OWNER:Rogue Holdings LLC DESCRIPTION:A request for concurrent Outline and Final Plan approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The parent parcel at 431 N Main Street is proposed to be subdivided into four new lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The existing structure is proposed for demolition. The application also includes a request for four Conditional Use Permits to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in a Historic District on each new home, a request to remove a significant tree 33” DBH in size (Ailanthus altissima, Tree of Heaven) and a request for an exception to street standards to not install standard street improvements due to the existing sidewalk and site constraints.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:R-2; MAP:39-1E-05-DA; TAX LOT:7300 NOTE:The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action on Wednesday, January 7, 2026at 5:00 PM at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TuesdayJanuary 13, 2026at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 EastMain Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Veronica Allenat 541-488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). Enter Criteria OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3) Approval Criteria for Outline Plan.The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c.The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings,etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 plan meets all of the following criteria. a.The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b.The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c.The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d.The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e.The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f.That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. h.Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.5.4.050) A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1.That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughoutthe development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluatingthe effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e.Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a.WR and RR.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b.R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c.R-2 and R-3.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d.C-1.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e.C-1-D.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f.E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g.M-1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h.CM-C1.The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k.CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU.The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) Tree That is Not a Hazard.A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinancerequirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversitywithin 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 51 Winburn WayTel:541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520Fax:541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 431 N Main A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE MPFA REQUEST FOR FOUR LOT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION And CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA Property Address: 431 N Main St Map & Tax Lot: 391E05DA, 7300 Property Owner/Applicant: Rogue Holdings LLC 870 S Oregon Street Jacksonville, OR 97530 Surveyor: Hoffbuhr & Associates 880 Golfview Drive Medford, OR 97504 Building Design: Karic Roberge 115 Lilly Road Jacksonville, OR 97530 Civil Engineering: JL Engineering Jlengineeringservices.com Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services 1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 PROJECT PROPOSAL: The request is for approval of an Outline and Final Plan of a four lot, Performance Standards Subdivision (AMC 18.3.9). A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is also requested to allow for a 25 percent increase of the allowed Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the historic district for each lot. A tree removal permit is also requested for one significant tree. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 1 of 22 Lastly, an exception to street standards to not install seven-foot landscape park row and six-foot sidewalk on North Main Street and Nursery Street to retain the existing public street frontage improvements is requested (AMC 18.4.6.020.B). PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: This 0.35-acre property, located within the Skidmore Historic District, offers potential for residential development under R-2 zoning. The site includes the James-Dodson House, a historic contributing structure. The structure is in very poor condition. Property Features: Location and Frontage: o A corner lot with 67.5 feet of frontage on N Main and extending 215.74 feet along Nursery St, with the northwest corner situated directly across from the intersection of Nursery St and Woolen Way. Existing Structures: o Features a 4,945 square-foot building. The original structure was constructed in 1898 and appears to be the front, southeast portion of the structure. Significant modifications and additions were made over the years, eventually converting the residence into an six or eight-unit apartment house. The structure extends to the west and north without setbacks on the west end of the structure where the buildings are abutting the property line. o To the west of the main structure is a detached garage building. The garage building is 336 square feet. It is adjacent to the west property line and approximately five feet from Nursery Street. Condition: o The building and associated structures are in very poor condition and reflect legal nonconformity due to their setbacks relative to property lines and density criteria. Infrastructure and Accessibility: o Equipped with a curbside sidewalk along both Nursery St and N Main, but lacking a park row. o Includes three curb cuts along Nursery St, enhancing access and potential ingress/egress options. o Electric, water, sanitary sewer services and gas service are provided to the property. The existing structures are not connected to the storm drain system. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 2 of 22 Zoning and Development: Zoning Classification: o R-2 zoning permits residential development, with potential for 4 to 7 residential units. Development is contingent upon meeting historic district design review standards and density bonus criteria due to the property’s historic district status. Environmental Considerations: o The location is free of significant environmental constraints such as flood zones, hillsides, or riparian corridors. Historical Significance: Historical Context: o The earliest identified owner, Mrs. Mary J. James, resided here with her daughter and son-in-law, Pearl E. James Dodson and George Dodson, in 1910. o The property has been substantially modified with a series of rear additions, transitioning it to multiple-family residential use. Known as "North Main Apartments" by 1964. DETAILED PROPOSAL: The request, through a Performance Standards Subdivision Option (PSO), is to divide the property into four separate lots. Three of the lots would be developed with a single-family residence, and one with a six-bedroom single room occupancy unit on Lot 4. The applicant has also submitted a demolition permit via an economic feasibility report that addresses the estimated market value of the property on which the building lies, both before and after demolition. Base density for this 0.35-acre lot is 4.725 dwelling units. Three single-family residences and one single room occupancy dwelling bring our proposed density to four units, fitting within the allowed base density without a density bonus. Per House Bill 2138, single room occupancy is allowed on lots that allow for single-family detached residential and are considered one dwelling unit for density purposes. Single Room Occupancy definitions and qualifications can be found in Section 6 of House Bill 2138. A floor plan and elevations are provided. Each structure will comply with the perimeter setbacks of the parent parcel for the R-2 zone. A 10-foot per-story rear yard setback adjacent to the west property line of the parent parcel is provided. The setback from Nursery Street on the north side is 10 feet for the lot fronting North Main St, as required for side yards abutting a public right of way, while the other three lots have a 20 foot setback as this will be their frontage.. The setbacks internally between the buildings will comply with the standards Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 3 of 22 from the Performance Standards Subdivision, which allows for the setbacks to be based upon the separation between buildings. The setback from N Main on the west side is 20 feet, which complies with front yard setbacks in the Historic District. Setback from the south line will be at least 6 feet. Garage parking is provided for each SFR lot (Lots 1-3), while the SRO will have no on-site parking. A Conditional Use permit is being applied to all of the lots to increase the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 25%. The residences will be built to resemble the historic characteristics of the neighborhood. A future ROW easement is proposed along N. Main Street to allow for any future street improvements needed to achieve the standard six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot landscape buffer. A request is being made for an exception to the City’s street standards along both N. Main Street and Nursery Street. The standard section requires a 6-foot sidewalk with a 7-foot landscaped parkrow, totaling 13 feet. Along N. Main Street, the existing sidewalk is approximately 5 feet 8 inches in width, and along Nursery Street the existing sidewalk is 5 feet in width. Constructing the full standard improvements at this time would create abrupt transitions and inconsistencies with the established streetscape on both frontages. To maintain continuity in the pedestrian environment and avoid unnecessary disturbance, this request seeks approval to retain the existing sidewalk widths Summary of Proposed Lots: 1.Lot 1 a. Size= 3,610 sf b. MPFA = 1,481.5 sf (+25% = 1,851.9 sf) Proposed: 1,690 sf c.Coverage (65%) = 2,346.5 sf d. Solar Slope = -1% (55’ setback from 451 N Main St’s south property line for 30’ tall structure) 2. Lot 2 a. Size= 3,172 sf b. MPFA = 1,350 sf (+25% = 1,687.5 sf) Proposed: 1,690 sf c.Coverage (65%) = 2,061.8 sf d. Solar Slope = -1% (55’ setback from 451 N Main Sts south property line for 30’ tall structure) 3. Lot 3 a. Size= 3,172 sf b. MPFA = 1,350 sf (+25% = 1,687.5 sf) Proposed: 1,690 sf c.Coverage (65%) = 2,061.8 sf Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 4 of 22 d. Solar Slope = -1% (55’ setback from 451 N Main St’s south property line for 30’ tall structure) 4. Lot 4 a. Size= 5,213 sf b. MPFA = 1,921.5 sf (+25% = 2,401.9 sf) Proposed: 2,352 sf c. Coverage (65%) = 3,388.5 sf d. Solar Slope = -1% (55’ setback from 451 N Main ST’s south property line for 30’ tall structure) SRO (Mezzanine and MPFA): The proposed SRO development presents a unique conflict between the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and the City’s Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) standards. Under the OSSC, SROs are classified as Congregate Living (R-3 occupancy), and mezzanines within these units are required to provide seven feet of headroom to meet building-code criteria. Importantly, OSSC 505 specifies that mezzanines do not count toward building area or number of stories. The MPFA standards, however, define “potential living space” as any area within the structure with at least seven feet of headroom. This creates a situation where the building code excludes mezzanines from contributing to building mass, while the planning code could interpret those same areas as countable floor area. As a result, the two regulatory frameworks do not align cleanly for this building type. To address this discrepancy and ensure the project can be approved regardless of interpretation, the application provides two design options. The preferred option includes mezzanines constructed to the seven-foot headroom standard required by building code without being included in MPFA; this results in only a minimal increase in building height—approximately six inches, does not materially change the scale, bulk, or overall massing of the structure and add exterior details in the form of windows for the mezzanine areas which adds interest variation in the mass. The alternative option removes the mezzanine and provides a single-story unit layout. Two elevations are provided which demonstrate the building changes when the mezzanine level is removed. The applicant is seeking commission direction on the intent of the building height when the mezzanine level is required to be seven feet of headroom and if that will be included in the MPFA. The floor area of each structure is the same. The change is the removal of the windows on the mezzanine level and a lower overall building height. This situation was discussed at pre-app level with the Historic Review Committee. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 5 of 22 Conditions of existing building to be demolished: An inspection of the existing multi-family structure was conducted by the Building Official to determine whether the building should be declared a dangerous structure. While the structure was not formally declared dangerous, the inspection revealed significant physical, structural, electrical, and life-safety deficiencies. Based on the Building Official’s summary: The structure has multiple non-conforming structural tie-ins created through incremental additions over many years, making rehabilitation extremely difficult. Inadequate fire separations between units and open attic cavities, creating a substantial risk of rapid fire spread between dwelling units. Non-conforming electrical wiring, including conductors mounted directly to the exterior surface of the building without raceway protection. Floors throughout the structure are substantially out of level, indicating compromised and irregular framing conditions. The stairs accessing the second level of the north-facing unit lack adequate headroom clearance, and the upper room is directly open to neighboring attic spaces. The attic cavities are open to each other, with no draft stopping or fire separation of any kind. There are 7–8 existing chimneys, all requiring specialist evaluation, as their current condition may pose a fire hazard and may not be safely usable. Numerous observed conditions collectively indicate that although the building is not “beyond repair” from a structural-collapse standpoint, it is functionally non-conforming, presents multiple life-safety risks, and would require extensive reconstruction to meet current code. These existing conditions, combined with the building’s age, piecemeal construction history, and systemic code deficiencies, support the assertion that rehabilitation would be extremely difficult and costly. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant’s responses are in Calibri font. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 6 of 22 Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main StPage 7 of 22 Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main StPage 8 of 22 FINDINGS OF FACT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OVERLAY REVIEW PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA 18.3.9.040 A. Outline Plan. A proposed outline plan shall accompany applications for subdivision approval under this chapter. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the final plan, as that term is defined in subsection 18.3.9.040.B.4. For developments of ten or more lots, prior outline plan approval is mandatory. 3. Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Finding: The proposed development is exercising the Performance Standards Option. The development demonstrates compliance with the standards from 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.080 and the provisions of this chapter. The property is zoned R-2 and is allowed to utilize PSO Subdivision Standards. The other applicable sections of this ordinance, including: 18.4.3 Parking, Access, & Circulation; 18.4.6 Public Facilities; 18.4.8 Solar Access Performance Standard, 18.5.3 Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments, etc., are addressed in these findings. The PSO–Overlaydevelopment is subject to Chapter 18.3.9 and is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards as specifically provided by this chapter.The proposed development complies with all other applicable standards from the R-2 zone and Historic District. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Finding: Adequate public utilities including water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electric power are available to fully serve the development. Each system has existing infrastructure adjacent to the property with capacity to accommodate the proposed residential use. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 9 of 22 Water Public water lines are available in the adjoining streets, and new individual water services will be installed to each lot. The public system has adequate capacity to support domestic and fire flow requirements for the development. Sanitary Sewer A public sanitary sewer main exists adjacent to the site, and new sewer laterals are proposed for each lot. The public wastewater system has adequate capacity for the anticipated residential load. Stormwater Public storm drainage infrastructure is present within the surrounding right-of-way. On-site stormwater will be managed in accordance with City requirements prior to entering the public system, which has sufficient capacity to receive runoff consistent with local standards. There are approximately 5,400 square feet of impervious surfaces on the property which provide credit to the storm water infrastructure calculations. Electric The Electric Distribution Plan confirms that public electric service is available along both Nursery Street and N. Main Street. The plan identifies conduits, utility poles, a transformer vault, and primary/secondary routes that will serve the project. Notes on the plan outline required installation of conduit and a transformer vault consistent with Electric Utility Design standards, ensuring adequate electrical capacity and service reliability for all new units c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. Finding: The site lacks natural features with the exception of one significant tree. This tree is proposed for removal and findings addressing this criteria can be found below. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 10 of 22 The development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. Finding: Common open space is not required. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. Finding: Base density is 4.725 and 4 dwellings are proposed. g. The development complies with the street standards. Finding: A future ROW easement is proposed along N. Main Street to allow for any future street improvements needed to achieve the standard six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot landscape buffer. A request is being made for an exception to the City’s street standards along both N. Main Street and Nursery Street. The standard section requires a 6-foot sidewalk with a 7-foot landscaped parkrow, totaling 13 feet. Along N. Main Street, the existing sidewalk is approximately 5 feet 8 inches in width, and along Nursery Street the existing sidewalk is 5 feet in width. Constructing the full standard improvements at this time would create abrupt transitions and inconsistencies with the established streetscape on both frontages. To maintain continuity in the pedestrian environment and avoid unnecessary disturbance, this request seeks approval to retain the existing sidewalk widths. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland. Finding: No common open space is required. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 11 of 22 Chapter 18.4.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES 18.4.6.020 Applicability B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter 18.5.5, Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.6.040, Street Design Standards, are subject to subsection B.1, Exception to the Street Design Standards, below. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the street design standards in section 18.4.6.040 if the circumstances in either subsection B.1.a or b, below, are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; and the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the exception is consistent with the purpose, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A; and the exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable: i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safely and efficiently cross roadway; or b. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purposes, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Finding: This request seeks an exception to the City’s street standards requiring a 6-foot sidewalk and 7- foot landscape buffer (13 feet total) along both N. Main Street and Nursery Street. The existing sidewalks—5'8" on N. Main and 5' on Nursery—are proposed to remain in their current widths and locations. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 12 of 22 There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the full 13-foot sidewalk and landscape buffer standard on both street frontages due to the narrow existing right-of-way widths, the established location of existing sidewalks, and the narrow configuration of the newly created lots. Shifting improvements onto private property to achieve the full standard would remove a significant portion of the usable lot depth, constraining the size and placement of building envelopes and limiting flexibility for development. These conditions create a unique physical constraint that makes application of the standard unusually burdensome relative to typical sites with wider right-of-way conditions. Retaining the existing sidewalk widths—5'8" on N. Main and 5' on Nursery—is the minimum necessary adjustment to allow reasonable development while still maintaining continuous pedestrian connectivity. The purpose of the street design standards is to ensure safe, predictable, and comfortable multimodal travel while preserving the ability for streets to be upgraded to full standards in the future. The request remains consistent with these goals because: Continuous pedestrian facilities remain along both frontages. Avoiding construction of an isolated, out-of-context full standard section maintains consistency with the existing streetscape. A future right-of-way easement is being dedicated along N. Main Street, ensuring that full standard improvements can occur when the corridor is improved comprehensively. Required building setbacks provide a naturally occurring landscape buffer that achieves the intent of a planted frontage. Overall, the exception maintains equal or superior transportation function while minimizing unnecessary disruption and preserving long-term corridor improvement potential. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 13 of 22 FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B. 5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. Finding: With the concurrent proposal, there are no intended modifications between the outline and the final plan. The final plan is the same as the outline plan and is being applied for concurrently. 6. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.040 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. Finding: It is understood substantial amendment would require additional review. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 14 of 22 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CRITERIA 18.5.7.040 B. Tree Removal Permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. Finding: One significant tree is proposed for removal. The tree is a Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), an invasive species that is not considered desirable for long-term canopy, ecological value, or compatibility with residential development. While the trunk is located just outside the building envelopes of the two proposed lots along N Main Street, the upper canopy and lateral branches extend directly into and over the buildable areas. The encroachment prevents the full use of the envelopes and restricts feasible siting of dwellings. Additionally, the tree is located directly beneath and between overhead power lines, creating constraints for development and long-term maintenance, as well as potential conflicts with utility clearance requirements. Removal is necessary to achieve compliance with applicable development standards, ensure adequate building area, and prevent future conflicts with overhead utilities. The three significant trees on the south neighboring parcel are unaffected by the development and will be preserved and protected. Nine new trees are proposed as part of the subdivision improvements, seven along Nursery Street and two along N Main Street. One of these will be designated as the required mitigation tree. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding: Removing this single tree will not negatively affect erosion or soil stability. The site is generally level, and the future structures and landscaping will stabilize the area formerly occupied by the tree. No windbreak will be altered, and the three significant trees on the neighboring southern property are Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 15 of 22 outside the construction area and will remain protected. Surface water flow will not be altered in a way that increases off-site impacts. c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Finding: Removal of one Tree of Heaven will not negatively impact the overall canopy or biodiversity within 200 feet of the site. In fact, eliminating this invasive species improves long-term species diversity. Numerous mature and healthy trees exist on the adjacent parcels, including the three significant trees on the southern neighbor’s property, all of which will be preserved. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding: Retaining the existing tree would constrain the buildable area of the two lots along N Main Street due to canopy encroachment and conflicts with utility lines. This would limit the ability to construct homes consistent with permitted density and dimensional standards. The proposed removal ensures that the property can be developed at its allowed density without requiring reduction or redesign that would compromise zoning compliance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: One mitigation tree will be planted in accordance with AMC 18.5.7.050. The subdivision proposes nine trees; one of the proposed trees on either Nursery Street or N Main Street will serve as the mitigation tree. The street trees will be planted in accordance with the standards and selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide. The trees on Nursery will be smaller stature due to the overhead powerlines. Larger stature shade trees will be planted on the N Main Street façade. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 16 of 22 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.5.4.050 Approval Criteria A.Approval Criteria. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. Finding: The request is to allow a 25% increase in Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) for each of the four proposed lots through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed increase remains consistent with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, as each lot continues to comply with required setbacks, height limitations, lot coverage, and other dimensional standards. The proposed dwellings have been designed to reflect the architectural character, scale, and materials of the surrounding historic neighborhood, ensuring visual compatibility and maintaining the established streetscape pattern. The proposal also supports Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage infill development, efficient use of existing urban land, and preservation of neighborhood character. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding: Adequate public facilities and infrastructure are available to serve the proposed development. The subject property is located within the city limits and is served by existing City water, sewer, and electric utilities, each of which has sufficient capacityto accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed dwellings. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 17 of 22 b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the surrounding area than would development of the subject lots with the target use of the zone. The proposal involves the construction of four dwellings consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated within the district, with a 25% increase in Maximum Permitted Floor Area authorized through this Conditional Use Permit. Each dwelling has been designed to remain compatible in scale, bulk, and lot coverage with surrounding development. The modest increase in floor area is proportionate to the size of the individual lots and will not create a visual or spatial imbalance within the neighborhood. Traffic generated by the proposed dwellings will be comparable to that expected from typical residential uses and will not exceed the capacity of surrounding streets. The project’s location supports pedestrian and bicycle connectivity,and no adverse transportation impacts are anticipated. Architecturally, the dwellings incorporate design features, materials, and roof forms that are consistent with the established character of the neighborhood. Building elevations and massing have been thoughtfully designed to integrate with the existing streetscape and maintain the area’s visual identity. The use will not generate significant dust, odors, or pollutants beyond those typical of residential construction and occupancy. Noise, lighting, and glare associated with the use will be consistent with that of surrounding residential development. Exterior lighting will be limited to that necessary for safety and security and will be shielded to prevent off-site impacts. The project supports the development pattern envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan by providing compatible infill housing within the urban growth boundary and utilizing existing infrastructure efficiently. No other adverse impacts have been identified. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 18 of 22 For these reasons, the proposed Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than development of the site with the target use of the zone, and therefore satisfies this criterion. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. Finding: The uses proposed are all allowed in this zone. 5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. Finding: The subject property is located within the R-2 zoning district, where the target use is residential development that complies with all ordinance requirements and is developed at the density permitted by Chapter 18.2.5, Standards for Residential Zones. The proposed dwellings are consistent with this target use, as the project involves residential construction at a density permitted within the zone and in conformance with all applicable development standards. The Conditional Use Permit request for a 25% increase in Maximum Permitted Floor Area does not alter the underlying residential character or density of the project. The use remains residential in nature, compatible with surrounding properties, and consistent with the intent of the R-2 zone and applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Therefore, the proposal meets this criterion. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development B. Historic District Design Standards. The property is occupied by a historic, contributing, two story, sprawling, 6-8 unit multi-family residence. This structure is proposed for removal through a demolition permit request. The proposed redevelopment of the property complies with the historic district development standards for new construction. Height: The proposed structures are similar to the average height of structures in the vicinity. The proposed single dwellings are two story with less than 30-feet in height. This is similar to the two story dwellings on the adjacent property to the west. The proposed structures are less tall than Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 19 of 22 the historic contributing residence across Nursery Street. The proposed SRO is a single story with loft (mezzanine) space. The height of this structure is similar to the historic Bayberry Inn across North Main Street and less tall than the two story apartment complex structure on the adjacent property to the south. Scale: The scale of the proposed structures is within the range of other dwellings in the vicinity. The limited square footage of the structures based on the MPFA is consistent with residential structures in the vicinity. The average size of the residences within the 200-foot impact area is 1,920 square feet. The proposed detached residences, each with 1,690 sf of floor area are less than the average. The proposed SRO at 2,352 sf is slightly greater than the average. Massing: The mass of the detached residences is varied through the use of a compact form on the relatively small parcel. Each unit has varying roof lines, pitches and directions which breaks up the massing of the structures. The SRO structure has a front porch, entry doors, and a low pitch roof. The mass is in keeping with the historic massing that is presently occupying the site and similar to the historic Bayberry Inn across North Main Street. Through the incorporation of stepped ridges, traditional gable roofs, and low-pitch angular roof forms similar to the mixture of architectural types in the immediate vicinity, the new structures all have massing that is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. Setback: The setbacks for new construction comply with the standards of the zone. The performance standards subdivision standards require adherence to the parent parcel setbacks with the front as North Main Street, opposite of that is the rear property line and the sides are Nursery Street and the south property line. The new subdivision setbacks retain the parent parcel setbacks and provide for code compliant front yard setbacks for the new dwellings. Roof: The proposed pitch on the new structures is the same pitch and roof style (gable and shed roofs) as the existing structure on the site to be removed and as those in the immediate vicinity. There is a mixture of vernacular I homes and craftsman styles. Architectural composition shingle roofs are proposed. Rhythm of Openings: The detached residential units have a consistently spaced window and door patterns that are reflective of the rhythm of openings found on typical residential architecture that is located within this portion of the Skidmore Academy, local historic district. The windows are proposed as single-hung, vinyl windows. Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 20 of 22 Base or Platform: The structures show a slight concrete foundation stem wall that will be exposed. This provides a sense of a base and makes the structures appear grounded. Form: The form of the new structures is consistent with multi-family dwelling development adjacent and the detached single family residences in the vicinity. The proposed designs are sensitive to the aesthetic of the homes within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The dwelling have compact forms and utilize the topography of the site to reduce the visual impacts and the mass. The varied-pitch roofs and the similar window styles to the other homes in the area reduce visual impacts. Entrances: The primary entrances facing North Main Street have a clear entrance with a covered, front porch. There will be a walkway from the right of way to the entrance. The entrances on the residences facing Nursery Street. Imitation: The proposed new structures have elements of the existing historic contributing structures on the properties within the National District Boundaries and the historic homes in the impact area. The proposed units utilize design elements from the various building styles in the vicinity to have similar but not imitative design as the historic structures in the area. The proposal provides exteriors with more modern material choices but elements of the past including porches, historically appropriatewindows and doors. Though there are a variety of housing styles in the vicinity. Vernacular style I homes and craftsman and American bungalow cottage style construction are the predominant styles found in the immediate vicinity. The proposed new units have elements of those design styles. Garage Placement: There are garages on the three detached residences. The garage is at the required 20-foot setback. Due to the limited lot depth, the garages could not be setback further to allow the front of the residence at 20-feet and the garage facade behind. The garages are single vehicle with a historic compliant door style and a lower pitch roof over the garage to minimize the size of the space. Attachments: Site Survey Tentative Plat Electric Distribution Plan Subdivision Civil and Utility Information Proposed Building Designs Performance Standards Option Subdivision 431 N Main St Page 21 of 22 b e W - t l s i i a L M C - p i E A bill@ashlandhome.netskwhippet@charter.nettrskib@aol.comshelby@scharendesignstudio.com Kaylynnrepp@gmail.com deborah.delaunay@gmail.comjprest@bakerbarrios.com lisaverner815@icloud.comjeff.dahle@counc il.ashland.or.usDerek.Severson@ashland.or.usregan.trapp@ashland.or.us h P s H r 6677 675 2222 e 222 //// /// 111 0000 b m 333 r 3333 /// //// e 222 T1114444 m e n o M s i a i L n e o i m s y s a e i n N t n m un r r n e o a e ro mo l d s r p s n p a or e i n y r o op hep io fDa C b e i p t e va ct ssu i l y L i br n h ips srg e S S l i hr h T i a k eaeSi e n e yi a rrc L S n n WR m i k V n bP n oD m yfa l e y f r En f u m b r m mt e g a r df l a l a oo e e s d ihe aalt e ee i CBSTSKDJJCDSRA LP